Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36918864›Full record

ArticleHuman resources for health2023

Increasing the availability of health workers in rural sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review of rural pipeline programmes.

Delphin Kolié, Remco Van De Pas, Laurence Codjia, Pascal Zurn

Full text readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Human resources for health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors.

Delphin KoliéMaferinyah National Training and Research Centre in Rural Health, Ministry of Health, Forecariah, Guinea. dkolie@maferinyah.org.ORCID 0000-0003-4705-0964
Remco Van De PasDepartment of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Laurence CodjiaDepartment of Health Workforce, World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.
Pascal ZurnDepartment of Health Workforce, World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRural pipeline approach has recently gain prominent recognition in improving the availability of health workers in hard-to-reach areas such as rural and poor regions. Understanding implications for its successful implementation is important to guide health policy and decision-makers in Sub-Saharan Africa. This review aims to synthesize the evidence on rural pipeline implementation and impacts in sub-Saharan Africa.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review using Joanna Briggs Institute guidebook. We searched in PubMed and Google scholar databases and the grey literature. We conducted a thematic analysis to assess the studies. Data were reported following the PRISMA extension for Scoping reviews guidelines.

resultsOf the 443 references identified through database searching, 22 met the inclusion criteria. Rural pipeline pillars that generated impacts included ensuring that more rural students are selected into programmes; developing a curriculum oriented towards rural health and rural exposure during training; curriculum oriented to rural health delivery; and ensuring retention of health workers in rural areas through educational and professional support. These impacts varied from one pillar to another and included: increased in number of rural health practitioners; reduction in communication barriers between healthcare providers and community members; changes in household economic and social circumstances especially for students from poor family; improvement of health services quality; improved health education and promotion within rural communities; and motivation of community members to enrol their children in school. However, implementation of rural pipeline resulted in some unintended impacts such as perceived workload increased by trainee's supervisors; increased job absenteeism among senior health providers; patients' discomfort of being attended by students; perceived poor quality care provided by students which influenced health facilities attendance. Facilitating factors of rural pipeline implementation included: availability of learning infrastructures in rural areas; ensuring students' accommodation and safety; setting no age restriction for students applying for rural medical schools; and appropriate academic capacity-building programmes for medical students. Implementation challenges included poor preparation of rural health training schools' candidates; tuition fees payment; limited access to rural health facilities for students training; inadequate living and working conditions; and perceived discrimination of rural health workers.

conclusionThis review advocates for combined implementation of rural pipeline pillars, taking into account the specificity of country context. Policy and decision-makers in sub-Saharan Africa should extend rural training programmes to involve nurses, midwives and other allied health professionals. Decision-makers in sub-Saharan Africa should also commit more for improving rural living and working environments to facilitate the implementation of rural health workforce development programmes.

Indexed as

Health WorkforceRural PopulationChildHealth PersonnelHealth ServicesHealth Services AccessibilityHumansHealth workersMedical education reformsRural pipeline programmesScoping reviewSub-Saharan Africa

Identifiers

PMID36918864
PMCPMC10013286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read1
measurements read86
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.