MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956834976 · doi:10.1186/s12960-019-0393-1

Medical diaspora: an underused entity in low- and middle-income countries’ health system development

2019· article· en· W2956834976 on OpenAlex
Seble Frehywot, Chulwoo Park, Alexandra C Infanzon

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Resources for Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial policyHealth services researchHealth administrationLow and middle income countriesHealth informaticsDiasporaPublic healthHealth economicsHealth policyEconomic growthBusinessMedicineDeveloping countryPolitical scienceNursingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: At present, over 215 million people live outside their countries of birth, many of which are referred to as diaspora-those that live in host countries but maintain strong sentimental and material links with their countries of origin, their homelands. The critical shortage of Human Resources for Health (HRH) in many developing countries remains a barrier to attaining their health system goals. Usage of medical diaspora can be one way to meet this need. A growing number of policy-makers have come to acknowledge that medical diaspora can play a vital role in the development of their homeland's health workforce capacity. To date, no inventory of low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) medical diaspora organizations has been done. This paper intends to develop an inventory that is as complete as possible, of the names of the LMIC medical diaspora organizations in the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia and addresses their interests and roles in building the health system of their country of origin. METHODS: The researchers utilized six steps for their research methodology: (1) development of rationale for choosing the four destination countries (the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia); (2) identification of low- and middle-income countries (LMIC); (3) web search for the name of LMIC medical diaspora organization in the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia through the search engines of PubMed, Scopus, Google, Google Scholar, and LexisNexis; (4) development of inclusion and exclusion criteria and creation of a medical diaspora organizations' inventory list (Table 1) and corresponding maps (Figures 1, 2, and 3). Using decision criteria, reviewers narrowed the number to a final 89 organizations; (5) synthesis of information to collect the general as well as the unique roles the medical diaspora organizations play in building health systems; and (6) developing inventory of respective LMIC governments' diaspora offices (Table 2) to identify units/departments that facilitate diaspora's work. RESULT: In total, the authors found 89 medical diaspora organizations in 4 main countries: in the United States of America 60, in the United Kingdom 24, in Australia 3, and in Canada 2. These medical diaspora organizations tend to have three focuses: providing healthcare services, training, and when needed humanitarian aid to their home country; creating a social or professional network of migrant physicians (i.e., simply to bring together people with an ethnic and professional commonality) and; supplying improved and culturally sensitive healthcare to the migrant population within the host country. Sixty-eight LMIC countries have established a diaspora office within their government office. It is also equally important to note that many policy-makers may lack knowledge of models for medical diaspora engagement or of valuable lessons learned by other governments about working with diaspora. CONCLUSIONS: The medical diaspora remains an underutilized resource in both health systems policy formulation and program implementation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.363 · 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