Setting priorities for rural allied health in Australia: a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: The allied health workforce is one of the largest workforces in the health industry. It has a critical role in cost-effective, preventative health care, but it is poorly accessible in rural areas worldwide. This review aimed to inform policy and research priorities for increasing access to rural allied health services in Australia by describing the extent, range and nature of evidence about this workforce. METHODS: A scoping review of published, peer-reviewed rural allied health literature from Australia, Canada, the USA, New Zealand and Japan was obtained from six databases (February 1999 - February 2019). RESULTS: Of 7305 no-duplicate articles, 120 published studies were included: 19 literature reviews, and 101 empirical studies from Australia (n=90), Canada (n=8), USA (n=2) and New Zealand (n=1). Main themes were workforce and scope (n=9), rural pathways (n=44), recruitment and retention (n=31), and models of service (n=36). Of the empirical studies, 83% per cent were cross-sectional; 64% involved surveys; only 7% were at a national scale. Rural providers were shown to have a breadth of practice, servicing large catchments with high patient loads, requiring rural-specific skills. Most rural practitioners had rural backgrounds, but rural youth faced barriers to accessing allied health courses. Rural training opportunities have increased in Australia but predominantly as short-term placements. Rural placements were associated with increased likelihood of rural work by graduates compared with discipline averages, and high quality placement experiences were linked with return. Recruitment and retention factors may vary by discipline, sector and life stage but important factors were satisfying jobs, workplace supervision, higher employment grade, sustainable workload, professional development and rural career options. Patient-centred planning and regional coordination of public and private providers with clear eligibility and referral to pathways facilitated patient care. Outreach and telehealth models may improve service distribution although require strong local coordination and training for distal staff. CONCLUSION: Evidence suggests that more accessible rural allied health services in Australia should address three key policy areas. First, improving rural jobs with access to senior workplace supervision and career options will help to improve networks of critical mass. Second, training skilled and qualified workers through more continuous, high quality rural pathways is needed to deliver a complementary workforce for the community. Third, distribution depends on networked service models at the regional level, with viable remuneration, outreach and telehealth for practice in smaller communities. More national-scale, longitudinal, outcomes-focused studies are needed using controlled designs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,025 | 0,062 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,018 | 0,015 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».