Relevance and Effectiveness of the WHO Global Code Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel – Ethical and Systems Perspectives
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The relevance and effectiveness of the World Health Organization's (WHO's) Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel is being reviewed in 2015. The Code, which is a set of ethical norms and principles adopted by the World Health Assembly (WHA) in 2010, urges members states to train and retain the health personnel they need, thereby limiting demand for international migration, especially from the under-staffed health systems in low- and middle-income countries. Most countries failed to submit a first report in 2012 on implementation of the Code, including those source countries whose health systems are most under threat from the recruitment of their doctors and nurses, often to work in 4 major destination countries: the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. Political commitment by source country Ministers of Health needs to have been achieved at the May 2015 WHA to ensure better reporting by these countries on Code implementation for it to be effective. This paper uses ethics and health systems perspectives to analyse some of the drivers of international recruitment. The balance of competing ethics principles, which are contained in the Code's articles, reflects a tension that was evident during the drafting of the Code between 2007 and 2010. In 2007-2008, the right of health personnel to migrate was seen as a preeminent principle by US representatives on the Global Council which co-drafted the Code. Consensus on how to balance competing ethical principles--giving due recognition on the one hand to the obligations of health workers to the countries that trained them and the need for distributive justice given the global inequities of health workforce distribution in relation to need, and the right to migrate on the other hand--was only possible after President Obama took office in January 2009. It is in the interests of all countries to implement the Global Code and not just those that are losing their health personnel through international recruitment, given that it calls on all member states "to educate, retain and sustain a health workforce that is appropriate for their (need) ..." (Article 5.4), to ensure health systems' sustainability. However, in some wealthy destination countries, this means tackling national inequities and poorly designed health workforce strategies that result in foreign-trained doctors being recruited to work among disadvantaged populations and in primary care settings, allowing domestically trained doctors work in more attractive hospital settings.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,407 | 0,331 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,012 | 0,073 |
| Communication savante | 0,034 | 0,021 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,024 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,012 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».