Content uploaded by Tony Smith
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tony Smith on Feb 14, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Original Article
Profile of the rural allied health workforce in Northern New
South Wales and comparison with previous studies
Tony Smith,1Rod Cooper,1Leanne Brown,1Rebecca Hemmings1and Julia Greaves2
1University Department of Rural Health, University of Newcastle, Northern NSW, and
2Department of Physiotherapy, Tamworth Rural Referral Hospital, Tamworth, New South Wales,
Australia
Abstract
Objective:To survey allied health professionals in one
region of New South Wales.
Design:A questionnaire designed to give a profile of the
allied health workforce was mailed to 451 practitioners
from 12 health professions between July and September
2005.
Setting:The region included the upper Hunter Valley,
Liverpool Plains, New England Tablelands and North-
west Slopes and Plains of New South Wales.
Main outcome measures:The overall response was
49.8%, although the response rates varied between
disciplines. Data were collected for a wide range of
dependent variables.
Results:Pharmacists were the most numerous respon-
dents (21.8%), followed by physiotherapists (17.3%),
psychologists (12.4%), radiographers (11.1%) and
occupational therapists (10.6%). These five professions
made up 73.3% of respondents. Approximately 75% of
the sample worked in Rural, Remote and Metropolitan
Areas (RRMA) 3 and 4 sized towns. The female to male
ratio was 3:1. The mean age was 43 years, the average
time since qualification was 20 years and the mean time
in the current position was 10 years. Half of the respon-
dents said they intended leaving within 5 years. Some
65% were of rural origin. The ratio of private to public
sector employment was 0.75:1, with 64.0% working
full-time.
Conclusions:Comparison is made between this and
previous studies. The results highlight the need for
further regional allied health workforce profiling and
for a recruitment and retention strategy that targets new
graduates of rural origin and encourages them to stay.
KEY WORDS: recruitment and retention,rural allied
health,workforce profile.
Introduction
Given the demonstrably poorer health status of those
who live in rural and remote Australia,1–3 the logical
argument is that there is a greater need to provide access
to health care services compared with the city. However,
limited service availability, compromised by greater dis-
tances, poorer infrastructure and lower population
density, is part of the problem.4,5 Compounding this is
the difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff in non-
metropolitan health services.6–8
The scarcity of doctors in rural and remote practice
contributes to relatively poor health care access.8,9
However, allied health professionals also form an
important part of the health care network, and their
availability is also limited.10 It may be argued that one of
the disincentives to doctors entering rural practice is a
lack of the same complementary services available in
metropolitan areas. Without a broad range of health
care services the doctor’s job is potentially more
demanding and less rewarding.
Problems of recruitment, retention and high staff
turnover affect many of the allied health professions in
rural areas.7,10–12 Furthermore, allied health services are
often only available on a sessional or part-time basis in
smaller rural and remote health facilities.10,13 Because of
the lack of a ‘critical mass’ of patients, small hospitals
cannot provide the same range of services as larger
hospitals. Thus, there is a strong negative correlation
between increasing remoteness and the availability of
specialist medical and allied health services.14,15 Resi-
dents of small communities have to either travel to the
nearest service point, do without the service, or make do
with a lesser alternative. Patient travel assistance, ‘fly in,
fly out’ specialist teams, mobile multidisciplinary
services, and telehealth consultations have been used to
compensate.16–19
Correspondence: Dr Tony Smith, University of Newcastle,
University Department of Rural Health, Locked Bag 9783
NEMSC, Tamworth, New South Wales, 2348, Australia.
Email: tony.smith@hnehealth.nsw.gov.au
Accepted for publication 1 June 2007.
Aust. J. Rural Health (2008) 16, 156–163
© 2008 The Authors
Journal Compilation © 2008 National Rural Health Alliance Inc. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1584.2008.00966.x
The University Department of Rural Health Northern
New South Wales(NSW) carried out a study aimed at
providing detailed data about the allied workforce in the
upper Hunter Valley, Liverpool Plains, New England
Tablelands and North-west Slopes and Plains of NSW.
