ArticleHuman resources for health2013
The accuracy of general practitioner workforce projections.
Article in Human resources for health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changing primary care capacity in Canada: protocol for a cross-provincial mixed methods study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Managing uncertainty in forecasting health workforce demand using the Robust Workforce Planning Framework: the example of midwives in Belgium.Human resources for health · 2023Article
- Equity and trends in general practitioners' allocation in China: based on ten years of data from 2012 to 2021.Human resources for health · 2023Article
- Assessing needs-based supply of physicians: a criteria-led methodological review of international studies in high-resource settings.BMC health services research · 2023Review
- Forecasting the physician assistant/associate workforce: 2020-2035.Future healthcare journal · 2022Article
- Advancing the Population Needs-Based Health Workforce Planning Methodology: A Simulation Tool for Country Application.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- The evolution of New Zealand's health workforce policy and planning system: a study of workforce governance and health reform.Human resources for health · 2019Article
- Preferred and actual retirement age of oral and maxillofacial surgeons aged 55 and older in the Netherlands: a longitudinal study from 2003 to 2016.Human resources for health · 2018Article
- Forecasting the medical workforce: a stochastic agent-based simulation approach.Health care management science · 2018Article
- A synthesis of recent analyses of human resources for health requirements and labour market dynamics in high-income OECD countries.Human resources for health · 2016Article
- Handling healthcare workforce planning with care: where do we stand?Human resources for health · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth workforce projections are important instruments to prevent imbalances in the health workforce. For both the tenability and further development of these projections, it is important to evaluate the accuracy of workforce projections. In The Netherlands, health workforce projections have been done since 2000 to support health workforce planning. What is the accuracy of the techniques of these Dutch general practitioner workforce projections?
methodsWe backtested the workforce projection model by comparing the ex-post projected number of general practitioners with the observed number of general practitioners between 1998 and 2011. Averages of historical data were used for all elements except for inflow in training. As the required training inflow is the key result of the workforce planning model, and has actually determined past adjustments of training inflow, the accuracy of the model was backtested using the observed training inflow and not an average of historical data to avoid the interference of past policy decisions. The accuracy of projections with different lengths of projection horizon and base period (on which the projections are based) was tested.
resultsThe workforce projection model underestimated the number of active Dutch general practitioners in most years. The mean absolute percentage errors range from 1.9% to 14.9%, with the projections being more accurate in more recent years. Furthermore, projections with a shorter projection horizon have a higher accuracy than those with a longer horizon. Unexpectedly, projections with a shorter base period have a higher accuracy than those with a longer base period.
conclusionsAccording to the results of the present study, forecasting the size of the future workforce did not become more difficult between 1998 and 2011, as we originally expected. Furthermore, the projections with a short projection horizon and a short base period are more accurate than projections with a longer projection horizon and base period. We can carefully conclude that health workforce projections can be made with data based on relatively short base periods, although detailed data are still required to monitor and evaluate the health workforce.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.