Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41902337›Full record

ArticleThe Australian journal of rural health2026

Quantifying Staff Preferences for Workforce Retention Strategies in Remote Australian Primary Health Care Services.

Nanda Kaji Budhathoki, John S Humphreys, Supriya Mathew, Leander Menezes, Mark Ramjan, Donna-Maree Stephens, Karrina DeMasi, Yuejen Zhao, Kristal Lawrence, Deborah Russell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Australian journal of rural health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Nanda Kaji BudhathokiMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4304-6696
John S HumphreysMonash Rural Health, Monash University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia.
Supriya MathewMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia.
Leander MenezesPintupi Homelands Health Service Aboriginal Corporation, Kintore, Northern Territory, Australia.
Mark RamjanNorthern Territory Department of Health, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia.
Donna-Maree StephensDMS Research & Evaluation Consulting, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia.
Karrina DeMasiSouth Australia Health, Department for Health and Wellbeing, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Yuejen ZhaoNorthern Territory Department of Health, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia.
Kristal LawrenceMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia.
Deborah RussellMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2221-7334

Funding

The Cooperative Research Centre for Developing Northern Australia (CRCNA), which is part of the Australian Government's Cooperative Research Centre Program (CRCP)The National Health and Medical Research Council's Centre of Research Excellence GNT2015611
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo outline key criteria when choosing how to measure remote area primary health care workers' retention preferences and compare six different methodological approaches against these criteria. CONTEXT: Australians living in remote communities experience poorer health outcomes. Many health services serving remote populations have persistent workforce shortages, high staff turnover and short retention which adversely affect access to timely, appropriate health care, care continuity and cultural appropriateness of care. Improved understanding of staff preferences for different retention initiatives could inform initiatives to improve workforce stability. APPROACH: Measuring the preferences of remote primary health care staff is complex. Key criteria to guide methodology choice include: i) logistical considerations related to geographical remoteness, ii) diversity of primary care staff, iii) minimising participants' cognitive load and time required for data collection, iv) ability to quantify preferences, v) appropriateness of methodologies for staff from different socio-cultural backgrounds, vi) minimising bias, and vii) making trade-offs given limited resources for implementing retention incentives. Six different methodological approaches are compared: Rating, Ranking, Best Worst Scaling (BWS) Object Case, BWS Profile Case, BWS Multi-profile Case and conventional Discrete Choice Experiments (DCE).

conclusionThe comparison of different methodologies reveals the advantages of using a BWS Object Case methodological approach for measuring primary health care service workers' preferences in remote primary health care settings. Importantly, this paper demonstrates how the quantified results from BWS object case analysis can be translated into actionable retention initiatives designed to retain remote area health workers, given ongoing budget constraints and the need to ensure cultural appropriateness. What is already known on this subject? Remote Australian health services have been persistently impacted by high turnover of health care staff. Stated preference survey methods have only been occasionally applied in health research in high income countries to understand health care workers' preferences in remote settings. Different methodological approaches have a range of strengths and weaknesses which may make them more or less suitable for use in remote settings. What does this study add? This study compares a range of methodological approaches that could be used to measure remote primary health care service staff members' preferences. A rationale is provided for using a Best-Worst Scaling Object Case methodological approach for measuring primary health care service staff members' preferences in remote Aboriginal health care settings.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPersonnel TurnoverPrimary Health CareRural Health ServicesAustraliaHumansbest worst scalinghealth workerspreferencesremote and ruralretention

Identifiers

PMID41902337
PMCPMC13031882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.