Introduction: Telehealth has become an increasingly popular method to deliver mental health services to rural and remote youth who are challenged by distance and service availability. However, it remains unclear whether rural and remote youth would prefer to access mental health services via telehealth or by attending services in person.Objective: To systematically review the preferences of rural and remote youth for mental health service access via telehealth versus face‐to‐face consultation.Design: Systematic review of published research papers cited in databases CINAHL, MEDLINE and PubMed databases between 2000 and 2021.Findings: From a total of 225 articles identified, four were found to meet inclusion criteria. Three studies reported rural and remote youth preferred to access mental health services face‐to‐face over telehealth. However, three studies also reported youth viewed telehealth as an important adjunct to in person attendance, especially in situations of large travel times.Discussion: Although telehealth can facilitate mental health service access, rural and remote youth may prefer to see a mental health professional in person, with telehealth regarded as an adjunct to, not a replacement for, face‐to‐face consultation.Conclusion: Whilst rural and remote youth may prefer to access mental health services in person rather than via telehealth, further well designed research is needed to better understand under what circumstances this preference holds true and why. Caution should be exercised in generalising this finding because of the few studies that met the inclusion criteria and different conditions under which youth made their choice to access mental health services.

Objective: To investigate students' perceptions of the impact of coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2 on rural and remote placements facilitated by 16 University Departments of Rural Health in Australia in 2020.Design: A mixed‐method design comprising an online survey and semi‐structured interviews.Setting: Australia.Participants: Allied health, nursing and medical students with a planned University Departments of Rural Health‐facilitated rural or remote placement between February and October 2020.Intervention: A planned rural or remote placement in 2020 facilitated by a University Departments of Rural Health, regardless of placement outcome.Main outcome measures: Questionnaire included placement outcome (completed or not), discipline of study (nursing, allied health, medicine), and Likert measures of impact to placement (including supervision, placement tasks, location, accommodation, client contact and student learning) and placement experience (overall, support, supervision, university support). Semi‐structured interviews asked about placement planning, outcome, decisions, experience and student perceptions.Results: While coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2 reportedly impacted on the majority of planned placements, most students (80%) were able to complete their University Departments of Rural Health‐facilitated placement in some form and were satisfied with their placement experience. Common placement changes included changes to tasks, setting, supervisors and location. Allied health students were significantly more likely to indicate that their placement had been impacted and also felt more supported by supervisors and universities than nursing students. Interview participants expressed concerns regarding the potential impact of cancelled and adapted placements on graduation and future employment.Conclusions: The coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic was reported to impact the majority of University Departments of Rural Health‐facilitated rural and remote placements in 2020. Fortunately, most students were able to continue to undertake a rural or remote placement in some form and were largely satisfied with their placement experience. Students were concerned about their lack of clinical learning and graduating on time with adequate clinical competence.

Introduction: As the coronavirus pandemic unfolded during 2020, widespread financial uncertainty emerged amongst university students across the globe. What is not yet clear is how Australian health students were financially impacted during the initial stages of the pandemic and whether this influenced their ability to undertake planned rural or remote placements.Objective: To examine (a) financial concern amongst health students during COVID‐19, (b) the financial implications of changes to planned rural or remote placements and (c) the impact of these factors on students' ability to undertake placements during the pandemic.Design: Mixed‐methods design involving an online survey (n = 1210) and semi‐structured interviews (n = 29). Nursing, medical and allied health students with a planned University Department of Rural Health‐facilitated rural or remote placement between February and October 2020 were invited to participate.Findings: 54.6% of surveyed students reported financial concern during COVID‐19. Financial concern correlated with both changes in financial position and employment, with 36.6% of students reporting a reduction in income and 43.1% of students reporting a reduction in, or cessation of regular employment. Placement changes yielded a range of financial implications. Cancelled placements saved some students travel and accommodation costs, but left others out of pocket if these expenses were prepaid. Placements that went ahead often incurred increased accommodation costs due to limited availability. Financial concern and/or financial implications of placement changes ultimately prevented some students from undertaking their rural or remote placement as planned.Discussion: Many nursing, allied health and medical students expressed financial concern during COVID‐19, associated with a loss of regular employment and income. Placement changes also presented unforeseen financial burden for students. These factors ultimately prevented some students from undertaking their planned rural or remote placement.Conclusion: Universities need to consider how best to align financially burdensome placements with the personal circumstances of students during periods of economic uncertainty.

