A systematic review of the preferences of rural and remote youth for mental health service access: Telehealth versus face-to-face consultation.

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.

Review of the Health, Welfare and Care Workforce in Tasmania, Australia: 2011-2016.

BACKGROUND: On a per capita basis, rural communities are underserviced by health professionals when compared to metropolitan areas of Australia. However, most studies evaluating health workforce focus on discrete professional groups rather than the collective contribution of the range of health, care and welfare workers within communities. The objective of this study was therefore to illustrate a novel approach for evaluating the broader composition of the health, welfare and care (HWC) workforce in Tasmania, Australia, and its potential to inform the delivery of healthcare services within rural communities. METHODS: Census data (2011 and 2016) were obtained for all workers involved in health, welfare and care service provision in Tasmania and in each statistical level 4 area (SA4) of the state. Workers were grouped into seven categories: medicine, nursing, allied health, dentistry and oral health, health-other, welfare and carers. Data were aggregated for each category to obtain total headcount, total full time equivalent (FTE) positions and total annual hours of service per capita, with changes observed over the five-year period. RESULTS: All categories of the Tasmanian HWC workforce except welfare grew between 2011 and 2016. While this growth occurred in all SA4 regions across the state, the HWC workforce remained maldistributed, with more annual hours of service per capita provided in the Hobart area. Although the HWC workforce remained highly feminised, a move toward gender balance was observed in some categories, including medicine, dentistry and oral health, and carers. The HWC workforce also saw an increase in part-time workers across all categories. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting a broad approach to health workforce planning can better reflect the reality of healthcare service delivery. For underserviced rural communities, recognising the diverse range of workers who can contribute to the provision of health, welfare and care services offers the opportunity to realise existing workforce capacity and explore how 'total care' may be delivered by different combinations of health, welfare and care workers.