ReviewBMC health services research2021
Recent research into healthcare professions regulation: a rapid evidence assessment.
Review in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Experiences and Impacts of Working in Organisations Undergoing Regulatory Scrutiny: An Integrative Review.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Review
- Navigating safety in practice: a qualitative study of how health care personnel organize medication management in Norwegian home care services.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Regulatory landscapes of five mental health professions in Europe - a descriptive study based on the insights from the European Commission database.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Global research agenda for health professionals education: a systematic scoping review.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- From compliance to risk: A paradigm for nursing and midwifery regulation in Ireland.Journal of nursing regulation · 2026Article
- The role of medical regulations and medical regulators in fostering the use of eHealth data for strengthened continuing professional development (CPD): a document analysis with key informants' interviews.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Conscientious objection in pharmacist codes of ethics: An international comparison through document analysis.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2025Review
- Enhancing Patient Safety Education: Cross-Cultural Validation of the APSQ-III in Brazilian Healthcare Students.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Legal and systemic implications of the 2023 Polish act on certain medical professions-regulation, workforce requirements, healthcare system impact.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Performance measurement and evaluation of health practitioner regulation: A scoping review protocol.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Nursing Regulation Literature in Canada: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsOver the last decade, regulators have taken significant steps towards tackling perceptions that regulatory systems are burdensome. There has been much international research activity in the regulation of health and care professionals. This article reports a review of studies on health professions regulation between January 2011 and March 2020. Its chief object was to provide robust and up-to-date evidence to assist regulators in policy development and implementation. The main objectives of this study were to: 1. Identify and retrieve research in the field of health and care professions regulation in English since 2011; 2. Evaluate the published research, exploring its utility to regulators and practitioners, and drawing out any key messages; 3. Draw conclusions concerning the scope and limitations of the research literature and identify areas for further research.
methodsWe undertook a rapid evidence assessment (REA) of the international literature on health and care professions regulation, including reviewing ten UK regulators' websites to identify issues of concern and strategic priorities. We retrieved 3833 references, using a four-stage screening process to select the 81 most relevant.
resultsResults are reported within six key themes: harm prevention and patient safety; fitness to practise; quality assurance of education and training; registration including maintenance of registers; guidelines and standards and relations with regulatory bodies.
conclusionsRegulation of professionals in health and care is comparatively undeveloped as a field of academic study. Consequently, the published evidence is diffuse and small-scale. Most work presents relatively weak data of low relevance to regulators, mainly reporting or describing the current position. Few studies are able to show the impact of regulation or demonstrate a causal link between regulation and its effects. To inform their research and policy agendas health and social care regulators need to commission, interpret and apply the scholarly literature more effectively; academics need to engage with regulators to ensure that their research provides high-quality evidence with practical relevance to the regulators' agendas. Further study is needed to explore how effective academic collaborations between regulators and researchers may be created and sustained.
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.