↓ Skip to main content

Should I stay or should I go? Exploring the job preferences of allied health professionals working with people with disability in rural Australia

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Should I stay or should I go? Exploring the job preferences of allied health professionals working with people with disability in rural Australia
Published in
Human Resources for Health, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12960-015-0047-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gisselle Gallego, Angela Dew, Michelle Lincoln, Anita Bundy, Rebecca Jean Chedid, Kim Bulkeley, Jennie Brentnall, Craig Veitch

Abstract

The uneven distribution of allied health professionals (AHPs) in rural and remote Australia and other countries is well documented. In Australia, like elsewhere, service delivery to rural and remote communities is complicated because relatively small numbers of clients are dispersed over large geographic areas. This uneven distribution of AHPs impacts significantly on the provision of services particularly in areas of special need such as mental health, aged care and disability services. This study aimed to determine the relative importance that AHPs (physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech pathologists and psychologists - "therapists") living in a rural area of Australia and working with people with disability, place on different job characteristics and how these may affect their retention. A cross-sectional survey was conducted using an online questionnaire distributed to AHPs working with people with disability in a rural area of Australia over a 3-month period. Information was sought about various aspects of the AHPs' current job, and their workforce preferences were explored using a best-worst scaling discrete choice experiment (BWSDCE). Conditional logistic and latent class regression models were used to determine AHPs' relative preferences for six different job attributes. One hundred ninety-nine AHPs completed the survey; response rate was 51 %. Of those, 165 completed the BWSDCE task. For this group of AHPs, "high autonomy of practice" is the most valued attribute level, followed by "travel BWSDCE arrangements: one or less nights away per month", "travel arrangements: two or three nights away per month" and "adequate access to professional development". On the other hand, the least valued attribute levels were "travel arrangements: four or more nights per month", "limited autonomy of practice" and "minimal access to professional development". Except for "some job flexibility", all other attributes had a statistical influence on AHPs' job preference. Preferences differed according to age, marital status and having dependent children. This study allowed the identification of factors that contribute to AHPs' employment decisions about staying and working in a rural area. This information can improve job designs in rural areas to increase retention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 143 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 14%
Researcher 17 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Master 13 9%
Other 26 18%
Unknown 38 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 13%
Psychology 15 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Social Sciences 12 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 5%
Other 33 23%
Unknown 44 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 July 2015.
All research outputs
#8,475,150
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#844
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,287
of 277,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#20
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,324 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.