There is consistent evidence of who is more likely to practise in a rural location; however, current selection criteria used by most specialty colleges do not reflect this. In fact, our evidence-based perspective article shows how specialty selection is likely driving many rural interested graduates away from rural pathways, perhaps never to return post-fellowship. The Australian Government has strongly invested in rural training, with greatly increased opportunities for end-to-end pathways and raised awareness of social accountability of training programs. However, specialty training pathways have been slow to change the selection criteria, which should align with supporting workforce diversity and distribution into rural areas. We highlight potentially untapped opportunities to directly address workforce distribution that require negligible financial costs to change criteria and processes.
Publication of your online response is
subject to the Medical Journal of Australia's editorial discretion. You
will be notified by email within five working days should your response be
accepted.
Abstract
There is consistent evidence of who is more likely to practise in a rural location; however, current selection criteria used by most specialty colleges do not reflect this. In fact, our evidence-based perspective article shows how specialty selection is likely driving many rural interested graduates away from rural pathways, perhaps never to return post-fellowship. The Australian Government has strongly invested in rural training, with greatly increased opportunities for end-to-end pathways and raised awareness of social accountability of training programs. However, specialty training pathways have been slow to change the selection criteria, which should align with supporting workforce diversity and distribution into rural areas. We highlight potentially untapped opportunities to directly address workforce distribution that require negligible financial costs to change criteria and processes.