Scoping review about the professional integration of internationally educated health professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the last decade, Canada has been one of the top destination countries for internationally educated health professionals (IEHPs). After arrival, many struggle to professionally recertify and secure employment in their field. Considerable funding has been allocated to the development of new policies and programs to facilitate IEHPs' professional integration. Literature about the professional integration process and the available policies and programs is abundant, not synthesized and dispersed among a wide range of health professions and the academic and grey literature. This, in combination with the sustained policy relevance, contributed to the timeliness and necessity for conducting this scoping review. METHODS: We used an updated version of Arskey and O'Malley's six-stage scoping review framework to summarize the amount, types, sources and distribution of the literature. Findings were summarized numerically and thematically. The themes included pre-immigration activities and programs, early arrival activities and programs, professional recertification and workplace integration. RESULTS: Four hundred and seven published sources from 2000-2012 were retained for data charting and extraction. Most focused on international medical graduates or internationally educated nurses. IEHPs from the allied health professions were underrepresented. Methodologically, about one quarter of the papers are empirical studies with the next largest category being reports from professional certification bodies and educational institutions. The overarching concern is with workplace integration, professional recognition and bridging programs. Nursing dominates the literature about pre-immigration activities and programs whereas the literature about early arrival activities and programs, professional recertification and workplace integration is dominated by medicine. Although the literature does contain some information for IEHPs in the allied health professions, the thematic analysis did not identify a clear trend. A notable increase in the number of publications was present. CONCLUSIONS: The literature about IEHPs' professional integration in Canada is abundant. This reflects the sustained policy relevance of the recruitment, recognition and professional integration for IEHPs in Canada. This demonstrates that Canada provides an excellent case for this review from which the findings may have international significance. Nevertheless, little information is available about the effectiveness of the policies and programs available to facilitate IEHP integration, an area that requires further consideration.
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 | 0.031 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".