Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 2765056

Do we need more generalists?

E Ginzberg
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The author identifies the confluent forces that have structured U.S. medicine in favor of specialism since World War II. He concludes that any effort to increase the number and proportion of generalists in medicine is problematic in the absence of antecedent and concurrent transformations in the structure and functioning of academic health centers and in the financing of medical care, and of major, long-lasting changes in the delivery of health care. Only after these larger considerations have been addressed can the benefits of a generalist-oriented system be anticipated. Even then, the gains expected to accrue from a greater number of generalists might prove illusory.

Explore related subjects

Academic Medical CentersDelivery of Health CareFamily PracticeFinancing, OrganizedHumansSpecializationUnited StatesWorkforceJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

E Ginzberg. 1989. Do we need more generalists?. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-198909000-00001

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Challenges in drug development for muscle disease: a stakeholders' meeting.

Current treatment benefits for patients with muscle disease are limited, but progress in legislative and scientific initiatives have set the stage for the development of new therapies. The MD-CARE Act (Public Law 107-84), which allocates federal resources to muscular dystrophy, was approved by Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States in 2001. This has shifted the emphasis toward translational research. To facilitate a push toward therapy for muscle disorders, the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA) sponsored a meeting with representatives from industry, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and other government agencies and academia. Each contributed in different ways. The FDA helped define the necessary data to support investigational new drug (IND) applications including the design of proof-of-principle studies, outcome measures for clinical trials, and the pathway for developing surrogate measures for fast-tracking promising new drugs. The NIH, other government agencies, and the MDA described potential funding sources for translational research. Industry delineated a complementary role with academia, and academic investigators elucidated the current strengths and weaknesses of available clinical endpoints. The meeting provided a format for communication for diverse disciplines that usually have no common meeting ground, helping to lay the foundation for bringing products to market in a timely fashion.

Academic Medical Centers↗
PubMed2007

Reporting of adverse drug reactions: predictors of under-reporting in Malaysia.

BACKGROUND: Malaysia like many other countries worldwide uses spontaneous reporting systems as a mean of collecting data on suspected adverse drug reaction (ADR). However, compared to other countries, which use the system, the reporting rate in Malaysia is very low. Why some physicians do not report ADRs is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors, which would predict physicians' failure to send ADR reports. DESIGN AND SETTING: Face-to-face interview using a structured questionnaire involving physicians working at the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia. RESULTS: About a third of the physicians in the Centre participated. Sixty-five of the 415 approached refused to participate. A high proportion of the respondents (81.4%) indicated that they had suspected an ADR but did not report it, while about 40% of the respondents were not aware of the existence of the national reporting system in Malaysia. Logistic regression modelling identified the variable 'ADR considered to be too trivial or too well known to report' as the strongest predictor of not reporting, followed by physicians' category and uncertainty that the reaction had been definitely caused by a drug. CONCLUSION: Important predictor variables, which limit physicians from reporting ADR in Malaysia, were related to uncertainty of types of reaction to report, lack of awareness about the existence, function and purpose of national ADR reporting. The findings could be useful for planning strategies to improve the reporting rate.

Academic Medical Centers↗