| Title |
Migration motives and integration of international human resources of health in the United Kingdom: systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies using framework analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Resources for Health, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12960-018-0293-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Latha S. Davda, Jennifer E. Gallagher, David R. Radford |
| Abstract |
The aim of this review was to examine the migration motives, the barriers to and facilitators of integration of international dental graduates, compared with nurses and doctors in the United Kingdom. Electronic databases Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Knowledge and OECD publications were systematically searched for English language publications from January 2000 to January 2017. A total of 31 qualitative studies were selected and quality appraised and meta-synthesis of the qualitative data was carried out using framework synthesis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were applied to present the findings. There were no studies on migration motives and one study on integration experiences of international dentists in the UK. The nursing literature had the highest volume and quality of evidence on nursing workforce, whilst there was limited literature on international doctors in the UK. Migration of health professionals to the UK is determined by personal and professional factors, together with source country-specific and UK drivers. Active recruitment, post graduate training and financial gain act as strong common macro, meso and micro drivers that perpetuate migration into the UK, but the extent to which each of these drivers influence nurses' and doctors' migration is different. Integration experiences for international nurses and doctors differed based on their source country experiences and the work environment they entered. Nurses reported a wider knowledge and skills gap, more multi-level discrimination and less career progression compared to the doctors. The migrants' integration experiences depend on their cultural awareness, discrimination exposure, English language and communication skills, social and professional support networks, social integration and personal attributes. Migration of international health professionals is motivated by macro, meso and micro drivers at the international, national, professional and personal levels. The UK has strong common macro pull factors which attract nurses, doctors and dentists and may impact on the effectiveness of policies to restrict their migration. The integration experiences of nurses and doctors differ and further research is required to understand the integration experiences of dentists, in order to retain these professionals by tailoring policies to each of these professions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 18% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 18% |
| Turkey | 1 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 6% |
| Oman | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 59% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 24% |
| Scientists | 2 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 248 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 31 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 9% |
| Researcher | 20 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 54 | 22% |
| Unknown | 88 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 59 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 12 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 31 | 13% |
| Unknown | 91 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 February 2019.
All research outputs
#2,242,260
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#237
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,158
of 342,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,755 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.