Experience of overseas‐trained health professionals in rural and remote areas of destination countries: A literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to review and synthesise existing literature that investigated the experience of overseas-trained health professionals (OTHPs) in rural and remote areas of destination countries. A systematic literature review was conducted using electronic databases and manual search of studies published from January 2004 to February 2011. Data were analysed from the final 17 original report articles that met the inclusion criteria. The reviewed research studies were conducted in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the USA. Overseas-trained medical practitioners were the most frequently researched (n = 14); two studies involved nurses and one study included several health professionals. Three main themes emerged from the review and these were: (i) expectations; (ii) cultural diversity; and (iii) orientation and integration to rural and remote health work environment. The OTHPs were expected to possess the appropriate professional and cultural skills while they themselves expected recognition of their previous experiences and adequate organisational orientation and support. A welcoming and accepting community coupled with a relaxed rural lifestyle and the joy of continued patient care resulted in successful integration and contributed to increased staff retention rates. Recognition of expectations and cultural diversity by all parties and comprehensive orientation with sufficient organisational support are important elements in the integration of OTHPs and subsequent delivery of quality health care to people living in rural and remote areas.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".