MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Push and Pull Factors of Emigration among Physicians in Nigeria

2023· article· en· W4389342131 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tensaba Andes Akafa, Anthonia Okeke, Ada Oreh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Emerging Multidiciplinaries Biomedical and Clinical Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemunerationSnowball samplingEmigrationSpouseMedicineCross-sectional studyFamily medicineBusinessGeographyPolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physician emigration is escalating in developing countries. In Nigeria, this massive brain drain has gained the popular moniker ‘Japa syndrome’. This survey used a cross-sectional design to determined the factors causing physicians’ brain-drain from Nigeria. A convenience and snowball sampling were used, and 295/400 attendees of a cardiovascular symposium responded to comprehensive self-administered questionnaires (73.7% response rate). Most participants (79.4%) were aged 20-39 years (Mean 35 years SD ±10.17); female (58.6%); married (58.4%) and a family size below six (73.6%). About 85.8% were employed, and 55.9% worked in private establishments. The top three attractive destinations were UK (50.5%), Canada (43.3%), and USA (37.9%). The most frequent push factors found were low remuneration (71.2%), insecurity (62.7%), and difficult working environments (55.9%). Postgraduate-training frustrations (38.6%), and limited educational opportunities for oneself (37.6%), children (26.4%), or spouse (19.7%) were the least. High earning potential (76.6%), career growth opportunities (70.8%), and high-level equipment/technology (54.9%) were the most frequent pull factors. This practice threatens Nigeria's health system and should be addressed multi-sectorally. To reverse this ugly trend, we have to boost physicians’ remuneration, improve work environments and security. Providing innovative education and digital technology would also promote physicians’ retention.

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 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)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.598
Teacher spread0.412 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Emerging Multidiciplinaries Biomedical and Clinical ResearchSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207