Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Using general practitioners to measure community morbidity.

B O'Toole1, B Driver, H Britt

  • 1Department of Community Medicine, University of Sydney, Australia.

International Journal of Epidemiology
|December 1, 1991
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Management of foot/ankle osteoarthritis by Australian general practitioners: an analysis of national patient-encounter records.

Osteoarthritis and cartilage·2018
Same author

The neurocognitive effects of a conducted electrical weapon compared to high intensity interval training and alcohol intoxication - implications for Miranda and consent.

Journal of forensic and legal medicine·2017
Same author

Primary health care for people with an intellectual disability: an exploration of consultations, problems identified, and their management in Australia.

Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR·2017
Same author

Duration of untreated psychosis: the relative contribution of individual vs. community factors.

Acta neuropsychiatrica·2016
Same author

They never forget: recall of traumatic memories of Vietnam.

Acta neuropsychiatrica·2016
Same author

The prevalence of PTSD in Australian Vietnam Veterans 35 years after war's end: preliminary results of a cohort study.

Acta neuropsychiatrica·2016
Same journal

Ambient air pollution and risk of active tuberculosis: a population-based cohort study in Taiwan.

International journal of epidemiology·2026
Same journal

Dental amalgam, chronic disease risk, and removing mercury from dental practice.

International journal of epidemiology·2026
Same journal

Age at menarche and adverse pregnancy and perinatal outcomes: triangulating evidence from multivariable and Mendelian randomization analyses.

International journal of epidemiology·2026
Same journal

Life-course trajectories of cardiovascular disease risk factors in rural India: Andhra Pradesh Children and Parents Study (APCAPS) 2003-2023.

International journal of epidemiology·2026
Same journal

Cohort Profile Update: The Young Lives study.

International journal of epidemiology·2026
Same journal

From the departing Editors in Chief.

International journal of epidemiology·2026
See all related articles

Randomly selecting General Practitioner (GP) patients provides a cost-effective method for collecting community morbidity statistics. This approach yields results comparable to traditional population surveys, increasing confidence in its validity.

Area of Science:

  • Epidemiology
  • Health Services Research
  • Biostatistics

Background:

  • General Practitioner (GP) patient data is a potentially cheaper source for community morbidity statistics.
  • Validating GP patient data against general population surveys is crucial for its acceptance.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare morbidity statistics derived from randomly selected GP patients with those from a general population sample.
  • To assess the validity of using GP patient data as a proxy for community health statistics.

Main Methods:

  • A two-stage cluster sample of GP patients was compared to an area probability sample of the general population.
  • Data collected included reasons for visit, diagnoses, treatments, and demographics.
  • Multidiscriminant analysis was used to assess differences between the two groups.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Only five demographic, consultation, or diagnosis/treatment items differed significantly between the GP patient and area samples.
  • Multidiscriminant analysis showed only slight-than-chance discrimination (56.7% and 53.3%) between the groups.
  • This indicates a high degree of similarity between the samples.

Conclusions:

  • Randomly selected GP patients are representative of the general community for morbidity statistics.
  • This sampling method offers a more economical alternative to traditional population surveys.
  • Increased confidence in using GP patient data for community health surveillance is warranted.