The purpose of this study was to explore the challenges and strategies of support coordinators tasked with connecting National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participants with allied health services in Tasmania, a largely rural and island state of Australia. Twenty-five registered support coordinators currently supporting Tasmanian NDIS participants participated in semi-structured interviews, with interview data coded and thematically analysed. Support coordinators unanimously reported difficulties connecting NDIS participants to allied health services, with a lack of registered allied health providers and providers with specialist skills and experience with complex disabilities. Support coordinators reported lengthy waiting lists for NDIS participants and compromised service quality, which in some cases led to a loss of participant functioning and future funding. Building positive relationships with allied health providers and persistence were perceived as critical to facilitate allied health service access, as was leaving no stone unturned and looking beyond the island for allied health services. Support coordinators play a critical role in connecting NDIS participants to available services through aggressively canvassing local allied health providers, as well as harnessing interstate allied health provider capacity through novel means. Broad workforce strategies are needed to recruit and retain allied health professionals to the Tasmanian NDIS registered provider market. Policy development is also needed to ensure quality and effective support coordination for NDIS participants.

Australia has one of the lowest per capita numbers of ophthalmologists among OECD countries, and they predominantly practise in metropolitan centres of the country. Increasing the size and distribution of the ophthalmology workforce is of critical importance. The objective of this review was to investigate the context of rural ophthalmology training and practise in Australia and how they relate to future ophthalmology workforce development. This scoping review was informed by Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and the methodology described by Coloqhuon et al. The search yielded 428 articles, of which 261 were screened for eligibility. Following the screening, a total of 75 articles were included in the study. Themes identified relating to rural ophthalmology training and practise included: Indigenous eye health; access and utilisation of ophthalmology-related services; service delivery models for ophthalmic care; ophthalmology workforce demographics; and ophthalmology workforce education and training for rural and remote practise. With an anticipated undersupply and maldistribution of ophthalmologists in the coming decade, efforts to improve training must focus on how to build a sizeable, fit-for-purpose workforce to address eye health needs across Australia. More research focusing on ophthalmology workforce distribution is needed to help identify evidence-based solutions for workforce maldistribution. Several strategies to better prepare the future ophthalmology workforce for rural practise were identified, including incorporating telehealth into ophthalmology training settings; collaborating with other health workers, especially optometrists and specialist nurses in eyecare delivery; and exposing trainees to more patients of Indigenous background.

Objective: To investigate the ophthalmology workforce distribution and location stability using Modified Monash Model category of remoteness. Methods: Whole of ophthalmologist workforce analysis using Australian Health Practitioner Registration Agency (AHPRA) data. Modified Monash Model (MMM) category was mapped to postcode of primary work location over a six-year period (2014 to 2019). MMM stability was investigated using survival analysis and competing risks regression. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Australia. Participants: Ophthalmologists registered with AHPRA. Main outcome measures: Retention within MMM category of primary work location. Results: A total of 948 ophthalmologists were identified (767 males, 181 females). Survival estimates indicate 84% of ophthalmologists remained working in MMM1, while 79% of ophthalmologists working in MMM2–MMM7remained in these regions during the six-year period. Conclusion: The Australian ophthalmology workforce shows a high level of location stability and is concentrated in metropolitan areas of Australia. Investment in policy initiatives designed to train, recruit and retain ophthalmologists in regional, rural and remote areas is needed to improve workforce distribution outside of metropolitan areas.