Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34090460›Full record

ArticleHuman resources for health2021

Data element mapping to analyze fit for use of three XML standards for health workforce tracking.

Amy Opalek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human resources for health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Amy OpalekECFMG|FAIMER, 3624 Market Street, PA, 19104, Philadelphia, United States of America. aopalek@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-2832-4835

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnsuring a sufficient supply and distribution of health care professionals is essential to meeting public health needs. Regulatory agencies protect their communities by ensuring that new health professionals have the required qualifications to practice safely and by tracking the volume and distribution of those professionals on an ongoing basis. The speed and accuracy of sharing these data could be greatly improved through the adoption of a data standard for information about health professionals. To date, however, no internationally accepted standard has emerged for this purpose. PURPOSE: This study examines three existing XML standards designed for the representation of individual worker data to determine if, and to what degree, each could be used for the tracking of health professionals.

methodsThe data elements of the Europass schema, the HR Open Standard Recruiting specification, and the MedBiquitous Healthcare Professional Profile standard were fully examined and matching elements were mapped to the 200+ elements identified from a prior content analysis as required by a sample of 20 international regulatory agencies.

resultsNone of the schemas examined addressed more than half of the information elements required by regulators. All three schemas are found lacking in some key areas of interest, especially vital information that could disqualify ineligible applicant practitioners.

conclusionsThe three standards could all be improved by including new elements essential to regulatory agencies. Regulatory agencies should be consulted in the development of new standards for representing potentially disqualifying information about candidates for professional practice.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelHealth WorkforceHumansPublic HealthReferral and ConsultationHealth HRISHealth workforce planningInternational data standardInteroperabilityProfessional regulation

Identifiers

PMID34090460
PMCPMC8179696

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.