Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23277683›Full record

ArticlePhysiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada2012

Comparing Recruitment and Retention Strategies for Rehabilitation Professionals among Hospital and Home Care Employers.

Diem Tran, Aileen Davis, Linda McGillis Hall, Susan B Jaglal

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Diem TranGraduate Department of Rehabilitation Science, University of Toronto.
Aileen Davis
Linda McGillis Hall
Susan B Jaglal
University of Toronto · CABloomberg (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe objective of this study was to compare hospital and home care employers' rankings of both the importance and the feasibility of workforce strategies for recruiting and retaining rehabilitation professionals.

methodsAn online self-administered questionnaire was distributed to all employers of rehabilitation professionals in Ontario hospitals (n=144) and Community Care Access Centre home care providers (n=34). Importance and feasibility rankings were based on the percentage of high ratings; 95% CIs were used to determine significant differences between hospital and home care rankings of recruitment and retention strategies.

resultsThe response rate was 50% (72/144) from hospitals and 73.5% (25/34) from home-care settings. The recruitment and retention strategies considered most important and feasible for rehabilitation therapists, regardless of setting, were communication between employer and worker, compensation packages, access to research, and professional development in budget planning. Tangible resources, support personnel, work safety, and marketing rehabilitation careers to high school students were ranked significantly higher by hospitals than by home care providers.

conclusionsSimilarities exist between hospital and home care employers in terms of the importance and feasibility of recruitment and retention strategies for rehabilitation professionals. However, when developing a rehabilitation health human resources plan, the strategies identified as different between hospital and home care settings should be taken into account.

Indexed as

health manpowerhome care servicespersonnel selectionrehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID23277683
PMCPMC3280794
OpenAlexW2073814523

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.