澳大利亚卫生工作者队伍:农村小城镇不成比例的短缺。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Colin H. Cortie PhD, David Garne MBChB, Lyndal Parker-Newlyn MBBS, Rowena G. Ivers PhD, Judy Mullan PhD, Kylie J. Mansfield PhD, Andrew Bonney PhD
{"title":"澳大利亚卫生工作者队伍:农村小城镇不成比例的短缺。","authors":"Colin H. Cortie PhD,&nbsp;David Garne MBChB,&nbsp;Lyndal Parker-Newlyn MBBS,&nbsp;Rowena G. Ivers PhD,&nbsp;Judy Mullan PhD,&nbsp;Kylie J. Mansfield PhD,&nbsp;Andrew Bonney PhD","doi":"10.1111/ajr.13121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>The distribution of health care workers differs greatly across Australia, which is likely to impact health delivery.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To examine demographic and workplace setting factors of doctors, nurses and midwives, and allied health professionals across Modified Monash Model (MMM) regions and identify factors associated with shortfalls in the health care workforce.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>Descriptive cross-sectional analysis. The study included all health professionals who were registered with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency in 2021, and who were working in Australia in their registered profession. The study examined number of registrations and full-timed equivalent (FTE) registrations per MMM region classification, adjusted for population. Associated variables included age, gender, origin of qualification, Indigenous status and participation in the private or public (including government, non-government organisation and not-for-profit organisations) sectors.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>Data were available for 31 221 general practitioners, 77 277 other doctors, 366 696 nurses and midwives, and 195 218 allied health professionals. The lowest FTE per 1000 people was seen in MM5 regions for general practitioners, other doctors, nurses and midwives, and allied health professionals. Demographic factors were mostly consistent across MM regions, although MM5 regions had a higher percentage of nurses and midwives and allied health professionals aged 55 and over. In the private sector, FTE per 1000 people was lowest in MM5-7 regions. In the public sector, FTE per 1000 people was lowest in MM5 regions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>A disproportionate shortfall of health workers was seen in MM5 regions. This shortfall appears to be primarily due to low FTE per capita of private sector workers compared with MM1-4 regions and a low FTE per capita of public sector workers compared with MM6-7 regions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>In Australia, small rural towns have the lowest number of health care workers per capita which is likely to lead to poor health outcomes for those regions.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55421,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Rural Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajr.13121","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Australian health workforce: Disproportionate shortfalls in small rural towns\",\"authors\":\"Colin H. Cortie PhD,&nbsp;David Garne MBChB,&nbsp;Lyndal Parker-Newlyn MBBS,&nbsp;Rowena G. Ivers PhD,&nbsp;Judy Mullan PhD,&nbsp;Kylie J. Mansfield PhD,&nbsp;Andrew Bonney PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ajr.13121\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>The distribution of health care workers differs greatly across Australia, which is likely to impact health delivery.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>To examine demographic and workplace setting factors of doctors, nurses and midwives, and allied health professionals across Modified Monash Model (MMM) regions and identify factors associated with shortfalls in the health care workforce.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Design</h3>\\n \\n <p>Descriptive cross-sectional analysis. The study included all health professionals who were registered with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency in 2021, and who were working in Australia in their registered profession. The study examined number of registrations and full-timed equivalent (FTE) registrations per MMM region classification, adjusted for population. Associated variables included age, gender, origin of qualification, Indigenous status and participation in the private or public (including government, non-government organisation and not-for-profit organisations) sectors.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Findings</h3>\\n \\n <p>Data were available for 31 221 general practitioners, 77 277 other doctors, 366 696 nurses and midwives, and 195 218 allied health professionals. The lowest FTE per 1000 people was seen in MM5 regions for general practitioners, other doctors, nurses and midwives, and allied health professionals. Demographic factors were mostly consistent across MM regions, although MM5 regions had a higher percentage of nurses and midwives and allied health professionals aged 55 and over. In the private sector, FTE per 1000 people was lowest in MM5-7 regions. In the public sector, FTE per 1000 people was lowest in MM5 regions.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Discussion</h3>\\n \\n <p>A disproportionate shortfall of health workers was seen in MM5 regions. This shortfall appears to be primarily due to low FTE per capita of private sector workers compared with MM1-4 regions and a low FTE per capita of public sector workers compared with MM6-7 regions.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>In Australia, small rural towns have the lowest number of health care workers per capita which is likely to lead to poor health outcomes for those regions.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55421,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Rural Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajr.13121\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Rural Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajr.13121\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Rural Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajr.13121","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的研究 "莫纳什模型"(MMM)地区的医生、护士、助产士和专职医疗人员的人口和工作场所环境因素,并确定与医疗保健人员短缺有关的因素。研究对象包括2021年在澳大利亚卫生从业人员监管局注册、在澳大利亚从事其注册职业的所有卫生专业人员。该研究对每个MMM地区分类的注册人数和全职当量(FTE)注册人数进行了检查,并根据人口进行了调整。相关变量包括年龄、性别、资格来源、土著身份以及在私营或公共部门(包括政府、非政府组织和非营利组织)的参与情况。研究结果提供了 31 221 名全科医生、77 277 名其他医生、366 696 名护士和助产士以及 195 218 名专职医疗人员的数据。在 MM5 地区,每千人中全科医生、其他医生、护士和助产士以及专职医疗人员的全职医生比例最低。尽管 MM5 地区 55 岁及以上的护士和助产士以及专职医疗人员的比例较高,但各 MM 地区的人口统计因素基本一致。在私营部门,MM5-7 地区的每千人全职当量最低。在公共部门,MM5 地区每千人中的全职专业人员比例最低。与 MM1-4 地区相比,私营部门的人均全职医护人员人数较少;与 MM6-7 地区相比,公共部门的人均全职医护人员人数较少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Australian health workforce: Disproportionate shortfalls in small rural towns

