ArticleThe Australian journal of rural health2026
Prioritising Health Workforce Solutions for Rural and Regional Queensland: A Delphi Study.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundPersistent health workforce shortages in regional, rural and remote Australia compromise access to equitable, high-quality care. Despite multiple initiatives, recruitment and retention challenges remain. Evidence-informed, context-specific solutions are needed to address local workforce needs.
aimTo identify and prioritise locally responsive health workforce models in Central Queensland and assess their feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness from the perspective of local stakeholders.
methodsA modified Delphi method was used, comprising two rounds of online surveys with health practitioners and administrative staff. In Round One, participants rated 11 workforce models, developed from prior qualitative interviews and expert roundtable discussions, on feasibility and effectiveness using a five-point Likert scale. Open-text responses were collected to provide qualitative insights. Models meeting predefined consensus thresholds (≥ 70% feasibility or ≥ 60% effectiveness) progressed to Round Two, where participants, stratified by profession (nursing, medical, allied health, other), re-evaluated the shortlisted models. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and qualitative responses were analysed using deductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
resultsSeven models met consensus thresholds in Round One: Placement, Career Broker, Transport Partner, Telehealth Blended, Advertisement/Pop Culture, Expatriate and FIFO. In Round Two, the Placement model was consistently rated highly across all professional groups, with strong support also for the Career Broker and Transport Partner models, particularly among allied health and nursing participants. Models requiring significant system reform, such as Expatriate and FIFO, received more variable ratings.
conclusionLocally grounded, system-supported strategies, especially Placement, Career Broker and Transport Partner models, were favoured over approaches relying on external incentives or structural overhaul. Implementation of these models, supported by pilot testing and collaborative evaluation, offers a promising pathway to strengthening rural and regional workforce sustainability.
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.