The study was motivated by the general lack of infor-
mation about the rural and remote allied health work-
force in Australia.10,11
The first component of the study was a survey, which
aimed to profile the workforce as a ‘snapshot’ in the
period between July and September 2005. This was
followed by a series of focus groups that provided
greater depth, filling in the gaps in the survey data. This
paper reports the results of the survey. The results of the
focus group discussions will be reported in a subsequent
paper.
Method
Ethics approval was obtained from both the Area
Health Service and the University of Newcastle Human
Research Ethics Committees.
The study area
The region included was the entire rural, northern
sector of the Hunter New England Area Health
Service. It extends from the upper Hunter Valley,
including the towns of Scone, Murrundi, Merriwa and
Muswellbrook, over the Liverpool Range to Quirindi
and Gunnedah, north to Tenterfield on the New
England Tableland and west onto the North-west
Slopes and Plains, to encompass Moree, Wee Waa and
Narrabri. The major population centres in the region
are Tamworth, with a population of about 35 500,
and Armidale, which has about 20 300 inhabitants.20
Several smaller population centres also lie in the
region, the total population of which is approximately
202 000.
The participants
The range of professions included was guided by the
scope of previous reports, which have included hospital
pharmacists but not community pharmacists.11,21,22 On
the advice of the University ethics committee, however,
all pharmacists were included in this study, as were
optometrists. The 12 occupations included are identified
in Figure 1. All allied health personnel working these
occupations in the region were identified by various
means from word-of-mouth to registration board
records.
The questionnaire
A 4-page questionnaire was developed in consultation
with allied health advisors at Tamworth Rural Referral
Hospital. The questionnaire was divided into three sec-
tions. The first section elicited demographic and back-
ground information, section two addressed aspects of
the respondents’ current employment, and the third
section enquired into their educational background and
continuing professional development. A reminder letter
was mailed out 2–3 weeks after the questionnaire.
Data from returned questionnaires were entered into
SPSS and Microsoft Excel programs.
Results
The questionnaire was posted to 451 allied health pro-
fessionals, with responses received from 225 (49.8%).
Response rates for each occupation are shown in
Figure 1. The most numerous respondents were phar-
macists, making up 21.8% of the total, although the
occupational response rate for pharmacy was only
32.5%. The next most numerous were physiotherapists
(17.3% of total respondents), followed by psychologists
(12.4%), radiographers (11.1%) and occupational
therapists (10.6%). These five professions made up
73.3% of the respondents.
The results for some of the dependent variables for 10
of the 12 occupations, together with the overall results,
are summarised in Table 1, with the variables grouped
according the sections of the questionnaire. Results are
not given separately for the occupations of audiology
What is already know on the subject:
•Recruitment and retention problems and
high staff turnover affect the allied health
professions in rural and remote areas.
•Limited information exists about the
Australian allied health workforce.
•Previous national workforce profiles have
methodological limitations.
What does this study add:
•Although confined to one region, this study
provides a detailed workforce profile.
•Unexplained discrepancies between this
and the previous national profiles suggest
regional variation.
•Similarly detailed data may be collected in
other regions using the same method.
RURAL ALLIED HEALTH WORKFORCE PROFILE 157
© 2008 The Authors
Journal Compilation © 2008 National Rural Health Alliance Inc.
and orthoptics as the number of respondents was too
small. All 12 occupations are included in the overall
results, however.
Demographics and background
The overall ratio of female to male respondents was
almost 3:1. There were no male respondents among the
combined total of 51 dietitians, occupational therapists
and speech pathologists. The professions with the
highest proportions of male respondents were audiology
(both respondents were male), optometry (10 men to
one woman), pharmacy (47.6% male) and radiography
(35.7%) (Table 1).
The mean age of the respondents was nearly 43 years,
although 14.2% chose not to reveal their age. Of the
193 who supplied their year-of-birth, pharmacy had the
highest mean age and dietetics the lowest. The average
length of time since qualification was just over 20 years,
again with pharmacists having the highest mean number
of years of practice and dietitians the lowest. Overall,
about 57% of the respondents reported having had a
career interruption, the most common reason being
maternity leave.
