ArticleThe Australian journal of rural health2026
Hidden Capacity? Uncovering the Rural Australian Health Research Workforce Using National Census Data.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo provide the first national analysis of the distribution and professional composition of PhD-qualified health professionals across metropolitan, regional, rural and remote Australia.
designCross-sectional analysis of 2021 Australian Census data.
settingAustralia, classified by Modified Monash Model (MM) remoteness categories.
participantsHealth professionals reporting a doctoral-level qualification (PhD).
main outcome measuresCounts and proportions of PhD-qualified health professionals by MM category and occupation group; association between remoteness and PhD representation.
methodsOccupations were grouped into medicine, allied health, and nursing. Residential locations were mapped to MM categories. Descriptive statistics and linear regression examined distribution patterns.
resultsOf 21 510 PhD-qualified health professionals, 85% lived in metropolitan areas (MM1), with 3027 (14%) in regional, rural and remote communities and only 12 (< 1%) in very remote areas (MM7). Medical practitioners comprised 61%, allied health 36% (predominantly psychology) and nursing 3%. Increasing remoteness was associated with reduced PhD representation (β = -0.0041, p = 0.011).
conclusionsResearch capacity is concentrated in metropolitan areas, yet a substantial base of PhD-qualified professionals exists in RRR communities. Targeted investment in funding, infrastructure and support could leverage this workforce to build sustainable rural health research capacity.
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.