Modelling basin level allocation of water in the Murray-Darling Basin in a world of uncertainty, Murray-Darling Program Working Papers WPM05-1, Risk and Sustainable Management Group, 8 February 2005

Abstract: The Murray-Darling Basin comprises over 1 million km2; it lies within four states and one territory; and over 12, 800 GL of irrigation water is used to produce over 40% of the nation's gross value of agricultural production. This production is used by a diverse collection of some-times mutually exclusive commodities (e.g. pasture; stone fruit; grapes; cotton and field crops). The supply of water for irrigation is subject to climatic and policy uncertainty. Variable inflows mean that water property rights do not provide a guaranteed supply. With increasing public scrutiny and environmental issues facing irrigators, greater pressure is being placed on this finite resource. The uncertainty of the water supply, water quality (salinity), combined with where water is utilised, while attempting to maximising return for investment makes for an interesting research field. The utilisation and comparison of a GAMS and Excel based modelling approach has been used to ask: where should we allocate water?; amongst what commodities?; and how does this affect both the quantity of water and the quality of water along the Murray-Darling river system?

Proportionally balanced designs: Some further results and general constructions

Proportionally balanced designs were introduced by Gray and Matters in response to a need for the allocation of markers of the Queensland Core Skills Test to have a certain property. Put simply, markers were allocated to pairs of units in proportions that reflected the relative numbers of markers allocated in total to each unit. In this paper, the first author extends the theoretical results relating to such designs and provides further instances, and two general constructions, in the case that the design comprises blocks of precisely two sizes.

Research output of Australian general practice: A comparison with medicine, surgery and public health

Objectives: To compare the productivity of Australian general practice in terms of research publications with the productivity of other medical disciplines. Design: A survey of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health publications carried out by manual searching of specific journals and an electronic search of the US National Library of Medicine's PubMed database. Main outcome measures: The number of original research publications by Australian general practitioners, physicians, surgeons and public health physicians during 1999; the relative publication rate of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health over the period 1990-1999. Results: Of original research articles published in 1999, GPs authored 65% (17/26) in Australian Family Physician and 3% (3/90) in the Medical Journal of Australia; physicians published 4% and 37%, respectively. The electronic search identified 54 research articles relating to Australian general practice published in 1999 in 21 different journals, only two of which were primary care journals. Over the period 1990-1999, there was a publication rate of one general practice [discipline] article per 1000 GPs in practice per year. Corresponding rates for medicine, surgery and public health were 105/1000, 61/1000 and 148/1000, respectively. Conclusions: There is considerable disparity between the level of research output of general practice and that of the disciplines of medicine, surgery and public health. If we are to have effective general practice research, we urgently need to develop research skills, a supportive infrastructure and a culture that nurtures research.

Feasibility of an evidence-based literature search service for general practitioners

Objective: To test the feasibility of an evidence-based clinical literature search service to help answer general practitioners' (GPs') clinical questions. Design: Two search services supplied GPs who submitted questions with the best available empirical evidence to answer these questions. The GPs provided feedback on the value of the service, and concordance of answers from the two search services was assessed. Setting: Two literature search services (Queensland and Victoria), operating for nine months from February 1999. Main outcome measures: Use of the service; time taken to locate answers; availability of evidence; value of the service to GPs; and consistency of answers from the two services. Results: 58 GPs asked 160 questions (29 asked one, 11 asked five or more). The questions concerned treatment (65%), aetiology (17%), prognosis (13%), and diagnosis (5%). Answering a question took a mean of 3 hours 32 minutes of personnel time (95% Cl, 2.67-3.97); nine questions took longer than 10 hours each to answer, the longest taking 23 hours 30 minutes. Evidence of suitable quality to provide a sound answer was available for 126 (79%) questions. Feedback data for 84 (53%) questions, provided by 42 GPs, showed that they appreciated the service, and asking the questions changed clinical care. There were many minor differences between the answers from the two centres, and substantial differences in the evidence found for 4/14 questions. However, conclusions reached were largely similar, with no or only minor differences for all questions. Conclusions: It is feasible to provide a literature search service, but further assessment is needed to establish its cost effectiveness.