Almost 65% said they were of rural origin, having
spent time up to the age of 18 years either living
(mean ª16 years) or going to school (mean ª11 years)
in a rural area. Only five respondents (2.2%), all of
different professions, identified themselves as being of
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. In addition,
46.0% said they had had an undergraduate rural
placement.
Current employment
More than half of the respondents worked exclusively in
the public health care system, although about 11% said
that they worked in both the public and private sectors.
Taking this into account, some 25% more respondents
worked in public than in private practice. The profes-
sions with the highest proportions in the private sector
were optometrists, podiatrists, pharmacists, physio-
therapists and psychologists (Table 1).
Almost 75% of the sample worked in towns with
populations greater than 10 000 people (RRMA 3 and
4) and the remainder in RRMA 6 and 7 communities.
There are no RRMA 5 towns in the study area. Partici-
pants whose work was based in the smaller towns rep-
FIGURE 1: Responses compared with
the number of questionnaires mailed out
for each allied health occupational
category in this study. 䊐Returned
(n=225), 䊏unreturned (n=226).
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Social work (6 1.9)
Radiograp hy (67.6)
Psy chology (57.1)
Podiatry (75.0)
Phys iotherapy (62.9)
Pharmacy (32.5)
Orthoptics (50.0)
Optometry (57.9)
Occupational
ther apy (47.1)
Diet etics (58.8 )
Audiology (40.0)
Occupation (response rate, %)
Count
158 T. SMITH ET AL.
© 2008 The Authors
Journal Compilation © 2008 National Rural Health Alliance Inc.
TABLE 1: Results for some dependent variables broken down by occupation as well as overall
Dependent variable
Occupation
Diet.* OT Opt. Pharm. Physio. Pod.* Psych. Radiog. SW SP Overall
1. Gender ratio (female : male) 10:0 24:0 0.1:1 1.1:1 6.8:1 5:1 3.7:1 1.8:1 5.5:1 17:0 2.9:1
2. Mean age (years) 29 37 42 51 45 31 43 43 49 35 43
3. Mean years qualified 7.7 16.3 18.0 30.8 22.6 10.2 13.9 20.4 18.6 12.5 20.2
4. % career interruption 30.0 75.0 18.2 43.1 63.2 66.7 48.1 48.1 53.8 58.8 56.5
5. % rural background 90.0 62.5 45.5 68.6 97.4 50.0 64.3 74.1 61.5 76.5 64.8
6. % u/grad rural placement 60.0 66.7 10.0 39.6 53.8 83.3 17.9 51.9 69.2 70.5 46.0
7. Ratio private : public 0.03:1 0.35:1 10:1 2.5:1 0.83:1 4.7:1 0.64:1 0.37:1 0:13 0.22:1 0.75:1
8. Mean years current position 4.3 5.7 17.6 16.5 12.8 5.7 5.7 10.6 6.8 4.0 10.3
9. Mean normal hours per week 34.6 31.3 43.5 36.6 32.8 34.2 32.5 33.9 36.6 34.9 34.9
10. % ⱖ35 hours per week 60.0 47.8 100 62.2 52.6 50.0 65.4 84.6 69.2 64.7 64.0
11. % ⱕ24 hours per week 20.0 39.1 0 20.0 26.3 33.3 30.8 7.7 7.7 23.5 22.0
12. Paid O/T per week (n)† – – – – – – 4.0 (2) 2.2 (13) – – 3.1 (17)
13. Unpaid O/T per week (n)† 2.75 (4) 3.75 (8) – 4.8 (5) 3.9 (13) – 5.5 (13) 4.1 (11) 4.2 (6) 6.8 (6) 4.6 (69)
14. % outreach services 100 75.0 63.6 44.0 30.8 100 70.4 66.7 76.9 82.4 61.9
15. Mean hours travel each week 3.9 3.7 1.6 2.9 1.7 2.8 3.5 2.2 3.3 3.12 2.5
16. % student supervision 70.0 75.0 18.2 50.9 40.0 16.7 42.9 88.0 69.2 47.1 53.3
17. % student supervisor training 70.0 87.5 0 23.5 17.5 16.7 46.4 30.1 38.5 70.6 37.6
18. % satisfied with CPD 70.0 66.7 90.0 68.6 66.7 66.7 66.7 75.0 84.6 70.6 70.6
*Number of respondents ⱕ10. †n=subset of respondents (>1) who answered the relevant questions. CPD, continuing professional development; Diet., dietetics; Opt.,
orthoptics; OT, occupational therapy; Pharm., pharmacy; Physio., physiotherapy; Pod., podiatry; Psych., psychology; Radiog., radiography; SP, speech pathology; SW, social
work.
