Table 2.
General practitioner and practice characteristics of participants versus nationally representative characteristics BEACH 2015–2016.
| EQuIP-GP sample | Intervention | Control | BEACH 2015–2016 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| General practitioners n (% of column total)∗ | ||||
| Females | 33 (40.7) | 17 (40.5) | 16 (41.0) | 433 (44.9) |
| Males | 48 (59.3) | 25 (59.5) | 23 (59.0) | 532 (55.1) |
| Total | 81 (100.0) | 42 (100.0) | 39 (100.0) | 965 (100.0) |
| General practitioner years in practice n (% column total)# | ||||
| <2 years | 2 (2.6) | 1 (2.6) | 1 (2.6) | 8 (0.8) |
| 2–5 years | 8 (10.5) | 2 (5.3) | 6 (15.8) | 118 (12.3) |
| 6–10 years | 11 (14.5) | 3 (7.9) | 8 (21.0) | 140 (14.6) |
| 11–19 years | 13 (17.1) | 8 (21.0) | 5 (13.2) | 145 (15.2) |
| 20+ years | 42 (55.3) | 24 (63.2) | 18 (47.4) | 546 (57.1) |
| Total | 76 (100.0) | 38 (100.0) | 38 (100.0) | 957 (100.0) |
| Remoteness Area Classification of practices (% of column total) | ||||
| 1 Major cities | 17 (51.5) | 9 (56.3) | 8 (47.1) | 661 (68.6) |
| 2 Inner regional | 10 (30.3) | 4 (25.0) | 6 (35.3) | 215 (22.3) |
| 3 Outer regional | 6 (18.2) | 3 (18.7) | 3 (17.6) | 72 (7.5) |
| 4 Remote | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 12 (1.2) |
| 5 Very remote | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (0.4) |
| Total | 33 (100.0) | 16 (100.0) | 17 (100.0) | 964 (100.0) |
| Size of practice—number of individual general practitioners (% of column total) | ||||
| Solo | 1 (3.0) | 1 (6.3) | 0 (0.0) | 77 (8.3) |
| 2–4 | 7 (21.2) | 2 (12.4) | 5 (29.4) | 226 (24.3) |
| 5–9 | 16 (48.5) | 11 (68.7) | 5 (29.4) | 360 (38.6) |
| 10–14 | 7 (21.2) | 1 (6.3) | 6 (35.3) | 167 (17.9) |
| 15+ | 2 (6.1) | 1 (6.3) | 1 (5.9) | 102 (10.9) |
| Total | 33 (100.0) | 16 (100.0) | 17 (100.0) | 932 (100.0) |
Missing data n = 6.
Missing data n = 11.