{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Federal health workforce policy in Australia and its implications: a descriptive policy document review.
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.
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.