RURAL ALLIED HEALTH WORKFORCE PROFILE 159
© 2008 The Authors
Journal Compilation © 2008 National Rural Health Alliance Inc.
resented 10 different professions, the most numerous
being pharmacists and physiotherapists. The private to
public ratio in RRMA 6 and 7 towns was about 1:1, but
the only private practitioners were pharmacists, physio-
therapists and optometrists.
The mean length of time respondents had held their
position was a little more than 10 years, with 35 respon-
dents having been incumbent for more than 20 years
and 13 for 30 or more years. Some 115 respondents
(51.1%) indicated that they intended leaving their posi-
tion within 5 years, although the remainder anticipated
staying for 10 years or more. The most common reasons
for leaving within 5 years were retirement (37/115),
seeking better career prospects (33) or a better income
(17), and for their children’s education (7).
Exactly 64.0% of the total respondents said they
worked full-time (ⱖ35 hours per week). Physiothera-
pists, pharmacists, radiographers and psychologists
made-up some 58% of the full-time workers. Most
respondents who worked part-time or casual indicated
that they chose to do so to suit family commitments and
lifestyle. Only about 15% of those who held part-time
or casual positions were men.
Including full-time, part-time and casual workers, the
mean number of normal paid hours worked each week
was about 35, with a range of 5–76 hours. On average
private practitioners reportedly worked slightly more
normal hours than the public hospital staff (36.5 versus
35.4 hours), although the difference was not statistically
significant (t-test, P>0.05). Four times more respon-
dents said they worked unpaid overtime (O/T) as said
they worked paid overtime. The mean number of hours
of unpaid overtime was approximately 60% higher than
for paid overtime. In addition, 28 respondents, includ-
ing 18 radiographers, said they did on-call work for an
average of 1.5 hours per week.
Some respondents from all occupations provided out-
reach services. They traveled for an average of 2.5 hours
per week for this purpose, most in a vehicle provided by
their employer. All of the dietitians and podiatrists pro-
vided outreach services, while only about 31% of phys-
iotherapists and 44% of pharmacists did so.
Education and professional development
Just over 83% of respondents held a Bachelors Degree
or higher qualification. About 20% had acquired a post-
graduate award, with a further 16% in the midst of
postgraduate study. Only about 6% had a research
higher degree (i.e. Research Masters or Doctorate), the
majority of whom were psychologists (8/13) (Table 1).
Student supervision was markedly lower in optometry
(18.2%) and podiatry (16.7%) than in the other profes-
sions, the next lowest being in physiotherapy (40.0%).
Overall, a greater proportion of respondents provided
undergraduate student supervision (53.3%) than had
trained for that role (37.6%), although this trend was
reversed in some occupational groups.
Overall, 70.6% of respondents said they were satis-
fied with their access to continuing education opportu-
nities. All respondents said they had access to a
computer and e-mail either at home or at work, while
138 (61.3%) said they had access to both at home and
at work. Less than 10% of respondents said they had no
e-mail at work, although they had computer access.
Discussion
This survey yielded a large amount of data about the
allied health workforce in the study region; however,
there are few previous studies with which to compare
the findings. In 2000, SARRAH published the results
of a national survey11 and in 2004 Lowe and O’Kane
produced a National Allied Health Workforce (NAHW)
Report based on the analysis of the 2001 census data.22
The SARRAH survey was based on a sample of only
1620 responses, an estimated 5% of the entire Austra-
lian rural allied health professional population.11 The
National Report had the limitation of relying on census
data, in which error may be substantial for small groups
and small communities.23 There are several discrepan-
cies between the results of this and these previous
studies that may be attributable either to the method-
ological limitations of the latter or to regional variation.
