Alternative career pathways for international medical graduates towards job market integration: a literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To inform the current level of research about alternative career pathways for international medical graduates and synthesize knowledge of the barriers, facilitators and potential outcomes of alternative career pathways for international medical graduates. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Google Scholar for relevant publications to February 2020. From 809 articles, after two levels of screening, 23 articles were selected. We conducted thematic content analysis and reported the findings of the study following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. RESULTS: All 23 articles reported on alternative careers for international medical graduates in either the United States or Canada. A variety of study methods were noted, including original research, scoping reviews, reports for organizations, and commentaries. Studies incorporated a variety of methods, including surveys, focus groups, interviews, analysis of administrative documents, and program evaluation. Many potential benefits of alternative careers were reported for both international medical graduates and stakeholders. Barriers to pursuing alternative careers included both individual- and systemic-level barriers. Facilitators included skill-building workshops, targeted bridging programs, connecting with employers, supporting organizations, and international medical graduates. CONCLUSIONS: The scarce literature on alternative career pathways indicates that this research is beneficial for both international medical graduates and their host countries. Initiating capacity building programs for alternative career pathways for international medical graduates might be a worthy investment for host countries, especially in underserved areas. Pilot initiatives incorporating bridging programs for international medical graduates are recommended.
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 | 0.007 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".