Search

Background: Maintaining a health professional workforce in rural and remote areas poses a significant challenge internationally. A range of recruitment and retention strategies have had varying success and these are generally developed from the collective experience of all health professions, rather than targeted to professional groups with differing educational and support contexts. This review explores, compares and synthesises the evidence examining the experience of early career rural and remote allied health professionals and doctors to better understand both the profession specific, and common factors that influence their experience. Methods: Qualitative studies that include early career allied health professionals' or doctors' experiences of working in rural or remote areas and the personal and professional factors that impact on this experience were considered. A systematic search was completed across five databases and three grey literature repositories to identify published and unpublished studies. Studies published since 2000 in English were considered. Studies were screened for inclusion and critically appraised by two independent reviewers. Data was extracted and assigned a level of credibility. Data synthesis adhered to the JBI meta-aggregative approach. Results: Of the 1408 identified articles, 30 papers were eligible for inclusion, with one rated as low in quality and all others moderate or high quality. A total of 23 categories, 334 findings and illustrations were aggregated into three synthesised findings for both professional groups including: making a difference through professional and organisational factors, working in rural areas can offer unique and rewarding opportunities for early career allied health professionals and doctors, and personal and community influences make a difference. A rich dataset was obtained and findings illustrate similarities including the need to consider personal factors, and differences, including discipline specific supervision for allied health professionals and local supervision for doctors. Conclusions: Strategies to enhance the experience of both allied health professionals and doctors in rural and remote areas include enabling career paths through structured training programs, hands on learning opportunities, quality supervision and community immersion. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42021223187. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The objective of this paper is to outline and compare the regulation of paid healthcare professions and associated support workers in international context, bringing out the lessons to be learned as appropriate. Modern neo-liberal societies have sought to enhance healthcare through greater professional regulation, albeit in different ways and at variable pace. This general trend is illustrated with reference to medicine in the UK. However, although such reforms have helpfully cascaded to other health professions, government policy in high-income countries has not yet adequately regulated the interrelated group of non-professionalised health support workers who form the largest and least recognised part of the workforce. Nonetheless, in low- and middle-income (LMIC) countries-aside from the greater need for regulation of health professions-there is even more of an imperative to regulate the disparate, largely invisible support workforce.Methods: With reference to existing studies of the medical and wider health professions in the UK and selected other higher income societies, the importance of health professional regulation to the public is underlined in the Global North. The larger gap in the regulation of support workers in modern neo-liberal countries is also emphasised on a similar basis, with an increasingly ageing population and advances in healthcare. It is argued from the very limited patchwork of secondary literature, though, that policy-makers may want to focus even more on enhancing regulation of both the professional and non-professional workforce in LMIC societies centred mainly in the Global South, drawing on lessons from the Global North.Results/conclusions: Efforts to reform health professional regulatory approaches in more economically developed countries, while needing refinement, are likely to have had a positive effect. However, even in these societies there are still substantial shortfalls in the regulation of health support workers. There are even larger gaps in LMICs where there are fewer health professional staff and a greater dependence on support workers. With higher rates of morbidity and mortality, there is much more scope here for reforming health regulation in the public interest to extend standards and mitigate risk, following the pattern for healthcare professions in the Global North. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the past forty years, many gains have been made in our understanding of the concept of research utilization. While numerous studies exist on professional nurses' use of research in practice, no attempt has been made to systematically evaluate and synthesize this body of literature with respect to the extent to which nurses use research in their clinical practice. The objective of this study was to systematically identify and analyze the available evidence related to the extent to which nurses use research findings in practice. Methods: This study was a systematic review of published and grey literature. The search strategy included 13 online bibliographic databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, HAPI, Web of Science, SCOPUS, OCLC Papers First, OCLC WorldCat, ABI Inform, Sociological Abstracts, and Dissertation Abstracts. The inclusion criteria consisted of primary research reports that assess professional nurses' use of research in practice, written in the English or Scandinavian