MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083435065 · doi:10.1177/1355819613505746

Incentives for improving human resource outcomes in health care: overview of reviews

2013· review· en· W2083435065 on OpenAlexaff
Renée Misfeldt, Jordana Linder, Jana Lait, Shelanne Hepp, Gail Armitage, Karen Jackson, Esther Suter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Services Research & Policy · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveStaffingHuman resourcesWorkloadAbsenteeismHealth careBusinessAutonomyEvidence-based practiceHuman resource managementWork (physics)MedicineNursingKnowledge managementPsychologyEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To review the effectiveness of financial and nonfinancial incentives for improving the benefits (recruitment, retention, job satisfaction, absenteeism, turnover, intent to leave) of human resource strategies in health care. METHODS: Overview of 33 reviews published from 2000 to 2012 summarized the effectiveness of incentives for improving human resource outcomes in health care (such as job satisfaction, turnover rates, recruitment, and retention) that met the inclusion criteria and were assessed by at least two research members using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews quality assessment tool. Of those, 13 reviews met the quality criteria and were included in the overview. Information was extracted on a description of the review, the incentives considered, and their impact on human resource outcomes. The information on the relationship between incentives and outcomes was assessed and synthesized. RESULTS: While financial compensation is the best-recognized approach within an incentives package, there is evidence that health care practitioners respond positively to incentives linked to the quality of the working environments including opportunities for professional development, improved work life balance, interprofessional collaboration, and professional autonomy. There is less evidence that workload factors such as job demand, restructured staffing models, re-engineered work designs, ward practices, employment status, or staff skill mix have an impact on human resource outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, evidence of effective strategies for improving outcomes is mixed. While financial incentives play a key role in enhancing outcomes, they need to be considered as only one strategy within an incentives package. There is stronger evidence that improving the work place environment and instituting mechanisms for work-life balance need to be part of an overall strategy to improve outcomes for health care practitioners.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.248
GPT teacher head0.590
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health Services Research & PolicySame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207