An Australian National Survey of First Nations Careers in Health Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A strong First Nations health workforce is necessary to meet community needs, health rights, and health equity. This paper reports the findings from a national survey of Australia’s First Nations people employed in health services to identify enablers and barriers to career development, including variations by geographic location and organisation type. A cross-sectional online survey was undertaken across professions, roles, and jurisdictions. The survey was developed collaboratively by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal academics and Aboriginal leaders. To recruit participants, the survey was promoted by key professional organisations, First Nations peak bodies and affiliates, and national forums. In addition to descriptive statistics, logistic regression was used to identify predictors of satisfaction with career development and whether this varied by geographic location or organisation type. Of the 332 participants currently employed in health services, 50% worked in regional and remote areas and 15% in Aboriginal Community-Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs) with the remainder in government and private health services. All enablers identified were associated with satisfaction with career development and did not vary by location or organisation type. “Racism from colleagues” and “lack of cultural awareness,” “not feeling supported by their manager,” “not having role models or mentors,” and “inflexible human resource policies” predicted lower satisfaction with career development only for those employed in government/other services. First Nations people leading career development were strongly supported. The implications for all workplaces are that offering even a few career development opportunities, together with supporting leadership by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff, can make a major difference to satisfaction and retention. Concurrently, attention should be given to building managerial cultural capabilities and skills in supporting First Nations’ staff career development, building cultural safety, providing formal mentors and addressing discriminatory and inflexible human resources policies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".