ArticleThe Australian journal of rural health2026
Quantifying Staff Preferences for Workforce Retention Strategies in Remote Australian Primary Health Care Services.
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.
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.
- Improving health workforce retention in remote Australia: a best-worst scaling study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
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
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.