Cargando…

Is there an association between socioeconomic status of General Practice population and postgraduate training practice accreditation? A cross-sectional analysis of Scottish General Practices

BACKGROUND: Practice population socioeconomic status is associated with practice postgraduate training accreditation. General Practitioner recruitment to socioeconomically deprived areas is challenging, exposure during training may encourage recruitment. OBJECTIVES: To determine the association of p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McCallum, Marianne, Hanlon, Peter, Mair, Frances S, Mckay, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7094817/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31746981
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmz071
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Practice population socioeconomic status is associated with practice postgraduate training accreditation. General Practitioner recruitment to socioeconomically deprived areas is challenging, exposure during training may encourage recruitment. OBJECTIVES: To determine the association of practice population socioeconomic deprivation score and training status, and if this has changed over time. METHODS: Cross-sectional study looking at socioeconomic deprivation and training status for all General Practices in Scotland (n = 982). Data from Information Services Division, from 2015, were combined with the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation to calculate weighted socioeconomic deprivation scores for every practice in Scotland. Scottish training body database identified training practices (n = 330). Mean deprivation score for training and non-training practices was calculated. Logistic regression was used to quantify the odds ratio of training status based on deprivation score, adjusted for practice list size, and compared with a similar 2009 analysis. RESULTS: Socioeconomic deprivation score is associated with training status, but is not significant when adjusted for practice list size [OR (adjusted) 0.87, 95% CI: 0.74–1.04]. In contrast, in 2009, adjusted deprivation score remained significant. Mean deprivation score in training and non-training practices remained similar at both time points [2015: 2.98 (SD 0.88) versus 3.17 (SD 0.81); 2009: 2.95 versus 3.19), with a more deprived mean score in non-training practices. CONCLUSIONS: General practices in affluent areas remain more likely to train, although this association appears to be related to larger practice list sizes rather than socioeconomic factors. To ensure a variety of training environments training bodies should target, and support, smaller practices working in more socioeconomically deprived areas.