Home › Research › Disparities
Training for dementia care and support in rural and remote Australia: appraisals from a nationwide workforce survey
John A. Woods, Janet Valentine, Kira Gusterson, Kathryn W. Fitzgerald, Katrina P. Fyfe, Myles Clarkson Fletcher, Mohammad Hamiduzzaman, Pascale Dettwiller et al.. BMC Geriatrics, 2025-06-06
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
There were 558 respondents from residential aged care, community/primary care and hospital settings across all Australian states and territories. The majority (61.7%) were from degree-requiring health professional/management positions, and 27.4% were certificate-requiring workers (predominantly personal care assistants and enrolled nurses). A majority considered that the dementia care provided in their current workplace was inadequate overall and specifically in relation to First Nations and culturally and linguistically diverse clients. Respondents noted organisational resource limitations impeding workers' participation in training, and insufficient opportunities for input into determining priorities for training content and delivery. Hospital/acute care-based workers had the least favourable self-ratings and represented the highest proportion of respondents reporting shortcomings of training. Health and aged care workers in rural and remote Australia perceive substantial shortcomings in the dementia care training provided by their workplace.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Woods, J. A., Valentine, J., Gusterson, K., Fitzgerald, K. W., Fyfe, K. P., Fletcher, M. C., et al. (2025). Training for dementia care and support in rural and remote Australia: appraisals from a nationwide workforce survey. BMC Geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-025-06078-2
Vancouver
Woods JA, Valentine J, Gusterson K, Fitzgerald KW, Fyfe KP, Fletcher MC, et al. Training for dementia care and support in rural and remote Australia: appraisals from a nationwide workforce survey. BMC Geriatrics. 2025. doi:10.1186/s12877-025-06078-2. PMID: 40481452.
BibTeX
@article{woods2025-40481452,
author = {Woods, John A. and Valentine, Janet and Gusterson, Kira and Fitzgerald, Kathryn W. and Fyfe, Katrina P. and Fletcher, Myles Clarkson and Hamiduzzaman, Mohammad and Dettwiller, Pascale and others},
title = {{Training for dementia care and support in rural and remote Australia: appraisals from a nationwide workforce survey}},
journal = {BMC Geriatrics},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1186/s12877-025-06078-2},
pmid = {40481452},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-025-06078-2}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- There were 558 respondents from residential aged care, community/primary care and hospital settings across all Australian states and territories.
- The majority (61.7%) were from degree-requiring health professional/management positions, and 27.4% were certificate-requiring workers (predominantly personal care assistants and enrolled nurses).
- A majority considered that the dementia care provided in their current workplace was inadequate overall and specifically in relation to First Nations and culturally and linguistically diverse clients.
- Respondents noted organisational resource limitations impeding workers' participation in training, and insufficient opportunities for input into determining priorities for training content and delivery.
- Hospital/acute care-based workers had the least favourable self-ratings and represented the highest proportion of respondents reporting shortcomings of training.
Why it matters
This survey of health and aged care workers in rural and remote Australia found that most considered dementia care in their workplace inadequate and training insufficient. It addresses care quality and training gaps, not treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →
Study details
- Effect size61.7%; 27.4%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC Geriatrics) |
| Journal's citation record | 2 / 4 | BMC Geriatrics: journal h-index 153 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 1 / 7 | Cited 1 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.3 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025 |
| Impact for its field and year | 2 / 6 | Cited 1.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 1 / 6 | Cited by 1 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 1 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 3 / 4 | Last-listed author Sandra Thompson: h-index 54 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | The University of Queensland: institution h-index 1,516 (OpenAlex) |
| Multicenter collaboration | 2 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 6 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40481452) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 41 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Later studies that cite this one
1 study in the alzhub library lists this one in its references.
Related studies in Disparities
Also tagged “prevalence”
1,223 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,223 tagged studies.