['To determine the association between rural background on practice location of general practitioners (GPs) (rural or urban).', 'Comparison of data from two postal surveys.', '268 rural and 236 urban GPs practising in South Australia.', 'Association between practice location (rural or urban) and demographic characteristics, training, qualifications, and rural background.', 'Rural GPs were younger than urban GPs (mean age 47 versus 50 years, P < 0.01) and more likely to be male (81% versus 67%, P = 0.001), to be Australian-born (72% versus 61%, P = 0.01), to have a partner (95% versus 85%, P = 0.001), and to have children (94% versus 85%, P = 0.001). Similar proportions of rural and urban GPs were trained in Australia and were Fellows of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, but more rural GPs were vocationally registered (94% versus 84%, P = 0.001). Rural GPs were more likely to have grown up in the country (37% versus 27%, P = 0.02), to have received primary (33% versus 19%, P = 0.001) and secondary (25% versus 13%, P = 0.001) education there, and to have a partner who grew up in the country (49% versus 24%, P = 0.001). In multivariate analysis, only primary education in the country (odds ratio [OR], 2.43; 95% CI, 1.09-5.56) and partner of rural background (OR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.96-5.10) were independently associated with rural practice.'] Do associations between rural background and where South Australian general practitioners work?