| Abstract: | An interview study investigating attitudinal and other factors influencing the selection of primary medical care (PMC) agency is described. It focuses on adult patients excluding those with trauma of medical/surgical emergencies and was conducted in part of the Western Region of Melbourne in late 1983, the period immediately prior to the introduction of Medicare. It is based on a cross-sectional survey of in-hours attenders of eight general practices (GP), the Western Region (Community) Health Centre (WRCHC) and the general clinic of the casualty department at the Western General Hospital (WGH). Attenders of these different services differed significantly in their socio-demographic characteristics. WGH attenders were significantly younger and had migrated from non-English speaking countries significantly more often. Male attenders at the WGH had significantly lower socioeconomic status. 71 per cent being not in the workforce. The most commonly stated reasons for attendance at particular services generally were “closeness to home, work”, “recommendation” and “good service”. Reasons given by attenders at the different clinics generally were similar. However GP attenders offered “good service” significantly more often as a reason for choice; WGH attenders offered “cheap/economic reasons” significantly more often and “recommendation” significantly less so. WRCHC attenders offered “workers' compensation” significantly more often. Thirty per cent of attenders overall had attended other than their current clinic during their past three to four illness episodes. While a large majority of patients still attend GP for PMC it is concluded that a pluralist model recognising the legitimacy of different PMC arrangements and multiple use of them by individuals best meets community need. This is likely to be even more true under Medicare. It is concluded that instrumental factors and social networks are important in the selection of PMC, particularly given the limited knowledge of respondents about health services. It is also concluded that cost and economic factors have been given undue weight in selection of primary medical care agency. The use of the WGH casualty department by groups not in the work force, given no real financial advantage in doing so, requires further study. |