The NAHW Report gave the number of allied health
professionals per 10 000 population and an Australian
average for 12 occupational categories, most of which
correspond to those in this study, in all five Australian
Standard Geographical Classification regions.22 The
number of allied health professionals in the region
included in this study is below the reported Australian
average in all comparable occupations (Table 2). This
suggests either a workforce short-fall in the region or
that the NAHW Report overestimates the workforce
to population ratio. For radiography, physiotherapy,
podiatry and social work the figures are below those
expected for both Outer Regional and Remote regions.
However, for dietetics, occupational therapy and speech
pathology the figures are above the reported level for
Inner Regional.
In both previous studies age was categorised into 5 or
10-year bands.11,22 Converting the data from this study
into the same form it was found that there was a much
smaller proportion in the ‘less than 25 years’ category –
4.7%, compared with 17.1% in the SARRAH survey11
and 10% in the National Report.22 Correspondingly, in
the previous studies the proportion of respondents less
than 35 years of age were 53% and 45%, respectively,
while in this study the figure was only 26%. There were
160 T. SMITH ET AL.
© 2008 The Authors
Journal Compilation © 2008 National Rural Health Alliance Inc.
also greater proportions of the respondents in all of the
age categories above 35 years. Even with the community
pharmacists removed from the current data the com-
parison is unchanged. Therefore, the allied health work-
force in the study region is older than predicted by both
previous studies.
While in the SARRAH study it was reported that
18.3% of the allied health workforce had less than
2 years of postqualification experience,11 in this study
the proportion was only 0.9%. Furthermore, 75.7% of
the respondents had practiced for more than 10 years,
compared with only 39.8% in the SARRAH study.11 A
larger proportion of respondents were also still working
beyond 65 years – 7.3% compared with only 0.2%.11
While in this study, 11% had held their position for less
than 2 years, 47.1% for 5 years or less, and 24.2% for
more than 15 years, in the SARRAH study the corre-
sponding figures were 42%, 72.7%, and only 5.2%.11 It
is apparent therefore that there is comparatively large
proportion of respondents in the study region who are
‘mature practitioners’.
The depth of clinical experience of the allied health
workforce in the region is a positive finding, although
the advanced age of some respondents has serious
implications for workforce planning. There is a need to
recruit more recent graduates to the region, particularly
as 51% of the respondents intended leaving their
current position within 5 years. In the SARRAH survey
63% of respondents anticipated leaving within
5 years,11 suggesting that the 51% figure is not exagger-
ated. Retention of the rural allied health practitioners
should therefore be a focus of future policy initiatives.
In six of the 10 occupational categories in Table 1
the ‘mean years current position’ is below the combined
sample mean of 10.3 years. Only optometry, pharmacy
and physiotherapy have significantly higher figures (one-
sided t-test, P<0.01).
The high female to male gender ratio is in agreement
with the previous studies,11,22 both of which found a
lower proportion of men than in this study. The small
number of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander respon-
dents is also in agreement. A large proportion of respon-
dents identified themselves as being of rural origin in
both this and the SARRAH study11 – 64.8% and 54.4%
respectively. This finding adds to the evidence that rural
origin influences allied health professionals’ career
paths24 and it may be further argued that it should be
taken into account in university admission.
The proportion of the region’s allied health workforce
that described their employment status as full-time is
similar to the region’s general population20 – 64.0%
compared with 66.2%. It is also comparable with the
figure of 65.9% in the SARRAH study11 and with that
for the Australian general medical practitioner work-
force in regional areas.25
The NAHW Report gives the proportion of the allied
health workforce in private practice as 55%, with
higher private practitioner to population ratios in
‘Major Capital[s]’ compared with ‘Rural & Remote’.22
In this study, the corresponding figure was 43%. In the
smaller RRMA 6 and 7 towns, however, the proportion
of private and public practitioners was about equal.
This is explained by the presence of private sector phar-
macists and physiotherapists in the smaller towns,
which, in turn, explains the relatively low proportions
providing outreach services in these disciplines.
