Allied health professionals' intention to work for the National Health Service: a study of stayers, leavers and returners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there has been a recent squeeze on staff costs, it continues to be important to offer graduating clinical staff National Health Service (NHS) employment in order to maintain the long-term strength of the service. In addition, the experiences of the Canadian nursing profession suggest that complacency about an improving recruitment situation can lead to problems. Consequently, the objective of this study was to identify what influences allied health professionals' (AHPs) intention to work for the NHS. A postal survey was sent to members of four Allied Health Professions equally (N = 4800), targeting Stayers in, Leavers from, and Returners to, the NHS. One thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine questionnaires were returned giving an overall response rate of 40%. Stayers' intention to remain in the NHS was influenced by continuing professional development opportunities, confidence that they can find NHS work, commitment to their profession, a sense of moral obligation and a belief that other people important to them think it is a good idea. Returners' intention is influenced by similar factors as Stayers. Leavers are influenced by similar factors as Stayers/Returners but to a lesser extent. The study shows that perceptions of various NHS work characteristics, which lead to reasonably positive attitudes towards the NHS, do not necessarily translate into intention to work for it. The study also shows that intention to work for the NHS is not solely dependent on perceptions of NHS jobs and that career-decision-making is a social process, with the opinions of people who are important to AHPs also influencing career decisions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".