Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33909698›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Employment preferences of healthcare workers in South Africa: Findings from a discrete choice experiment.

Alexandra Mumbauer, Michael Strauss, Gavin George, Phuti Ngwepe, Charl Bezuidenhout, Lindsey de Vos, Andrew Medina-Marino

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Estimating the emergency care workforce in South Africa.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2021
    Article
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

7 authors.

Alexandra MumbauerQode Health Solutions, Pretoria, South Africa.
Michael StraussHealth Economics and HIV and AIDS Research Division (HEARD), University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Gavin GeorgeHealth Economics and HIV and AIDS Research Division (HEARD), University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Phuti NgwepeResearch Unit, Foundation for Professional Development, East London, Eastern Cape, South Africa.
Charl BezuidenhoutResearch Unit, Foundation for Professional Development, East London, Eastern Cape, South Africa.
Lindsey de VosResearch Unit, Foundation for Professional Development, East London, Eastern Cape, South Africa.
Andrew Medina-MarinoResearch Unit, Foundation for Professional Development, East London, Eastern Cape, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-2691-982X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a maldistribution of human resources for health globally, with many Lower- and Middle-Income Countries experiencing significant shortages. We examined healthcare workers' job preferences in South Africa to identify factors which potentially influence employment decisions. A discrete choice experiment was conducted among 855 South African healthcare workers critical to its national HIV testing and treatment programs. Job characteristics included workload, workplace culture, availability of equipment, training opportunities, sector and facility type, location, salary and benefits. Main effects analysis was conducted using fixed effects logistic regression. Interaction effects identified divergence in preferences. Heavy workload (OR = 0.78; 95% C.I. 0.74-0.83), poor workplace culture (odds ratio 0.66; 95% C.I. 0.62-0.69), insufficient availability of equipment (OR = 0.67; 95% C.I. 0.63-0.70) and infrequent training opportunities (OR = 0.75; 95% C.I. 0.71-0.80) had large, significant effects on worker preferences. An increase in salary of 20% (OR = 1.29; 95% C.I. 1.16-1.44) had a positive effect on preferences, while a salary decrease of 20% (OR = 0.55; 95% C.I. 0.49-0.60) had a strong negative effect. Benefits packages had large positive effects on preferences: respondents were twice as likely to choose a job that included medical aid, pension and housing contributions worth 40% of salary (OR = 2.06; 95% C.I. 1.87-2.26), holding all else constant. Although salary was important across all cadres, benefits packages had larger effects on job preferences than equivalent salary increases. Improving working conditions is critical to attracting and retaining appropriate health cadres responsible for the country's HIV services, especially in the public sector and underserved, often rural, communities. Crucially, our evidence suggests that factors amenable to improvement such as workplace conditions and remuneration packages have a greater influence on healthcare workers employment decisions than employment sector or location.

Indexed as

Career ChoiceAdultFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansLogistic ModelsMaleOdds RatioPublic SectorSalaries and Fringe BenefitsSouth AfricaSurveys and QuestionnairesWorkloadWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID33909698
PMCPMC8081228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.