TABLE 2: Australian and regional averages for the number of allied health professionals per 10 000 population. 22 Shaded
cells indicate figures higher than in this study (far right)
Occupation Australian average Major capital Inner regional Outer regional Remote Very remote This study
Audiology 0.42 0.51 0.33 0.12 0.18 0.00 0.25
Dietetics 1.05 1.21 0.78 0.76 0.61 0.59 0.84
Radiography 4.39 5.05 3.62 2.52 2.02 0.78 1.83
Occ. therapy 2.82 3.19 2.31 1.86 1.37 1.42 2.52
Orthoptics 0.23 0.31 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.10
Physiotherapy 5.41 6.14 4.35 3.58 3.65 1.57 3.07
Podiatry 0.92 1.06 0.78 0.53 0.44 0.00 0.40
Psychology 4.91 5.92 3.44 2.43 1.87 0.83 2.43
Social Work 4.80 5.45 3.85 3.36 2.51 1.27 1.04
Speech Path. 1.59 1.73 1.42 1.16 1.23 0.59 1.44
Average* 2.65 3.06 2.10 1.64 1.39 0.71 1.39
*Averages adjusted for missing occupations compared with the NAHW report.22 Occ. Therapy, occupational therapy. Speech
Path., speech pathology.
RURAL ALLIED HEALTH WORKFORCE PROFILE 161
© 2008 The Authors
Journal Compilation © 2008 National Rural Health Alliance Inc.
Conclusions
Workforce planning should be underpinned by a com-
prehensive knowledge of the existing rural allied health
workforce. This investigation was motivated by the
perception that there is little detailed information avail-
able. Further, comparison between the findings of this
and previous national allied health workforce profiles
reveals unexplained discrepancies, notably in regard to
the ratio of allied health professionals to population. It
appears that the study region is undersupplied in most
allied health disciplines. This may, however, be because
of methodological flaws in the previous studies. Unfor-
tunately, because it was confined to only one region, the
results of this study have limited generalisability. It is
therefore recommended that similar detailed surveys
should be performed in other regions with the aim of
comparing and combining the data to create a collage of
regional workforce data that is representative on a
national scale.
While the previous studies referred to above revealed
a relatively young rural allied health workforce, it is
apparent from this study that there is a core of mature,
experienced practitioners in the study region. There also
appears to be a large, less stable, transient portion of the
workforce. These findings highlight the need for new
recruitment strategies, particularly targeting new gradu-
ates of rural origin, and retention incentives that address
staff needs and encourage them to stay for a longer
period of their career.
Acknowledgements
Financial support was received through the Research
Development Program under the Commonwealth’s
Primary Health Care Research, Evaluation and Devel-
opment Strategy. The contribution of the survey respon-
dents is also acknowledged.
References
1 Dixon J, Welch N. Researching the rural–metropolitan
health differential using the ‘social determinants of
health’. The Australian Journal of Rural Health 2000; 8:
254–260.
2 Wakerman J, Humphreys JS. Rural health: why it matters.
The Medical Journal of Australia 2002; 176: 457–
458.
3 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s
Health 2004. Canberra: AIHW, 2004. [Cited 18 Nov
2005]. Available from URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/
4 Humphreys JS, Mathews-Cowey S, Rolley F. Health
Service Frameworks for Small Rural and Remote Com-
munities: Issues and Options. Armidale: University of
New England, 1996.
5 Lyle D. Infrastructure support for rural practitioners. In:
Wilkinson D, Blue I, eds. The New Rural Health. South
Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2002.
6 Humphreys JS, Jones MP, Jones JA, Mara PR. Workforce
retention in rural and remote Australia: determining the
factors that influence length of practice. The Medical
Journal of Australia 2002; 176: 472–476.
7 Denham LA, Shaddock AJ. Recruitment and retention of
rural allied health professionals in developmental disabil-
ity services in New South Wales. The Australian Journal
of Rural Health 2004; 12: 28–29.
