Search

The large number of international medical graduates (IMGs) working in Australia, and many other countries around the world, has received significant attention from the media, governments and academia. These institutions utilise a number of classificatory schemes in order to categorise IMGs. Such classification is often stigmatising, yet goes largely unquestioned. In this paper I show that the 'official naming' of IMGs in Australia, as well as the naming of IMGs by staff in hospitals, is historically, politically and socially produced. Following Bourdieu's call to also study how the classified classify, the paper goes on to examine ways in which IMGs name and categorise each other, drawing on ethnographic research. I argue that IMGs use classification themselves, strategically, in order to modify their marginalised position within the 'social space' of the hospital. The article questions taken-for-granted assumptions about classified groups such as IMGs and leaves an opening for change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The broadening of access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in Australia has rekindled debates about which types of clinicians are best suited to deliver HIV prevention innovations: specialist HIV services or primary care physicians and general practitioners (GPs). We conducted 21 semi-structured qualitative interviews in 2017 with Australian HIV sector experts working across policy, advocacy, clinical service provision, research, and health promotion. These interviews took place before a national policy commitment to subsidising access to PrEP was achieved. We explored how participants conceptualised PrEP, patients and GPs at this key turning point in the history of HIV prevention. Participants expressed varied views regarding GPs' anticipated ability to successfully navigate the potential complexities associated with PrEP roll-out. While participants were supportive of greater patient access to PrEP, they expressed concerns about non-specialist GPs' cultural competence and expertise regarding sexuality and clinical practice, and the potential for patients to experience discrimination and homophobia from non-expert GPs. This study has broad implications for thinking about experts and expertise, the implementation of previously specialised medicine into mainstream settings, and the anticipated challenges of LGBTIQ+ inclusive healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]