Internationally Educated Health Professionals in Canada: Navigating Three Policy Subsystems Along the Pathway to Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The integration of internationally educated health professionals (IEHPs) into the health workforces of their adopted countries is an issue that has challenged policy makers and policy scholars for decades. In this article, the authors explore the implications of the ideological underpinnings of the policy subsystems that IEHPs must navigate in seeking employment in Canada, with a focus on Ontario.Using a policy subsystem approach, in 2015 the authors analyzed a large preexisting data set composed of articles, governmental reports, Web sites, and transcripts of interviews and focus groups conducted in Ontario with IEHPs, health care executives, human resource managers, and job counselors to IEHPs. Through this analysis, they identified three policy subsystems-the immigration system, the educational and licensure/regulatory system, and the health human resources system-that conflict ideologically and, as a result, create barriers to IEHP integration.To make substantive progress on IEHP integration in Canada, four questions should be considered. First, how can researchers bring new research methods to bear to explore why no jurisdiction has been able to create an integrated pathway to practice for IEHPs? Second, how and to what end are the institutions within the three policy subsystems regulating the IEHP pathway to practice? Third, how might the educational and licensure/regulatory policy subsystem create alternative health care employment options for IEHPs? Finally, how might health professions educators pursue a leadership role in the creation of an overarching institution to manage the pathway to practice for IEHPs?
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".