MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212308335 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckab165.034

Systematic review of health workforce surge capacity during COVID-19 and other viral pandemics

2021· article· en· W3212308335 on OpenAlexaff
Nishu Gupta, SA Balcom, Amelia Gulliver, Richelle Witherspoon

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurge CapacityPreparednessPandemicMedicineWorkforceHealth carePublic healthGrey literatureSystematic reviewBusinessAbsenteeismEquity (law)ComparabilityEnvironmental healthMEDLINEDiseaseNursingEconomic growthPolitical scienceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsychologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Healthcare decision-makers need comprehensive evidence to mitigate surges in the demand for human resources for health (HRH) during infectious disease outbreaks, in terms of both short- and longer-term impacts. This study aimed to assess the state of the evidence to address HRH surge capacity during COVID-19 and other outbreaks of global significance in the 21st century. Methods We systematically searched eight bibliographic databases to extract primary research articles published between 01/2000-06/2020, capturing temporal changes in HRH requirements and responses surrounding viral respiratory infection pandemics. A systems approach was used, considering providers in hospitals, out-of-hospital systems, emergency medical services, and public health. We narratively synthesized the evidence following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) standard. Results Of the 1,155 retrieved records, 16 studies met our inclusion criteria; of these, 5 focused on COVID-19, 3 on H1N1, and 8 on a hypothetical pandemic. Different training, mobilization, and redeployment options to address pandemic-time health system capacity were assessed. Few governance scenarios drew on observational HRH data allowing for comparability across contexts. Notable evidence gaps included occupational and psychosocial factors affecting healthcare workers' absenteeism and risk of burnout, gendered considerations of HRH capacity, evaluations in low- and lower-middle income countries, and policy-actionable assessments to inform post-pandemic recovery and sustainability of services for noncommunicable disease management. Conclusions This research emphasized the critical need for timely, internationally comparable, and equity-informative HRH data and research to enhance preparedness, response, and recovery policies for this and future pandemics. Full paper is available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3137 Key messages The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the critical need for enhanced health workforce data and research, including better tracking of demographics, exposures, infections and deaths of health workers. Although women comprise 70% of the health workforce in many countries, gender-blindness persists in the global literature on health workforce research and governance in public health emergencies./bodyt

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.011
Bibliometrics0.0200.021
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.220
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207