Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16262908›Full record

ArticleAustralia and New Zealand health policy2005

General practice and the New Zealand health reforms--lessons for Australia?

Brian R McAvoy, Gregor D Coster

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Australia and New Zealand health policy, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Brian R McAvoyDepartment of General Practice, School of Primary Health Care, Monash University, East Bentleigh, Victoria 3165, Australia. Brian281@tpg.com.au
Gregor D Coster

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

New Zealand's health sector has undergone three significant restructures within 10 years. The most recent has involved a Primary Health Care Strategy, launched in 2001. Primary Health Organisations (PHOs), administered by 21 District Health Boards, are the local structures for implementing the Primary Health Care Strategy. Ninety-three percent of the New Zealand population is now enrolled within 79 PHOs, which pose a challenge to the well-established Independent Practitioner Associations (IPAs). Although there was initial widespread support for the philosophy underlying the Primary Health Care Strategy, there are concerns amongst general practitioners (GPs) and their professional organisations relating to its implementation. These centre around 6 main issues: 1. Loss of autonomy, 2. Inadequate management funding and support, 3. Inconsistency and variations in contracting processes, 4. Lack of publicity and advice around enrollment issues, 5. Workforce and workload issues, 6. Financial risks. On the other hand, many GPs are feeling positive regarding the opportunities for PHOs, particularly for being involved in the provision of a wider range of community health services. Australia has much to learn from New Zealand's latest health sector and primary health care reforms. The key lessons concern: The need for a national primary health care strategy, active engagement of general practitioners and their professional organisations, recognition of implementation costs, the need for infrastructural support, including information technology and quality systems, robust management and governance arrangements, issues related to critical mass and population/distance trade offs in service delivery models.

Identifiers

PMID16262908
PMCPMC1291356

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.