Exploring the ideas of young healthcare professionals from selected countries regarding rural proofing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Globally, most countries struggle to meet the health needs of rural communities. This has resulted in rural areas performing poorly when compared to urban areas in terms of a range of health indicators. There have been few coherent or systematic strategies that target rural communities and address their needs within the rural context. Rural proofing, defined as the systematic application of a rural lens across policies and guidelines to ensure that they speak to these health needs, seeks to address this gap. The healthcare professionals (HCPs) who will be called upon to advocate for and lead the implementation of rural proofing efforts are those currently in training or early career stages. We thus sought to understand the perspectives of young HCPs regarding the concept of rural proofing. METHODS: The study adopted an interpretivist paradigm. Data were collected using semi-structured individual interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs). Selected HCPs who are in leadership in Rural Seeds, a movement for young HCPs, participated in the study. FGDs in the form of Rural Cafés were led by some Rural Seeds leaders who participated in the interviews and who showed interest in organising the discussions. Eleven exploratory interviews and six FGDs were conducted using Zoom. HCPs were from Australia, Europe, Africa, North America, South America, and Asia. Interviews and FGDs were conducted in English, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was then undertaken. RESULTS: Participants perceived the state of rural healthcare globally to be problematic. Access to care was seen as the most significant issue in rural health care, associated with the challenges of lack of equity in access, and limited funding and support for healthcare professionals and their career pathways. Despite varying understanding of the concept, rural proofing was seen to be of great value in improving rural health care. A number of ideas for applying rural proofing, with examples, were proposed from their perspectives as frontline healthcare providers. They particularly recognised the importance of addressing the local needs of rural communities and the needs of present and future HCPs. Implementation of rural proofing was seen to require the involvement of key stakeholders from a range of sectors at multiple levels. CONCLUSION: Given the state of rural health, young rural HCPs suggest that rural proofing strategies are needed as they have the potential to bring about equity in the delivery of health care in rural and remote communities. These strategies will assist in creating a more positive future for rural health care worldwide and motivate young HCPs to become involved in rural health care, as well as to increase their motivation to take an interest in health policy development. These strategies need to be applied at multiple levels, from national government to local contexts. It is also seen to be critically important to involve multiple levels of stakeholders, from politicians to healthcare providers and community members, in the process of rural proofing.
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 | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".