Table 4 Characteristics of studies included in the review

Allan et al., 2007; Australia

Qualitative; convenience sampling of pharmacists and social workers; Jul – Aug 2006

1: pharmacists

n = 6 pharmacists and n = 5 social workers (NSW; six rural communities with populations < 5,000)

Initial contact via telephone; information and consent form via mail; Qualitative in-depth semi-structured interview

Allan et al., 2008; Australia

Qualitative; convenience sampling of pharmacists and social workers; Jul – Aug 2006

1: pharmacists

n = 6 pharmacists and n = 5 social workers (NSW; six rural communities with populations < 5,000)

Initial contact via telephone; information and consent form via mail; Qualitative in-depth semi-structured interview

Anzenberger, 2011; Ukraine

Mixed method; quantitative with questionnaires (Jul 2009) and qualitative design; (Sep 2009 – March 2011)

3: mixed

n = 58 pharmacy students in 2 final years in quantitative study; n = 10 volunteer students who were not included in the quantitative investigation and 15 academic and scientific staff in the individual interviews

Participants in the quantitative investigation were recruited randomly from classrooms. They were fully informed about the research and invited to complete a questionnaire. Students for the qualitative investigation were recruited via advertising on the university notice board, and staff-member participants were nominated the second author (a faculty member). The individual interviews were of 60 min duration and conducted in English using a professional translator for the Russian translation

Glasser, 2006; US

Quantitative; time not reported

3: mixed

n = 22 hospital Chief Executive Officers regarding their views on recruitment and retention of rural health workforce, i.e., pharmacists, nurses, physicians, etc.

Mail survey; 2-page questionnaires

Harding et al., 2006; Australia

Qualitative; Jul – Sep 2002

1: pharmacists

n = 12 community pharmacists

Semi-structured in-depth interviews with n = 11 pharmacists and 1 telephone interview. (nationwide)

Hays et al., 2020; Australia

Qualitative; time not reported

1: pharmacists

n = 12 pharmacists (early middle and late career represented)

Semi-structured interviews using

purposive non-probability sampling; the interview questions were piloted with two pharmacists and minor changes to language were made

Fleming and Spark, 2011; Australia

Quantitative; Jul – Aug 2009

1: pharmacists

n = 202 early career pharmacists (Victoria) living in Vic 2009; registered with pharmacy Board of Victoria after 1 October 2004; A stratified sample of all 264 rural pharmacists and a random sample of 350 major city pharmacists were taken from the population.

Mail survey with questionnaire; Cognitive interviews, with six pharmacists, were conducted to pre-test the questionnaire

Smith, 2013; Australia

Mixed method; Aug 2009

1: pharmacists

n = 652 pharmacists in quantitative study; n = 143 pharmacists in focus group; n = 83 pharmacists in the semi-structure interview (Victoria)

A qualitative national consultation and a quantitative rural and remote pharmacist workforce survey. Semi-structured interviews (n = 83) and focus groups (n = 15, 143 participants) were conducted with stakeholders with an interest in rural and remote pharmacy, practising rural/remote pharmacists and pharmacy educators, and as well as with peak pharmacy organisations.

Taylor et al., 2019; Australia

Mixed method; time not reported

1: pharmacists

n = 92 pharmacists with 12 survey participants undertaking interviews

A questionnaire and a semi-structured in-depth interviews. The questionnaire was distributed to rural pharmacist networks using a purposive nonprobability sampling method; The invitation to participate was provided via multiple methods including email, newsletter distribution and Facebook posts. Interviews via telephone were conducted with 12 survey participants, who volunteered to contribute

Pearson et al., 2010; Canada

Quantitative; spring 2007

2: pharmacy student/recent graduates

n = 102 graduate pharmacists

Paper-based distribution of questionnaires. The questionnaire was prepared based on findings from the literature and from interviews with graduates from the previous year (n = 12), who also pilot tested a draft questionnaire.

Woodend et al., 2004; Canada

Quantitative; 2001

1: pharmacists

n = 1019 pharmacists

The 8-page survey was mailed to a random sample of 2524 pharmacists living in rural and remote Canadian communities

Ling et al., 2018; New Zealand

Quantitative; time not reported

2: pharmacy student/recent graduates

n = 3121 domestic health professional graduates receiving New Zealand Government Student Loan from 2006–2016: pharmacy (n = 862; 27.6 %)

Exit surveys; online or paper-based format was not specified.

Daniels et al., 2007; US

Quantitative design with questionnaire; time not reported

3: mixed

n = 765 graduates from 12 health professional programs in New Mexico graduated between 1991 and 2002: pharmacy (n = 178; 23.3 %)

Mail survey (7-page survey); The survey was piloted among graduates who were in practice and revised following the pilot and ensuing focus group.

*Participant group: 1: pharmacists (studies reporting factors for pharmacy separately with other health professionals are eligible); 2: pharmacy student/recent graduates, and 3: pharmacists or pharmacy student/recent graduates under the umbrella of and mixed in with Allied health practitioners