The Australian journal of rural health · 2026
Prioritising Health Workforce Solutions for Rural and Regional Queensland: A Delphi Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Flenady Tracy, Benveniste Tessa, Dawson Drew, Thomas Matthew J W, McGrail Matthew
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Persistent health workforce shortages in regional, rural and remote Australia compromise access to equitable, high-quality care. Despite multiple initiatives, recruitment and retention challenges remain. Evidence-informed, context-specific solutions are needed to address local workforce needs.
AIM: To identify and prioritise locally responsive health workforce models in Central Queensland and assess their feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness from the perspective of local stakeholders.
METHODS: A modified Delphi method was used, comprising two rounds of online surveys with health practitioners and administrative staff. In Round One, participants rated 11 workforce models, developed from prior qualitative interviews and expert roundtable discussions, on feasibility and effectiveness using a five-point Likert scale. Open-text responses were collected to provide qualitative insights. Models meeting predefined consensus thresholds (≥ 70% feasibility or ≥ 60% effectiveness) progressed to Round Two, where participants, stratified by profession (nursing, medical, allied health, other), re-evaluated the shortlisted models. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and qualitative responses were analysed using deductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
RESULTS: Seven models met consensus thresholds in Round One: Placement, Career Broker, Transport Partner, Telehealth Blended, Advertisement/Pop Culture, Expatriate and FIFO. In Round Two, the Placement model was consistently rated highly across all professional groups, with strong support also for the Career Broker and Transport Partner models, particularly among allied health and nursing participants. Models requiring significant system reform, such as Expatriate and FIFO, received more variable ratings.
CONCLUSION: Locally grounded, system-supported strategies, especially Placement, Career Broker and Transport Partner models, were favoured over approaches relying on external incentives or structural overhaul. Implementation of these models, supported by pilot testing and collaborative evaluation, offers a promising pathway to strengthening rural and regional workforce sustainability.
AIM: To identify and prioritise locally responsive health workforce models in Central Queensland and assess their feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness from the perspective of local stakeholders.
METHODS: A modified Delphi method was used, comprising two rounds of online surveys with health practitioners and administrative staff. In Round One, participants rated 11 workforce models, developed from prior qualitative interviews and expert roundtable discussions, on feasibility and effectiveness using a five-point Likert scale. Open-text responses were collected to provide qualitative insights. Models meeting predefined consensus thresholds (≥ 70% feasibility or ≥ 60% effectiveness) progressed to Round Two, where participants, stratified by profession (nursing, medical, allied health, other), re-evaluated the shortlisted models. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and qualitative responses were analysed using deductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
RESULTS: Seven models met consensus thresholds in Round One: Placement, Career Broker, Transport Partner, Telehealth Blended, Advertisement/Pop Culture, Expatriate and FIFO. In Round Two, the Placement model was consistently rated highly across all professional groups, with strong support also for the Career Broker and Transport Partner models, particularly among allied health and nursing participants. Models requiring significant system reform, such as Expatriate and FIFO, received more variable ratings.
CONCLUSION: Locally grounded, system-supported strategies, especially Placement, Career Broker and Transport Partner models, were favoured over approaches relying on external incentives or structural overhaul. Implementation of these models, supported by pilot testing and collaborative evaluation, offers a promising pathway to strengthening rural and regional workforce sustainability.