Financial Literacy Among Healthcare Providers: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the effectiveness of hospital management is influenced by financial management, healthcare professionals’ financial literacy has drawn the attention of researchers and policymakers. Previous research on medical students and healthcare professionals indicated that medical professionals frequently lack financial literacy; however, the evidence on the long-term status of financial literacy among healthcare providers throughout their careers is limited. In the current systematic review, we aim to examine the current evidence regarding financial literacy among healthcare providers throughout their career development. From the initial 1668 studies that were identified, 38 studies met the inclusion criteria and, thus, were included in the review. Twenty-eight studies evaluated financial literacy among either medical students or junior medical professionals, and ten studies were conducted on senior healthcare personnel. The body of evidence suggests that financial literacy is suboptimal in medical students and healthcare professionals, although it is of utmost importance for leading healthcare providers. Although senior healthcare providers or executive nurse leaders might be modestly financially literate, they are urged to cultivate skills and knowledge beyond their clinical expertise. Financial literacy depends on several factors, such as age, gender, qualification, or overall income. As the role of healthcare leaders is extended to their efficiency and participation in activities related to financial management, there is an urge for financial planning, financial monitoring, financial decision making, and financial control, while further studies are warranted to longitudinally explore the competencies of healthcare leaders in financial literacy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".