Understanding the factors influencing health workers’ choice of workplace locations: a qualitative description of primary healthcare workers’ perspectives in Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Universal access to a qualified, skilled, motivated and equitably distributed health workforce is pertinent for the delivery of quality health services needed to achieve national health sector goals and sustainable development goals. However, there remains a shortage of health workers attributed to health workers’ choices of not taking up postings due to the characteristics of workplace locations, amongst other factors. This study sought to understand the factors influencing primary healthcare workers’ choice of workplace locations in Nigeria. Methods This study applied a qualitative research design. We interviewed 41 primary healthcare workers, including nurses, midwives, and community health practitioners, in Bauchi and Cross River States in Nigeria. The interviews elicited responses on the important issues that health workers consider when thinking of taking up or staying in a work location. Results We found that the working conditions, living environment and human resources for health (HRH) management practices influence the choice of work location amongst health workers. For working conditions, the quality of facilities, workload concerns, the scope of practice and community support were suggested as important factors. The living environment, specifically the availability of quality housing or an allowance to pay for quality accommodation, availability of transport facilities, and quality schools for children’s education were suggested as important factors. Lastly, the HRH management practices linked to supportive management, remunerations, career advancement and continuing education were highlighted as central factors. Conclusions Our study highlights the importance of work location to health workers. In practice, there is a need for policymakers and health planners to gain and apply contextual evidence on factors influencing health workers’ choice of workplace locations in health and HRH planning and management. This is pertinent in designing and implementing tailored interventions for ensuring the equitable distribution of health workers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".