Approaches Used to Describe, Measure, and Analyze Place of Practice in Dentistry, Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Rural Graduate Workforce Research in Australia: A Systematic Scoping Review

Abstract

Redressing the maldistribution of the health workforce in regional, rural, and remote geographical areas is a global issue and crucial to improving the accessibility of primary health care and specialist services. Geographical classification systems are important as they provide an objective and quantifiable measure of access and can have direct policy relevance, yet they are not always consistently applied in rural health research. It is unclear how research focusing on the graduate health workforce in Australia has described, measured, and analyzed place of practice. To examine approaches used, this review systematically scopes Australian rural studies focusing on dentistry, medicine, nursing, and allied health graduates that have included place of practice as an outcome measure. The Joanna Brigg’s Institute Scoping Review Methodology was used to guide the review. Database searches retrieved 1130 unique citations, which were screened, resulting in 62 studies for inclusion. Included studies were observational, with most focusing on the practice locations of medical graduates and predicators of rural practice. Variations in the use of geographical classification approaches to define rurality were identified and included the use of systems that no longer have policy relevance, as well as adaptations of existing systems that make future comparisons between studies challenging. It is recommended that research examining the geographical distribution of the rural health workforce use uniform definitions of rurality that are aligned with current government policy.

The application of spatial measures to analyse health service accessibility in Australia: a systematic review and recommendations for future practice

“…The application of large artificial boundaries can result in the misidentification of these characteristics [ 131 , 132 ]. Consistent with other research [ 23 ], this review also shows variations in rurality definitions. The lack of a standardised approach further hinders the ability to compare articles and health service access across remoteness areas.…”

“…A systematic review by Alston et al [ 22 ] on the burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in Australia found that some rural and urban areas could not be compared due to the heterogeneity of methods and geographic classifications, consequently, the authors could not provide a clear conclusion on the level of disparity in CVD outcomes by remoteness. Similarly, Beks et al [ 23 ] also reported variations in the use of geographical classification approaches to defining rurality, including systems that are no longer meaningful to policymakers and adaptations of existing systems that make study comparisons difficult.…”

Potential for Use of Portable Ultrasound Devices in Rural and Remote Settings in Australia and Other Developed Countries: A Systematic Review

“…As in other countries, in Australia, rural or remote areas are classified as according to the government’s classification systems, 12 which are used this to prioritise and incentivise staffing, including allocation of funding for education and training. 13 Such incentives, however, do not generally extend to support for medical imaging practitioners.…”

An Aboriginal Community-Controlled Health Organization model of service delivery: qualitative process evaluation of the Tulku wan Wininn mobile clinic

“…In the evidence around mobile clinics, funding has been cited as a challenge due to the reliance on multiple funding sources, including grants from philanthropic organizations [ 1 , 9 ]. The maldistribution of the health workforce is an established issue in rural and remote geographical regions [ 49 ] and is evident in the current study by the challenges encountered to maintaining a GP.…”