The Australian health workforce: Disproportionate shortfalls in small rural towns

Introduction

The distribution of health care workers differs greatly across Australia, which is likely to impact health delivery.

Objective

To examine demographic and workplace setting factors of doctors, nurses and midwives, and allied health professionals across Modified Monash Model (MMM) regions and identify factors associated with shortfalls in the health care workforce.

Design

Descriptive cross-sectional analysis. The study included all health professionals who were registered with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency in 2021, and who were working in Australia in their registered profession. The study examined number of registrations and full-timed equivalent (FTE) registrations per MMM region classification, adjusted for population. Associated variables included age, gender, origin of qualification, Indigenous status and participation in the private or public (including government, non-government organisation and not-for-profit organisations) sectors.

Findings

Data were available for 31 221 general practitioners, 77 277 other doctors, 366 696 nurses and midwives, and 195 218 allied health professionals. The lowest FTE per 1000 people was seen in MM5 regions for general practitioners, other doctors, nurses and midwives, and allied health professionals. Demographic factors were mostly consistent across MM regions, although MM5 regions had a higher percentage of nurses and midwives and allied health professionals aged 55 and over. In the private sector, FTE per 1000 people was lowest in MM5-7 regions. In the public sector, FTE per 1000 people was lowest in MM5 regions.

Discussion

A disproportionate shortfall of health workers was seen in MM5 regions. This shortfall appears to be primarily due to low FTE per capita of private sector workers compared with MM1-4 regions and a low FTE per capita of public sector workers compared with MM6-7 regions.

Conclusion

In Australia, small rural towns have the lowest number of health care workers per capita which is likely to lead to poor health outcomes for those regions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Australian Journal of Rural Health
Australian Journal of Rural Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
122
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: The Australian Journal of Rural Health publishes articles in the field of rural health. It facilitates the formation of interdisciplinary networks, so that rural health professionals can form a cohesive group and work together for the advancement of rural practice, in all health disciplines. The Journal aims to establish a national and international reputation for the quality of its scholarly discourse and its value to rural health professionals. All articles, unless otherwise identified, are peer reviewed by at least two researchers expert in the field of the submitted paper.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信