Health workforce distribution in rural Australia: A comparative spatial analysis of need and availability across the Modified Monash Model

BackgroundHealth and rehabilitation workforce shortages persist across rural Australia. Quality data is required to plan workforce distribution, yet most analyses either do not compare workforce with population, or overlook population-specific data, which may influence service demand.ObjectiveTo compare the distribution of registered health professionals across Modified Monash Model [MM] remoteness levels with population health and social indicators to assess alignment between workforce availability and population need.MethodsWe used 2021 Census population data and National Health Workforce Dataset counts, aligning Census SA1 data to MM levels using ArcGIS. Spatial patterns were mapped, and all data cleaning and analysis were completed in Deepnote using Python.ResultsLong-term illness was more common in regional centres and rural towns (54-60%) than in metropolitan areas (46%). Very remote regions reported lower illness prevalence (31-41%), likely reflecting under-reporting. Socioeconomic disadvantage increased with remoteness, with over half of residents in very remote areas in the lowest income quintile. While workforce-to-population ratios appeared similar across MM1-3, substantial shortfalls emerged in MM2-5 when adjusted for higher health and social care needs. Small rural towns demonstrated the lowest availability of most health professions, despite high illness and disability rates.ConclusionsRural and remote Australians experience higher health burdens and socioeconomic disadvantage, yet registered health workforce distribution does not reflect these needs. Addressing this mismatch will require targeted policy reform, strengthened workforce incentives, and investment in care models designed to improve service availability across rural and remote communities.