Australia Physicians: per 1000 People data was reported at 3.981 Ratio in 2021. This records an increase from the previous number of 3.906 Ratio for 2020. Australia Physicians: per 1000 People data is updated yearly, averaging 2.491 Ratio from Dec 1961 (Median) to 2021, with 43 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 3.981 Ratio in 2021 and a record low of 1.100 Ratio in 1961. Australia Physicians: per 1000 People data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Australia – Table AU.World Bank.WDI: Social: Health Statistics. Physicians include generalist and specialist medical practitioners.;World Health Organization's Global Health Workforce Statistics, OECD, supplemented by country data.;Weighted average;This is the Sustainable Development Goal indicator 3.c.1 [https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/].

The average for 2020 based on 2 countries was 3.67 doctors per 1,000 people. The highest value was in Australia: 3.9 doctors per 1,000 people and the lowest value was in New Zealand: 3.43 doctors per 1,000 people. The indicator is available from 1960 to 2021. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

Physicians (per 1,000 people) in Australia was reported at 3.981 in 2021, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. Australia - Physicians - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on July of 2025.

In 2019, Queensland was the Australian state with the highest density of general practitioners with 125.4 GPs per 100,000 of the population. The Australian Capital Territory had the fewest number of GPs in relation to its population.

Medical Doctors in Australia increased to 4.22 per 1000 people in 2021 from 4.10 per 1000 people in 2020. This dataset includes a chart with historical data for Australia Medical Doctors.

Among OECD countries in 2022, South Korea had the highest rate of yearly visits to a doctor per capita. On average, people in South Korea visited the doctors 15.7 times per year in person. Health care utilization is an important indicator of the success of a country’s health care system. There are many factors that affect health care utilization including healthcare structure and the supply of health care providers.

OECD health systems

Healthcare systems globally include a variety of tools for accessing healthcare, including private insurance based systems, like in the U.S., and universal systems, like in the U.K. Health systems have varying costs among the OECD countries. Worldwide, Europe has the highest expenditures for health as a proportion of the GDP. Among all OECD countries, The United States had the highest share of government spending on health care. Recent estimates of current per capita health expenditures showed the United States also had, by far, the highest per capita spending on health worldwide.

Supply of health providers

Globally, the country with the highest physician density is Cuba, although most other countries with high number of physicians to population was found in Europe. The number of graduates of medicine impacts the number of available physicians in countries. Among OECD countries, Latvia had the highest rate of graduates of medicine, which was almost twice the rate of the OECD average.

In 2022, Switzerland had the highest number of practicing nurses per capita, that is, for every 1,000 population there were 18 practicing nurses in Switzerland. This is followed by Norway and Iceland. This statistic portrays the number of practicing nurses in selected countries as of 2021, per 1,000 population.

Information was obtained from the ANARE Health Register. See Metadata record entitled ANARE Health Register.

INDICATOR DEFINITION Human population in stations and ships expressed in person-days.

TYPE OF INDICATOR There are three types of indicators used in this report: 1.Describes the CONDITION of important elements of a system; 2.Show the extent of the major PRESSURES exerted on a system; 3.Determine RESPONSES to either condition or changes in the condition of a system.

This indicator is one of: PRESSURE

RATIONALE FOR INDICATOR SELECTION It is generally accepted that the potential impact on the natural environment is proportional to the human population. This is the 'human footprint'. Human activities can cause disruption in physical, chemical and biological systems. As stated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996): 'To understand the human impact on the Australian environment, it is necessary to know how many people live here, and how they are distributed across the continent.'

This indicator reveals where the greatest direct pressures related to size of the human population (e.g. fuel usage, sewerage and other waste generation etc) occur.

DESIGN AND STRATEGY FOR INDICATOR MONITORING PROGRAM Spatial scale: Antarctic and sub-Antarctic stations and ANARE ships travelling to and from these stations.

Frequency: Monthly figures reported annually.

Measurement technique: The Polar Medicine Branch collects data on all expeditioner movements. These data are entered into the Health Register and updated as personnel arrive on or leave a station.

RESEARCH ISSUES Now that this figure is available, research is required to ascertain the quantitive relationships of station and ship population to other indicators such as fuel usage and waste generation. This measure may be able to deliver a quantitative estimate of human pressure on the Antarctic environment.

LINKS TO OTHER INDICATORS SOE Indicator 47 - Number and nature of incidents resulting in environmental impact SOE Indicator 49 - Medical consultations per 1000 person years SOE Indicator 50 - Effluent monitoring - Volume of coastal discharge from Australian stations SOE Indicator 51 - Effluent monitoring - Biological oxygen demand SOE Indicator 52 - Effluent monitoring - Suspended solids content SOE Indicator 53 - Recycled and quarantine waste returned to Australia SOE Indicator 54 - Amount of waste incinerated at Australian Stations SOE Indicator 56 - Monthly fuel usage of the generator sets and boilers SOE Indicator 57 - Monthly total of fuel used by station incinerators SOE Indicator 58 - Monthly total of fuel used by station vehicles SOE Indicator 59 - Monthly electricity usage SOE Indicator 60 - Total helicopter hours SOE Indicator 61 - Total potable water consumption

The fields in this dataset are: Location Date Population (person-days) Illness Rate (per 1000 person years) Injury Rate (per 1000 person years)

In 2019, major cities in Australia had the highest number of general practitioners (GP) per capita with 121.4 GPs per 100,000 of the population. The density of GPs decreases considerably in more remote areas.

Over the last ten years of rural workforce policies, access to medical practitioners in rural and regional areas has improved. One measure of access is the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) …Show full descriptionOver the last ten years of rural workforce policies, access to medical practitioners in rural and regional areas has improved. One measure of access is the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) practitioners per 1,000 people (FTE rate). Since 2013, very remote areas had the highest growth in the FTE rate of medical practitioners. However, challenges continue in very remote areas, particularly in terms of comparable access. The increases in the total number of medical practitioners provides a larger pool available to work in, or provide outreach services to, rural and remote Australia. Nurses and midwives are relatively evenly distributed between major cities and rural and regional areas. As the data indicates, remote areas have the highest FTE rate of nurses and midwives while very remote areas has the highest growth in FTE rate. In contrast, allied health practitioners are the fastest growing profession but the most city-centric. The maldistribution is evident as the FTE rate decreases as remoteness increases. The department’s emphasis is on rural and remote end to end training in rural locations as well as the creation of new opportunities for Australian trained health workforce to train and work in rural and remote Australia. Ensuring individual decisions are aligned to what the nation needs from the health workforce in the future is essential.

This dataset was originally set up as a "State of the Environment" indicator - however, that application no longer functions at the Australian Antarctic Data Centre, so the data have been extracted and attached to this original metadata record for the indicator.

Information was obtained from the ANARE Health Register. See Metadata record entitled ANARE Health Register.

INDICATOR DEFINITION The rates of illness and injury per 1000 person years in all continental Antarctic stations and Macquarie Island.

RATIONALE FOR INDICATOR SELECTION Human health can be an indicator of the natural and man-made environment. Some of the factors affecting human health can be directly related to the quality of the environment. Monitoring the rate of medical consultations in Antarctica can provide useful baseline information on illness and injury rates, and potentially provide insight into health trends due to Antarctic conditions.

In Antarctica the man-made environment is of particular importance due to the highly adverse nature of the natural environment and as a surrogate for the isolation of outer space. Without dwellings and support structures human habitation of Antarctica would be impossible. The interaction between people and the natural environment is also worthy of attention. The rate of various injuries and illnesses can be attributed, at least in part, to the severe conditions present in the Antarctic. Antarctica also provides useful data on the effects of isolated and confined environments (ICE) on human health.

There are some straightforward examples of direct relationships between environmental factors and human health. However, multiple causation and the complexity of mediating processes mean that it is typically difficult to relate specific 'environmental' inputs to particular health outcomes.

DESIGN AND STRATEGY FOR INDICATOR MONITORING PROGRAM Spatial scale: Australian Antarctic and sub-Antarctic stations

Frequency: Monthly figures reported annually

Measurement Technique: Time series information to determine trends in medical consultations. Information was obtained from the ANARE Health Register. See Metadata record entitled ANARE Health Register.

RESEARCH ISSUES Due to the unique nature of the environment and the expeditioners residing in Antarctica, comparison with similar groups elsewhere would be valuable.

The database has reached sufficient size to justify closer analysis of data that may discern trends in health and provide a better picture of the effects of the Antarctic environment. Trends may not be obvious and may have a considerable impact on human activities in the Antarctic.

Does the presence of people and potential pathogens influence the rate of disease among populations of Antarctic wildlife?

COVID-19 rate of death, or the known deaths divided by confirmed cases, was over ten percent in Yemen, the only country that has 1,000 or more cases. This according to a calculation that combines coronavirus stats on both deaths and registered cases for 221 different countries. Note that death rates are not the same as the chance of dying from an infection or the number of deaths based on an at-risk population. By April 26, 2022, the virus had infected over 510.2 million people worldwide, and led to a loss of 6.2 million. The source seemingly does not differentiate between "the Wuhan strain" (2019-nCOV) of COVID-19, "the Kent mutation" (B.1.1.7) that appeared in the UK in late 2020, the 2021 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) from India or the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) from South Africa.

Where are these numbers coming from?

The numbers shown here were collected by Johns Hopkins University, a source that manually checks the data with domestic health authorities. For the majority of countries, this is from national authorities. In some cases, like China, the United States, Canada or Australia, city reports or other various state authorities were consulted. In this statistic, these separately reported numbers were put together. Note that Statista aims to also provide domestic source material for a more complete picture, and not to just look at one particular source. Examples are these statistics on the confirmed coronavirus cases in Russia or the COVID-19 cases in Italy, both of which are from domestic sources. For more information or other freely accessible content, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

A word on the flaws of numbers like this

People are right to ask whether these numbers are at all representative or not for several reasons. First, countries worldwide decide differently on who gets tested for the virus, meaning that comparing case numbers or death rates could to some extent be misleading. Germany, for example, started testing relatively early once the country’s first case was confirmed in Bavaria in January 2020, whereas Italy tests for the coronavirus postmortem. Second, not all people go to see (or can see, due to testing capacity) a doctor when they have mild symptoms. Countries like Norway and the Netherlands, for example, recommend people with non-severe symptoms to just stay at home. This means not all cases are known all the time, which could significantly alter the death rate as it is presented here. Third and finally, numbers like this change very frequently depending on how the pandemic spreads or the national healthcare capacity. It is therefore recommended to look at other (freely accessible) content that dives more into specifics, such as the coronavirus testing capacity in India or the number of hospital beds in the UK. Only with additional pieces of information can you get the full picture, something that this statistic in its current state simply cannot provide.