MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033376213 · doi:10.1186/s12960-020-00484-w

Human resources for health interventions in high- and middle-income countries: findings of an evidence review

2020· review· en· W3033376213 on OpenAlex

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 · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSaudi Health Council
KeywordsWorkforcePsychological interventionSocial policyHealth services researchHealth administrationHealth human resourcesHealth policyHuman resourcesPopulationGrey literatureMedicineHealth carePublic healthEconomic growthEnvironmental healthNursingPolitical scienceEconomicsMEDLINEManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many high- and middle-income countries face challenges in developing and maintaining a health workforce which can address changing population health needs. They have experimented with interventions which overlap with but have differences to those documented in low- and middle-income countries, where many of the recent literature reviews were undertaken. The aim of this paper is to fill that gap. It examines published and grey evidence on interventions to train, recruit, retain, distribute, and manage an effective health workforce, focusing on physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals in high- and middle-income countries. A search of databases, websites, and relevant references was carried out in March 2019. One hundred thirty-one reports or papers were selected for extraction, using a template which followed a health labor market structure. Many studies were cross-cutting; however, the largest number of country studies was focused on Canada, Australia, and the United States of America. The studies were relatively balanced across occupational groups. The largest number focused on availability, followed by performance and then distribution. Study numbers peaked in 2013-2016. A range of study types was included, with a high number of descriptive studies. Some topics were more deeply documented than others-there is, for example, a large number of studies on human resources for health (HRH) planning, educational interventions, and policies to reduce in-migration, but much less on topics such as HRH financing and task shifting. It is also evident that some policy actions may address more than one area of challenge, but equally that some policy actions may have conflicting results for different challenges. Although some of the interventions have been more used and documented in relation to specific cadres, many of the lessons appear to apply across them, with tailoring required to reflect individuals' characteristics, such as age, location, and preferences. Useful lessons can be learned from these higher-income settings for low- and middle-income settings. Much of the literature is descriptive, rather than evaluative, reflecting the organic way in which many HRH reforms are introduced. A more rigorous approach to testing HRH interventions is recommended to improve the evidence in this area of health systems strengthening.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.322 · 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