8 Jones JA, Humphreys JS, Adena MA. Rural GPs’ ratings
of initiatives designed to improve rural medical workforce
recruitment and retention. Rural Remote Health 2004; 4:
314. [Cited 25 Mar 2008]. Available from URL: http://
rrh.deakin.edu.au
9 Worley PS. Always one doctor away from a crisis! (edi-
torial). Rural Remote Health 2004; 4: 317. [Cited 25
March 2008]. Available from URL http://rrh.deakin.
edu.au
10 National Rural Health Alliance. Under pressure and
undervalued: allied health professionals in rural and re-
mote areas. West Deakin: NRHA, 2004. [Cited 25 Mar
2008]. Available from URL: http://www.ruralhealth.
org.au/publications/?IntContId=60&IntCatId=6
11 Services for Australian Rural and Remote Allied Health.
A Study of Allied Health Professionals in Rural and
Remote Australia. Canberra: SARRAH, 2000. [Cited 24
Nov 2005]. Available from URL: http://www.sarrah.
org.au/SARRAH/Documents.asp
12 Stagnitti K, Schoo A, Reid C, Dunbar J. Retention of
allied health professionals in the south-west of Victoria.
The Australian Journal of Rural Health 2005; 13: 364–
365.
13 Gadiel D, Ridoutt L. Towards a Rural Health Strategy A
Workforce and Economic Analysis of Allied Health in
New South Wales, Report on Strategic Human Capital
Management. Sydney: NSW Health, 1993.
14 Hodgson L. Multiskilling: what does it mean for rural
allied health. The Australian Journal of Rural Health
1992; 1: 45–52.
15 Sheppard L. Work practices of rural and remote physio-
therapists. The Australian Journal of Rural Health 2001;
9: 84–90.
16 Allen O. Anthill and other injuries: a case for mobile
allied health teams to remote Australia. The Australian
Journal of Rural Health 1996; 4: 33–42.
17 Bishop M. How many? An analysis of some allied health
professional service planning approaches in rural Austra-
lia. Proceedings of the 4th Biennial Australian Rural and
Remote Health Scientific Conference; 27–28 August
1998; Toowoomba, Queensland.
18 Battye KM, McTaggart K. Development of a model for
sustainable delivery of outreach allied health services to
remote north-west Queensland, Australia. Rural and
Remote Health 2003; 3: 194. [Cited 25 Mar 2008]. Avail-
able from URL: http://rrh.deakin.edu.au
19 Van Ast P, Larson A. Supporting rural carers through
telehealth. Rural Remote Health 2007; 7: 623. [Cited 25
162 T. SMITH ET AL.
© 2008 The Authors
Journal Compilation © 2008 National Rural Health Alliance Inc.
Mar 2008]. Available from URL: http://rrh.deakin.
edu.au
20 Australian Bureau of Statistics. Census of Population and
Housing, 2001. Canberra: ABS, 2006. [Cited 9 Feb
2007]. Available from URL: http://www.abs.gov.au/
websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/Home/census
21 O’Kane A, Curry R. Unveiling the secrets of the allied
health workforce. Proceedings of the 7th National
Rural Health Conference; 1–4 March 2003, Hobart,
Australia.
22 Lowe S, O’Kane A. National Allied Health Workforce
Report. Canberra: NRRAHAS, 2004. [Cited 19 Feb
2007]. Available from URL: http://www.sarrah.org.au/
NRRAHAS/reports.asp
23 Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2901.0 – Census Dictio-
nary 2001, Industry of Employment, Quality Statement.
Canberra: ABS, 2006. [Cited 25 Feb 2007].
Available from URL http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/
D3310114.nsf/home/Home?opendocument
24 Playford D, Larson A, Wheatland B. Going country: rural
student placement factors associated with future rural
employment in nursing and allied health. The Australian
Journal of Rural Health 2006; 14: 14–19.
25 Wilkinson D. Selected demographic, social and work char-
acteristics of the Australian general medical practitioner
workforce: comparing capital cities with regional areas.
The Australian Journal of Rural Health 2001; 14: 327–
334.
RURAL ALLIED HEALTH WORKFORCE PROFILE 163
© 2008 The Authors
Journal Compilation © 2008 National Rural Health Alliance Inc.
