ArticleHuman resources for health2020
Increasing access to health workers in rural and remote areas: what do stakeholders' value and find feasible and acceptable?
Article in Human resources for health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Acceptability of community health worker and peer supported interventions for ethnic minorities with type 2 diabetes: a qualitative systematic review.Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare · 2024Pooled it
- Approaches to quantifying acceptability of pharmaceutical interventions for neglected tropical diseases: A scoping review.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Infection prevention and control measures for Ebola disease and their outcomes from the perspective of health care workers: a mixed-methods study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Job preferences and trade-offs in rural health workforce retention: a discrete choice experiment from western China.Health policy and planning · 2026Article
- Achieving Universal Health Coverage in Cambodia: Barriers, Strategies, and Policy Recommendations.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Bridging healthcare gaps through specialized mobile healthcare services to improve healthcare access and outcomes in rural Hungary.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Global health inequity and primary care.BJGP open · 2024Article
- Factors associated with satisfaction of the australian rural resident medical officer cadetship program: results from a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Perspectives of health workers engaging in task shifting to deliver health care in low-and-middle-income countries: a qualitative evidence synthesis.Global health action · 2023Review
- Comparing the roles of community health workers for malaria control and elimination in Cambodia and Tanzania.BMJ global health · 2023Review
- A novel approach to estimate the impact of health workforce investments on health outcomes through increased coverage of HIV, TB and malaria services.Human resources for health · 2023Article
- The Alonissos Study: Cross-Sectional Study of the Healthcare Access and User Satisfaction in the Community of a Non-Profit-Line Greek Island.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Stakeholders' views and perspectives on treatments of visceral leishmaniasis and their outcomes in HIV-coinfected patients in East Africa and South-East Asia: A mixed methods study.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2022Article
- Inequal distribution of nursing personnel: a subnational analysis of the distribution of nurses across 58 countries.Human resources for health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe primary aim of this study is to assess stakeholders' views of the acceptability and feasibility of policy options and outcome indicators presented in the 2010 World Health Organization (WHO) global policy recommendations on increasing access to health workers in remote and rural areas through improved retention.
methodsA survey on the acceptability, feasibility of recruitment and retention policy options, and the importance of their outcome indicators was developed. It followed a cross-sectional approach targeting health workers in rural and remote settings as well as policy- and decision-makers involved in the development of recruitment and retention policies for such areas. Respondents were asked their perception of the importance of the policy outcomes of interest, as well as the acceptability and feasibility of the 2010 WHO guidelines' policy options using a 9-point Likert scale.
resultsIn total, 336 participants completed the survey. Almost a third worked in government; most participants worked in community settings and were involved in the administration and management of rural health workers. Almost all 19 outcomes of interests assessed were valued as important or critical. For the 16 guideline policy options, most were perceived to be "definitely acceptable" and "definitely feasible", although the policy options were generally considered to be more acceptable than feasible.
conclusionThe findings of this study provide insight into the revision and update of the 2010 WHO guideline on increasing access to health workers in remote and rural areas. Stakeholders' views of the acceptability, feasibility of policy options and the importance of outcomes of interest are important for the development of relevant and effective policies to improve access to health workers in rural and remote areas.
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.