languages. Extent of research use was determined by assigning research use scores reported in each article to one of four quartiles: low, moderate-low, moderate-high, or high. Results: Following removal of duplicate citations, a total of 12,418 titles were identified through database searches, of which 133 articles were retrieved. Of the articles retrieved, 55 satisfied the inclusion criteria. The 55 final reports included cross-sectional/survey (n = 51) and quasi-experimental (n = 4) designs. A sensitivity analysis, comparing findings from all reports with those rated moderate (moderate-weak and moderate-strong) and strong quality, did not show significant differences. In a majority of the articles identified (n = 38, 69%), nurses reported moderate-high research use. Conclusions: According to this review, nurses' reported use of research is moderate-high and has remained relatively consistent over time until the early 2000's. This finding, however, may paint an overly optimistic picture of the extent to which nurses use research in their practice given the methodological problems inherent in the majority of studies. There is a clear need for the development of standard measures of research use and robust well-designed studies examining nurses' use of research and its impact on patient outcomes. The relatively unchanged self-reports of moderate-high research use by nurses is troubling given that over 40 years have elapsed since the first studies in this review were conducted and the increasing emphasis in the past 15 years on evidence-based practice. More troubling is the absence of studies in which attempts are made to assess the effects of varying levels of research use on patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 1992, Evidence-Based Medicine advocates proclaimed a "new paradigm", in which evidence from health care research is the best basis for decisions for individual patients and health systems. Hailed in New York Times Magazine in 2001 as one of the most influential ideas of the year, this approach was initially and provocatively pitted against the traditional teaching of medicine, in which the key elements of knowing for clinical purposes are understanding of basic pathophysiologic mechanisms of disease coupled with clinical experience. This paper reviews the origins, aspirations, philosophical limitations, and practical challenges of evidence-based medicine. Discussion: EBM has long since evolved beyond its initial (mis)conception, that EBM might replace traditional medicine. EBM is now attempting to augment rather than replace individual clinical experience and understanding of basic disease mechanisms. EBM must continue to evolve, however, to address a number of issues including scientific underpinnings, moral stance and consequences, and practical matters of dissemination and application. For example, accelerating the transfer of research findings into clinical practice is often based on incomplete evidence from selected groups of people, who experience a marginal benefit from an expensive technology, raising issues of the generalizability of the findings, and increasing problems with how many and who can afford the new innovations in care. Summary: Advocates of evidence-based medicine want clinicians and consumers to pay attention to the best findings from health care research that are both valid and ready for clinical application. Much remains to be done to reach this goal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Contemporary approaches to rural generalist medicine training and models of care are developing internationally as part of an integrated response to common challenges faced by rural and remote health services and policymakers (addressing health inequities, workforce shortages, service sustainability concerns). The aim of this study was to review the literature relevant to rural generalist medicine.Methods: A scoping review was undertaken to answer the broad question 'What is documented on rural generalist medicine?' Literature from January 1988 to April 2017 was searched and, after final eligibility filtering (according to established inclusion and exclusion criteria), 102 articles in English language were included for final analysis.Results: Included papers were analysed and categorised by geographic region, study design and subject themes. The majority of articles (80%) came from Australia/New Zealand and North America, reflecting the relative maturity of programmes supporting rural generalist medicine in those countries. The most common publication type was descriptive opinion pieces (37%), highlighting both a need and an opportunity to undertake and publish more systematic research in this area. Important themes emerging from the review were: Definition Existing pathways and programmes Scope of practice and service models Enablers and barriers to recruitment and retention Reform recommendations There were some variations to, or criticisms of, the definition of rural generalist medicine as applied to this review, although this was only true of a small number of included articles. Across remaining themes, there were many similarities and consistent approaches to rural generalist medicine between countries, with some variations reflecting environmental context and programme maturity. This review identified recent literature from countries with emerging interest in rural generalist medicine in response to problematic rural health service delivery.Conclusions: Supported, coordinated rural generalist medicine programmes are being established or developed in a number of countries as part of an integrated response to rural health and workforce concerns. Findings of this review highlight an opportunity to better share the development and evaluation of best practice models in rural generalist medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]