Geographic labour mobility and quality of life among healthcare workers in North America: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To map the factors influencing labour mobility and the Quality of Life (QOL) domains among healthcare workers in North America. A scoping review was performed following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A literature search was conducted across eight databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), APA PsycINFO (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), Business Source Premier (EBSCO), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), and Scopus (Elsevier), yielding 1,554 articles. Studies were included if they were empirical, focused on adults (18+) in North America who migrated for work, examined aspects of QOL or equivalent measures, and were published in English. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework was used to structure the data synthesis. Nine studies met the eligibility criteria, revealing three overarching themes on how labour mobility influences QOL from different perspectives: (1) Social Perspectives, (2) Functional Perspectives, and (3) Individual Perspectives. The findings underscore the importance of social networks for health workers regarding job opportunities, emotional support, and career guidance. However, persistent discrimination, particularly regarding credential recognition and workplace integration, limits career advancement and mobility. Promoting inclusive work environments and equitable policies are crucial for enhancing workforce mobility and QOL among healthcare workers.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".