A scoping review of research capability building: impact on health workforce attraction and retention in rural and remote Australia

Abstract Background Research capacity building (RCB) aims to enhance skills, embed evidence‐informed practice, and contribute to improving patient and workforce outcomes, particularly in rural and remote areas that are disproportionately affected by workforce shortages, limited resources, and geographic isolation. However, evidence on the impact of RCB on health workforce outcomes and the barriers and enablers influencing RCB implementation and its sustainability remains limited. Thus, we mapped the available evidence on the relationship between RCB and health workforce outcomes, including attraction and retention in rural and remote areas, identified key success factors and challenges, and highlighted strategies to inform future policy and practice. Methods A scoping review of published and publicly available grey literature from Australia (January 2000 to end of February 2025) was undertaken following the PRISMA–ScR 2020 statement and Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. CINAHL, MEDLINE, ProQuest Central, and Scopus online databases were searched, supplemented by Google, Google Scholar, and reference snowballing. The interconnectedness of the following domains was explored: (i) health professionals, (ii) research engagement and RCBs, (iii) workforce outcomes, such as attraction and retention, and (iv) rural/remote settings. Both qualitative and quantitative studies were included, with descriptive and thematic analyses conducted deductively and inductively following the socioecological model. Results Nineteen studies were included: nine qualitative, six quantitative, and four mixed methods. Three examined RCB implementations, three assessed the impact of RCB, one evaluated program effectiveness, and the remainder investigated multiple outcomes, including barriers and facilitators. Included studies reported that RCB initiatives were described as contributing to improved research skills, increased professional satisfaction, and perceived workforce retention, particularly when initiatives provided mentorship, protected time, and addressed locally relevant priorities. Common barriers identified limited organisational support, high workloads, and short‐term funding, while strong leadership, embedded research facilitators, and alignment with community needs were key enablers. Longitudinal evidence directly linking RCB initiatives to measurable improvements in workforce attraction and retention was scarce. Conclusions Our findings suggest a potential association between RCB and strengthened skills, increased professional satisfaction, and improved workforce stability in rural and remote areas. To sustain the impacts of RCB, the findings highlight the importance of locally relevant design, ensure adequate resourcing, and provide strong organisational leadership support. Finally, robust longitudinal evaluations of the impact of RCB on workforce attraction and retention will be essential to confirm and optimise its potential benefits.