ArticleThe Australian journal of rural health2025
A Cost Comparison From a Health Service Perspective of Three Allied Health Models of Care for Remote Australia: Student-Assisted Services, Fly-In Fly-Out Services and Services Provided by a Resident Clinician.
Article in The Australian journal of rural health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this paper is to compare the costs of an allied health student-assisted model of care with Fly-In-Fly-Out (FIFO) and resident clinician models of care from a health system perspective.
methodsA descriptive cost analysis was conducted to understand the costs of an allied health student-assisted model of care. Scenarios were developed for the two remaining service models to determine their costs from a health service perspective.
designAn observed and modelled costing study.
settingNorthern Territory, Australia.
participantsAllied health professionals and students. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The cost of providing a student-assisted model of care from a health service perspective.
resultsThe students provided an average of 5 h of service time per client to 50 clients at a cost of $2363 per client. Three resident clinician and FIFO scenarios were modelled. The first scenario was based on time with clients across all three student cohorts. The second scenario applied the time spent with clients by the third cohort, reflecting the increase in time spent with clients as the program matured. In the third scenario, we increased the time in scenario 2 by 25% to account for the potential under-recording of client time. The resident clinician results for the three scenarios were $915, $987, and $1178, respectively. The FIFO results for the three scenarios were $1502, $1575, and $1922, respectively.
conclusionsThe student-assisted model was more expensive per client seen than the FIFO and resident clinician models, but significant intangible benefits were identified that positively impact both clients and students. These include training health professionals for remote communities in a culturally responsive model, greater cultural understanding, and increased care coordination provided by the students.
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.