The needs-based health workforce planning method: a systematic scoping review of analytical applications
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Although the theoretical underpinnings and analytical framework for needs-based health workforce planning are well developed and tested, its uptake in national planning processes is still limited. Towards the development of open-access needs-based planning model for national workforce planning, we conducted a systematic scoping review of analytical applications of needs-based health workforce models. Guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses-extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist, a systematic scoping review was conducted. A systematic search of peer-reviewed literature published in English was undertaken across several databases. Papers retrieved were assessed against predefined inclusion criteria, critically appraised, extracted and synthesized. Twenty-five papers were included, which showed increasing uptake of the needs-based health workforce modelling, with 84% of the studies published within the last decade (2010-20). Three countries (Canada, Australia and England) accounted for 48% of the publications included whilst four studies (16%) were based on low-and-middle-income countries. Only three of the studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Most of the studies (36%) reported analytical applications for specific disease areas/programs at sub-national levels; 20% focused on the health system need for particular categories of health workers, and only two (8%) reported the analytical application of the needs-based health workforce approach at the level of a national health system across several disease areas/programs. Amongst the studies that conducted long-term projections, the time horizon of the projection was an average of 17 years, ranging from 3 to 33 years. Most of these studies had a minimum time horizon of 10 years. Across the studies, we synthesized six typical methodological considerations for advancing needs-based health workforce modelling. As countries aspire to align health workforce investments with population health needs, the need for some level of methodological harmonization, open-access needs-based models and guidelines for policy-oriented country-level use is not only imperative but urgent.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».