MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Job Flows Into and Out of Health Care Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic

2024· article· en· W4391263467 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karen Shen, Julia C. P. Eddelbuettel, Matthew D. Eisenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Health Forum · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Nursing ResearchArnold Ventures
KeywordsWorkforceHealth carePandemicQuarter (Canadian coin)Demographic economicsUnemploymentDemographyMedicineCensusPopulationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Economic growthGeographyEnvironmental healthEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Anecdotal evidence suggests that health care employers have faced increased difficulty recruiting and retaining staff in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Empirical research is needed to understand the magnitude and persistence of these changes, and whether they have disproportionate implications for certain types of workers or regions of the country. Objective: To quantify the number of workers exiting from and entering into the health care workforce before and after the pandemic and to examine variations over time and across states and worker demographics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used US Census Bureau state unemployment insurance data on job-to-job flows in the continental US to construct state-level quarterly exit and entry rates for the health care industry from January 2018 through December 2021 (Arkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee were omitted due to missing data). An event study design was used to compute quarterly mean adjusted rates of job exit from and entry into the health care sector as defined by the North American Industry Classification System. Data were examined from January to June 2023. Exposure: The COVID-19 pandemic. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were the mean adjusted health care worker exit and entry rates in each quarter by state and by worker demographics (age, gender, race and ethnicity, and education level). Results: In quarter 1 of 2020, there were approximately 18.8 million people (14.6 million females [77.6%]) working in the health care sector in our sample. The exit rate for health care workers increased at the onset of the pandemic, from a baseline quarterly mean of 5.9 percentage points in 2018 to 8.0 (95% CI, 7.7-8.3) percentage points in quarter 1 of 2020. Exit rates remained higher than baseline levels through quarter 4 of 2021, when the health care exit rate was 7.7 (95% CI, 7.4-7.9) percentage points higher than the 2018 baseline. In quarter 1 of 2020, the increase in health care worker exit rates was dominated by an increase in workers exiting to nonemployment (78% increase compared with baseline); in contrast, by quarter 4 of 2021, the exit rate was dominated by workers exiting to employment in non-health care sectors (38% increase compared with baseline). Entry rates into health care also increased in the postpandemic period, from 6.2 percentage points at baseline to 7.7 percentage points (95% CI, 7.4-7.9 percentage points) in the last quarter of 2021, suggesting increased turnover of health care staff. Compared with prepandemic job flows, the share of workers exiting health care after the pandemic who were female was disproportionately larger, and the shares of workers entering health care who were female or Black was disproportionately smaller. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest a substantial and persistent increase in health care workforce turnover after the pandemic, which may have long-lasting implications for workers' willingness to remain in health care jobs. Policymakers and health care organizations may need to act to prevent further losses of experienced staff.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 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

Citations52
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Health ForumSame topicDiversity and Career in MedicineFrench-language works237,207