Survey reveals workforce dynamics in speech pathology and allied health professions in ACT, suggesting needs for structured support.
Objective: To establish a data set of the speech pathology workforce in the Australian Capital Territory, addressing gaps in workforce data caused by the absence of National Registration and Accreditation Scheme regulation. Methods: A 21-question online survey was adapted and distributed by subject matter- and health workforce experts, based on existing workforce survey data for National Registration and Accreditation Scheme regulated allied health professionals, and previous allied health and speech pathology workforce surveys in other Australian health jurisdictions. Descriptive statistics and regression analysis were performed to examine the relationship between demographic and employment characteristics. Results: The survey revealed an emerging speech pathology workforce requiring structured supervision and support, that is inequitably distributed across the Australia Capital Territory. The collected demographic and basic employment characteristics of speech pathologists in the Australian Capital Territory were largely consistent with 2021 Census data and Speech Pathology Australia estimates. The survey provided greater granularity of speech pathology workforce data that aligns more closely with data sets used for other AH professions under the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme. Conclusions: This research has established a purpose-built data set of the speech pathology workforce in the Australian Capital Territory. The granularity of this data can better inform workforce planning for speech pathology and other allied health professions not covered by the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme. A public online register based on this framework for speech pathologists and allied health professions would enhance the understanding of critical workforce dynamics over time and allow more robust planning of the allied health workforce.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anderson et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: