ArticleThe Australian journal of rural health2022
Influence of rurality on general practitioner registrars' participation in their practice's after-hours roster: A cross-sectional study.
Article in The Australian journal of rural health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Educational and research utility of the registrar clinical encounters in training (ReCEnT) project: an exploration of mechanisms using the context, input, process and product (CIPP) framework.Family medicine and community health · 2025Article
- The Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) cohort study: updated protocol.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Influence of rurality on general practitioner registrars' participation in their practice's after-hours roster: A cross-sectional study.The Australian journal of rural health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate whether practice rurality and rural training pathway are associated with general practitioner registrars' participation in their practice's after-hours care roster.
designA cross-sectional analysis of data (2017-2019) from the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training study, an ongoing inception cohort study of Australian general practitioner registrars. The principal analyses used logistic regression.
settingThree national general practitioner regional training organisations across 3 Australian states.
participantsGeneral practitioner registrars in training within regional training organisations.
main outcome measureInvolvement in practice after-hours care was indicated by a dichotomous response on a 6-monthly Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training study questionnaire item.
results1576 registrars provided 3158 observations (response rate 90.3%). Of these, 1574 (48.6% [95% confidence interval: 46.8-50.3]) involved registrars contributing to their practice's after-hours roster. In major cities, 40% of registrar terms involved contribution to their practice's after-hours roster; in regional and remote practices, 62% contributed to the after-hours roster. On multivariable analysis, both level of rurality of practice (odds ratio(OR) 1.75, P = .007; and OR 1.74, P = .026 for inner regional and outer regional/remote locations, respectively, versus major city) and rural training pathway of registrar (OR 1.65, P = .008) were significantly associated with more after-hours roster contribution. Other associations were registrars' later training stage, larger practices and practices not routinely bulk billing. Significant regional variability in after-hours care was identified (after adjusting for rurality).
conclusionThese findings suggest that registrars working rurally and those training on the rural pathway are more often participating in practice after-hours rosters. This has workforce implications, and implications for the educational richness of registrars' training environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.