MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398217449 · doi:10.1002/nop2.2170

Investigating the emigration intention of health care workers: A cross‐sectional study

2024· article· en· W4398217449 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Oluwaseun Badru, Tunde A. Alabi, Samuel Sijibomi Okerinde, Muhammad Auwal Kabir, Aisha Abdulrazaq, Oluwafemi Adeagbo, Fatai Adesina Badru

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmigrationMedicineLogistic regressionCross-sectional studyHealth careMultivariate analysisGovernment (linguistics)NursingEnvironmental healthGeographyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To (1) explore the intramigration experience of HCWs within Nigeria, (2) explore the migration intention of health care workers (HCWs) in Nigeria and (3) identify the predictors of migration intention among HCWs in Nigeria. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: The online survey was used to collect data from 513 HCWs in Nigeria between May and June 2023. Crude and adjusted logistic regression were used to identify factors associated with emigration intention. Analyses were performed on SPSS version 26 at a 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: The study found that 34.4% had intramigration experience, and the rate of intention to emigrate to work in another country was 80.1%. The United Kingdom was the most preferred destination (109 HCWs), followed by Canada (92 HCWs) and the United States (82 HCWs). At the multivariate level, emigration intention was associated with the experience of burnout and duration of practice as a HCW. Nurses had higher emigration intentions than medical doctors. CONCLUSIONS: Many HCWs in Nigeria appear to have emigration intent, and nurses are more likely to be willing to migrate than doctors. The Nigerian government may want to explore strategies to reverse the emigration intent of the HCWs in Nigeria.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.399 · 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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing OpenSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207