Do international medical graduates’ recruitment policies help to overcome healthcare shortage areas in developed countries? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review investigates the effectiveness of utilizing foreign physicians or International Medical Graduates to alleviate medical shortages in rural and underserved areas of developed countries. Conducted in February 2024, this systematic review follows PRISMA 2020 guidelines, analysing 15 English-language studies from the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The focus is on comparing physicians with international graduation to national graduates in rural and underserved contexts. Results reveal diverse trends across countries: in the United States, national graduates are generally more represented in rural areas, while foreign physicians are more prevalent in Health Professional Shortage Areas. In Canada, foreign graduates are more common in rural areas, varying by province. Australia and New Zealand show foreign physicians practicing more in rural areas than national counterparts. This study underscores significant reliance on foreign physicians to mitigate rural healthcare disparities. While this strategy partially addresses immediate shortages, long-term effectiveness is uncertain due to retention and integration challenges. Future policies should focus on sustainable solutions for equitable healthcare access and physicians' retention in underserved areas. This review emphasizes also the need for Europe-specific studies and further evaluation of policy effectiveness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".