Public perceptions of Australia’s doctors, hospitals and health care systems
Authors: Elizabeth A Hardie and Christine R Critchley
Published online: 19 January 2009
In reply: We are intrigued by the discrepancy between our findings1 and the 2007 Ipsos study results2 noted by Armitage. We took a psychometrically rigorous approach to measuring the public’s preference for health care systems. If our pro-private statements seem “leading”, then the pro-public statements (“Australia should adopt a collective social health system supported by higher taxes as is done in some Scandinavian countries”, “I would be willing to pay higher taxes to improve Australia’s health care services”) could be similarly construed.
Armitage reports that 52% of the Ipsos sample supported (and 42% opposed) full public funding of health care. If we apply this support–oppose dichotomy (ie, per cent above and below the scale mid-point) to our own data, a striking 70% of our sample support (and 30% oppose) greater public funding, while just 7% support (and 93% oppose) more private funding. This is consistent with other Australian studies showing a preference for health and medical research being conducted in public, as opposed to private, settings.3-5
We cannot directly compare our methods and results with the Ipsos survey because, ironically, when we tried to access this research supported by “governments ... private providers and industry associations”, we were advised by Ipsos that the report is not publicly available.
References
- Hardie EA, Critchley CR. Public perceptions of Australia’s doctors, hospitals and health care systems. Med J Aust 2008; 189: 210-214. 0_CBBFEICE
- Ipsos Health Care and Insurance — Australia 2007 report. Melbourne: Ipsos Australia, Nov 2007: 103. 0_CBBEGGEC
- Critchley CR. Public opinion and trust in scientists: the role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Underst Sci 2008; 17: 309-327. 0_CBBHBIDE
- Critchley C. Stem cell research: what do the public really think and why? In: Stranger MJA, editor. Human biotechnology and public trust: trends, perceptions and regulation. Occasional paper no. 7. Hobart: Centre for Law and Genetics, 2007. 0_CHDCHGBG
- Critchley C. The impact of commercialization on public support for science: detecting the reasons to enable solutions. Invited plenary paper presented at: Genome Canada Third International Conference — 2020 Vision: The Impact of Science on Society; 2008 Oct 22–24; Vancouver, Canada. 0_CBBFFFEI
Getting on the Same Page: Why Australia Needs a National Maternity Early Warning System (MEWS) Chart
Briony A. Cutts, Lucy Bowyer, Nisha Khot, Sandra Lowe, Stefan C. Kane
Data for Equity: Can Linked Administrative Data Inform Pathways to More Equitable Child Health?
Sarah Gray, Shuaijun Guo, Meredith O'Connor, Elodie O'Connor, Katrina Williams, Hannah Badland, Susan Woolfenden, Josie Dickerson, Gerry Redmond, Marnie Downes, Sharon R. Goldfeld
Specialty College Selection: Why Change is Critical to Support a Future Rural Workforce
Matthew R. McGrail, Jenny May AM, Katherine Logan
The number of cancer‐related deaths that could be attributable to spatial disparities in survival in Australia, 2010–2019: a retrospective population‐based cohort study
Charlotte K Bainomugisa, Jessica Cameron, Paramita Dasgupta, Peter Baade
Differentiated and simplified oral HIV pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) models hold the key to virtually eliminating HIV transmission in Australia by 2030
Tyson Arapali, Sarah Warzywoda, Anthony K J Smith, Curtis Chan, Timothy R Broady, Erin Sullivan, Catherine MacPhail, Mohamed A Hammoud, Alexander Dowell‐Day, Benjamin R Bavinton
Non‐technical errors associated with deaths in surgical care, Australia, 2012–2019, by surgical specialty (Australian and New Zealand Audit of Surgical Mortality): a retrospective cohort study
Jesse Ey, Victoria Kollias, Octavia Lee, Kelly Hou, Matheesha Herath, John B North, Ellie Treloar, Suzanne Edwards, Martin Bruening, Adam J Wells, Guy J Maddern