Search

Abstract Background Choosing the appropriate definition of rural area is critical to ensuring health resources are carefully targeted to support the communities needing them most. This study aimed at reviewing various definitions and demonstrating how the application of different rural area definitions implies geographic doctor distribution to inform the development of a more fit-for-purpose rural area definition for health workforce research and policies. Methods We reviewed policy documents and literature to identify the rural area definitions in Indonesian health research and policies. First, we used the health policy triangle to critically summarize the contexts, contents, actors and process of developing the rural area definitions. Then, we compared each definition’s strengths and weaknesses according to the norms of appropriate rural area definitions (i.e. explicit, meaningful, replicable, quantifiable and objective, derived from high-quality data and not frequently changed; had on-the-ground validity and clear boundaries). Finally, we validated the application of each definition to describe geographic distribution of doctors by estimating doctor-to-population ratios and the Theil-L decomposition indices using each definition as the unit of analysis. Results Three definitions were identified, all applied at different levels of geographic areas: “urban/rural” villages (Central Bureau of Statistics [CBS] definition), “remote/non-remote” health facilities (Ministry of Health [MoH] definition) and “less/more developed” districts (presidential/regulated definition). The CBS and presidential definitions are objective and derived from nationwide standardized calculations on high-quality data, whereas the MoH definition is more subjective, as it allows local government to self-nominate the facilities to be classified as remote. The CBS and presidential definition criteria considered key population determinants for doctor availability, such as population density and economic capacity, as well as geographic accessibility. Analysis of national doctor data showed that remote, less developed and rural areas (according to the respective definitions) had lower doctor-to-population ratios than their counterparts. In all definitions, the Theil-L-within ranged from 76 to 98%, indicating that inequality of doctor density between these districts was attributed mainly to within-group rather than between-group differences. Between 2011 and 2018, Theil-L-within decreased when calculated using the MoH and presidential definitions, but increased when the CBS definition was used. Conclusion Comparing the content of off-the-shelf rural area definitions critically and how the distribution of health resource differs when analysed using different definitions is invaluable to inform the development of fit-for-purpose rural area definitions for future health policy.

Abstract Background More than 60% of the world’s rural population live in the Asia-Pacific region. Of these, more than 90% reside in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Asia-Pacific LMICs rural populations are more impoverished and have poorer access to medical care, placing them at greater risk of poor health outcomes. Understanding factors associated with doctors working in rural areas is imperative in identifying effective strategies to improve rural medical workforce supply in Asia-Pacific LMICs. Method We performed a scoping review of peer-reviewed and grey literature from Asia-Pacific LMICs (1999 to 2019), searching major online databases and web-based resources. The literature was synthesized based on the World Health Organization Global Policy Recommendation categories for increasing access to rural health workers. Result Seventy-one articles from 12 LMICs were included. Most were about educational factors (82%), followed by personal and professional support (57%), financial incentives (45%), regulatory (20%), and health systems (13%). Rural background showed strong association with both rural preference and actual work in most studies. There was a paucity in literature on the effect of rural pathway in medical education such as rural-oriented curricula, rural clerkships and internship; however, when combined with other educational and regulatory interventions, they were effective. An additional area, atop of the WHO categories was identified, relating to health system factors, such as governance, health service organization and financing. Studies generally were of low quality—frequently overlooking potential confounding variables, such as respondents’ demographic characteristics and career stage—and 39% did not clearly define ‘rural’. Conclusion This review is consistent with, and extends, most of the existing evidence on effective strategies to recruit and retain rural doctors while specifically informing the range of evidence within the Asia-Pacific LMIC context. Evidence, though confined to 12 countries, is drawn from 20 years’ research about a wide range of factors that can be targeted to strengthen strategies to increase rural medical workforce supply in Asia-Pacific LMICs. Multi-faceted approaches were evident, including selecting more students into medical school with a rural background, increasing public-funded universities, in combination with rural-focused education and rural scholarships, workplace and rural living support and ensuring an appropriately financed rural health system. The review identifies the need for more studies in a broader range of Asia-Pacific countries, which expand on all strategy areas, define rural clearly, use multivariate analyses, and test how various strategies relate to doctor’s career stages.

Background: Doctor shortages in remote areas of Indonesia are amongst challenges to provide equitable healthcare access. Understanding factors associated with doctors' work location is essential to overcome geographic maldistribution. Focused analyses of doctors' early-career years can provide evidence to strengthen home-grown remote workforce development.Method: This is a cross-sectional study of early-career (post-internship years 1–5) Indonesian doctors, involving an online self-administered survey on demographic characteristics, and; locations of upbringing, medical clerkship (placement during medical school), internship, and current work. Multivariate logistic regression was used to test factors associated with current work in remote districts.Results: Of 3,176 doctors actively working as clinicians, 8.9% were practicing in remote districts. Compared with their non-remote counterparts, doctors working in remote districts were more likely to be male (OR 1.5,CI 1.1–2.1) or unmarried (OR 1.9,CI 1.3–3.0), have spent more than half of their childhood in a remote district (OR 19.9,CI 12.3–32.3), have completed a remote clerkship (OR 2.2,CI 1.1–4.4) or internship (OR 2.0,CI 1.3–3.0), currently participate in rural incentive programs (OR 18.6,CI 12.8–26.8) or have previously participated in these (OR 2.0,CI 1.3–3.0), be a government employee (OR 3.2,CI 2.1–4.9), or have worked rurally or remotely post-internship but prior to current position (OR 1.9,CI 1.2–3.0).Conclusion: Our results indicate that building the Indonesian medical workforce in remote regions could be facilitated by investing in strategies to select medical students with a remote background, delivering more remote clerkships during the medical course, deploying more doctors in remote internships and providing financial incentives. Additional considerations include expanding government employment opportunities in rural areas to achieve a more equitable geographic distribution of doctors in Indonesia.