Federal health workforce policy in Australia and its implications: a descriptive policy document review.

IF 8.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Stephanie M Topp, Thu Nguyen, Lana M Elliott
{"title":"Federal health workforce policy in Australia and its implications: a descriptive policy document review.","authors":"Stephanie M Topp, Thu Nguyen, Lana M Elliott","doi":"10.5694/mja2.70021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify which federal health workforce policies are current in Australia, and describe their mode, scope, and focus.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Descriptive policy document review; categorisation according to the Howlett-Ramesh policy instrument framework.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Health workforce policy documents available on the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care website, 1 June - 31 October 2024.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Primary policy focus (specific health profession, population group or location); scope of policy (alignment with one or more strategic domains: supply, distribution, or performance), service sectors affected by policy, substantive mention of specific health professions; policy instrument types.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 121 policy documents in our analysis. By policy group, the number of documents was greatest for the rural health workforce (35), aged care (22), and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workforce (19); the numbers were lowest for pharmacy (three) and allied health (one), and none had public health or emergency care as their focus. Mixed policy instruments (multiple interest group programs, sub-programs, incentives, grants) were more numerous (98 documents) than government-led instruments (23 documents). Health workforce supply was a focus of 72 documents, performance of 57 documents, and distribution of 42 documents. Document nomenclature was inconsistent; 44 documents had policy labels that did not correspond to their content or purpose.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We identified substantial fragmentation in Australian federal health workforce policy. The absence of a unified federal health workforce strategy exacerbates policy fragmentation, undermining coordinated workforce planning and equity. Adopting a consistent policy nomenclature and reducing imbalances in strategic focus are critical for effective health workforce reform. Our findings provide a baseline for analyses of policy processes and governance in Australian health workforce policymaking.</p>","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.70021","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To identify which federal health workforce policies are current in Australia, and describe their mode, scope, and focus.

Study design: Descriptive policy document review; categorisation according to the Howlett-Ramesh policy instrument framework.

Setting: Health workforce policy documents available on the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care website, 1 June - 31 October 2024.

Main outcome measures: Primary policy focus (specific health profession, population group or location); scope of policy (alignment with one or more strategic domains: supply, distribution, or performance), service sectors affected by policy, substantive mention of specific health professions; policy instrument types.

Results: We included 121 policy documents in our analysis. By policy group, the number of documents was greatest for the rural health workforce (35), aged care (22), and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workforce (19); the numbers were lowest for pharmacy (three) and allied health (one), and none had public health or emergency care as their focus. Mixed policy instruments (multiple interest group programs, sub-programs, incentives, grants) were more numerous (98 documents) than government-led instruments (23 documents). Health workforce supply was a focus of 72 documents, performance of 57 documents, and distribution of 42 documents. Document nomenclature was inconsistent; 44 documents had policy labels that did not correspond to their content or purpose.

Conclusion: We identified substantial fragmentation in Australian federal health workforce policy. The absence of a unified federal health workforce strategy exacerbates policy fragmentation, undermining coordinated workforce planning and equity. Adopting a consistent policy nomenclature and reducing imbalances in strategic focus are critical for effective health workforce reform. Our findings provide a baseline for analyses of policy processes and governance in Australian health workforce policymaking.

澳大利亚联邦卫生人力政策及其影响:描述性政策文件审查。
目的:确定澳大利亚现行的联邦卫生人力政策,并描述其模式、范围和重点。研究设计:描述性政策文件审查;根据Howlett-Ramesh政策工具框架进行分类。背景:2024年6月1日至10月31日,澳大利亚卫生和老年护理部网站上的卫生人力政策文件。主要成果衡量标准:主要政策重点(特定卫生专业、人口群体或地点);政策范围(与一个或多个战略领域保持一致:供应、分配或绩效)、受政策影响的服务部门、实质性提及具体的卫生专业;政策工具类型。结果:我们在分析中纳入了121份政策文件。按政策组划分,农村卫生人力(35份)、老年护理(22份)和土著和托雷斯海峡岛民卫生人力(19份)的文件数量最多;药房(3人)和联合保健(1人)的数字最低,没有一家将公共卫生或紧急护理作为重点。混合政策工具(多个利益集团计划、子计划、奖励、赠款)比政府主导的工具(23个文件)更多(98个文件)。卫生人力供应是72份文件的重点,57份文件的执行和42份文件的分发。文件命名不一致;44个文件的策略标签与其内容或目的不一致。结论:我们发现澳大利亚联邦卫生人力政策存在严重的碎片化。缺乏统一的联邦卫生人力战略加剧了政策分裂,破坏了协调一致的人力规划和公平。采用一致的政策术语和减少战略重点的不平衡对于有效的卫生人力改革至关重要。我们的研究结果为分析澳大利亚卫生人力决策的政策过程和治理提供了基线。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Journal of Australia
Medical Journal of Australia 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
410
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) stands as Australia's foremost general medical journal, leading the dissemination of high-quality research and commentary to shape health policy and influence medical practices within the country. Under the leadership of Professor Virginia Barbour, the expert editorial team at MJA is dedicated to providing authors with a constructive and collaborative peer-review and publication process. Established in 1914, the MJA has evolved into a modern journal that upholds its founding values, maintaining a commitment to supporting the medical profession by delivering high-quality and pertinent information essential to medical practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信