Background: Recruiting and retaining medical, nursing, and allied health professionals in rural and remote areas is a worldwide challenge, compromising continuity of care and population health outcomes in these locations. Specifically, pharmacists play an essential and accessible frontline healthcare role, and are often the first point of contact for health concerns. Despite several incentives, there remains a maldistribution and undersupply of pharmacists in rural and remote areas across many parts of the world. Although current systematic reviews have focussed on factors affecting pharmacists’ retention generally, literature specifically focused on rural pharmacist workforce in a global context remains limited. The aim of this systematic review is to identify factors associated with recruitment and retention of the pharmacist workforce in rural and remote settings. Better understanding of these contributors will inform more effective interventional strategies to resolve pharmacist workforce shortages. Methods: A systematic search of primary studies was conducted in online databases, including Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and PsycINFO, and by hand-searching of reference lists. Eligible studies were identified based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria and methodological quality criteria, utilising the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) and Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) checklists. Results: The final review included 13 studies, with quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods research design. Study-specific factors associated with recruitment and retention of pharmacists in rural practice were identified and grouped into five main themes: geographic and family-related, economic and resources, scope of practice or skills development, the practice environment, and community and practice support factors. Conclusions: The results provide critical insights into the complexities of rural recruitment and retention of pharmacists and confirms the need for flexible yet multifaceted responses to overcoming rural pharmacist workforce challenges. Overall, the results provide an opportunity for rural communities and health services to better identify key strengths and challenges unique to the rural and remote pharmacist workforce that may be augmented to guide more focussed recruitment and retention endeavours.

Introduction: Practice‐based research is essential in enhancing medication knowledge, quality use of medicines, the scope of the pharmacy profession and improving patient outcomes. This systematic review aims to uncover the attitudes of hospital pharmacists towards practice‐based research and their perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to undertaking practice‐based research.Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases from 1 January 2000 to 11 March 2021 was conducted. Peer‐reviewed empirical studies exploring hospital pharmacists’ perceptions of – as well as barriers and facilitators to – practice‐based research were included and a descriptive synthesis used to identify common themes.Results: Nine studies were included in this review. Barriers and facilitators across four broad themes were related to pharmacist capacity and capability, workplace environment, research resources, and research culture. Hospital pharmacists had a high interest in conducting research, but limited research experience. Common barriers identified were lack of time, workplace support, funding, research culture, and competing priorities. Having a post‐graduate qualification and a positive attitude towards research facilitated research participation. Departmental support, designated research time and creation of research networks and forums were seen as facilitators for practice‐based research.Conclusion: Hospital pharmacists recognise the importance of practice‐based research in improving knowledge, patient care and advancing pharmacy practice. However, large variation has been reported for their confidence and experience in practice‐based research. Building research capacity and capability by supporting post‐graduate research qualification, providing designated time and creating research networks may strengthen the research culture amongst hospital pharmacists.

Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in Australia is supported by a number of factors, including enabling national policies, sectoral clinical governance frameworks and surveillance programmes, clinician-led educational initiatives and health services research. A One Health research programme undertaken by the National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship (NCAS) in Australia has combined antimicrobial prescribing surveillance with qualitative research focused on developing antimicrobial use-related situational analyses and scoping AMS implementation options across healthcare settings, including metropolitan hospitals, regional and rural hospitals, aged care homes, general practice clinics and companion animal and agricultural veterinary practices. Qualitative research involving clinicians across these diverse settings in Australia has contributed to improved understanding of contextual factors that influence antimicrobial prescribing, and barriers and facilitators of AMS implementation. This body of research has been underpinned by a commitment to supplementing ‘big data’ on antimicrobial prescribing practices, where available, with knowledge of the sociocultural, technical, environmental and other factors that shape prescribing behaviours. NCAS provided a unique opportunity for exchange and cross-pollination across the human and animal health programme domains. It has facilitated synergistic approaches to AMS research and education, and implementation of resources and stewardship activities. The NCAS programme aimed to synergistically combine quantitative and qualitative approaches to AMS research. In this article, we describe the qualitative findings of the first 5 years.

Introduction: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has been recognised as an urgent health priority, both nationally and internationally. Australian hospitals are required to have an antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) program, yet the necessary resources may not be available in regional, rural or remote hospitals. This review will describe models for AMS programs that have been introduced in regional, rural or remote hospitals internationally and showcase achievements and key considerations that may guide Australian hospitals in establishing or sustaining AMS programs in the regional, rural or remote hospital setting. Methods: A narrative review was undertaken based on literature retrieved from searches in Ovid Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and the grey literature. 'Cited' and 'cited by' searches were undertaken to identify additional articles. Articles were included if they described an AMS program in the regional, rural or remote hospital setting (defined as a bed size less than 300 and located in a non-metropolitan setting). Results: Eighteen articles were selected for inclusion. The AMS initiatives described were categorised into models designed to address two different challenges relating to AMS program delivery in regional, rural and remote hospitals. This included models to enable regional, rural and remote hospital staff to manage AMS programs in the absence of on-site infectious diseases (ID) trained experts. Non-ID doctor-led, pharmacist-led and externally led initiatives were identified. Lack of pharmacist resources was recognised as a core barrier to the further development of a pharmacist-led model. The second challenge was access to timely off-site expert ID clinical advice when required. Examples where this had been overcome included models utilising visiting ID specialists, telehealth and hospital network structures. Formalisation of such arrangements is important to clarify the accountabilities of all parties and enhance the quality of the service. Information technology was identified as a facilitator to a number of these models. The variance in availability of information technology between hospitals and cost limits the adoption of uniform programs to support AMS. Conclusion: Despite known barriers, regional, rural and remote hospitals have implemented AMS programs. The examples highlighted show that difficulty recruiting ID specialists should not inhibit AMS programs in regional, rural and remote hospitals, as much of the day-to-day work of AMS can be done by non-experts. Capacity building and the strengthening of networks are core features of these programs. Descriptions of how Australian regional, rural and remote hospitals have structured and supported their AMS programs would add to the existing body of knowledge sourced from international examples. Research into AMS programs predominantly led by GPs and nursing staff will provide further possible models for regional, rural and remote hospitals.