ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Review of the Health, Welfare and Care Workforce in Tasmania, Australia: 2011-2016.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are recent health, welfare and care graduates part of a rural and remote workforce solution? Evidence from Tasmania, Australia.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Healthcare Providers' Perceptions of Potentially Preventable Rural Hospitalisations: A Qualitative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOn a per capita basis, rural communities are underserviced by health professionals when compared to metropolitan areas of Australia. However, most studies evaluating health workforce focus on discrete professional groups rather than the collective contribution of the range of health, care and welfare workers within communities. The objective of this study was therefore to illustrate a novel approach for evaluating the broader composition of the health, welfare and care (HWC) workforce in Tasmania, Australia, and its potential to inform the delivery of healthcare services within rural communities.
methodsCensus data (2011 and 2016) were obtained for all workers involved in health, welfare and care service provision in Tasmania and in each statistical level 4 area (SA4) of the state. Workers were grouped into seven categories: medicine, nursing, allied health, dentistry and oral health, health-other, welfare and carers. Data were aggregated for each category to obtain total headcount, total full time equivalent (FTE) positions and total annual hours of service per capita, with changes observed over the five-year period.
resultsAll categories of the Tasmanian HWC workforce except welfare grew between 2011 and 2016. While this growth occurred in all SA4 regions across the state, the HWC workforce remained maldistributed, with more annual hours of service per capita provided in the Hobart area. Although the HWC workforce remained highly feminised, a move toward gender balance was observed in some categories, including medicine, dentistry and oral health, and carers. The HWC workforce also saw an increase in part-time workers across all categories.
conclusionsAdopting a broad approach to health workforce planning can better reflect the reality of healthcare service delivery. For underserviced rural communities, recognising the diverse range of workers who can contribute to the provision of health, welfare and care services offers the opportunity to realise existing workforce capacity and explore how 'total care' may be delivered by different combinations of health, welfare and care workers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.