Letters The mystery of GP research output?MJA 2001; 175: 667 | |||
|
To the Editor: Askew et al ask why there is not more general practice
research.1
I think they would have come close to the answer had their analysis of publication rates by workforce sector included the relative rates of government salaried employment. The proportions of each group in salaried work are approximately:
While the Primary Health Care Research, Evaluation and Development (PHC-RED) program is a laudable and exciting strategy, it is hard to imagine that it will achieve much change in the rate of general practice research until research activity becomes part of the formal "job description" for a large proportion of GPs, as it is for many of our specialist colleagues. Of course, the incursion of corporatisation into Australian general practice will introduce important issues in regard to the amount of research undertaken and the nature of the research performed, as it has for Australian universities. As yet, PHC-RED has not developed a view as to how it might handle such influences.
Phillip Gray
©MJA 2001
Readers may print a single copy for personal use. No further reproduction or distribution of the articles should proceed without the permission of the publisher. For permission, contact the Australasian Medical Publishing Company. Journalists are welcome to write news stories based on what they read here, but should acknowledge their source as "an article published on the Internet by The Medical Journal of Australia <http://www.mja.com.au>". <URL: http://www.mja.com.au/> © 2001 Medical Journal of Australia. | |||