Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38632567›Full record

GuidelineHuman resources for health2024

Methods for health workforce projection model: systematic review and recommended good practice reporting guideline.

John Tayu Lee, Ian Crettenden, My Tran, Daniel Miller, Mark Cormack, Megan Cahill, Jinhu Li, Tomoko Sugiura, Fan Xiang

Abstract readGuidelineSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Guideline in Human resources for health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 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. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

9 authors.

John Tayu LeeInstitute of Health Policy and Management, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. johntayulee@ntu.edu.tw.ORCID 0000-0002-1551-4923
Ian CrettendenNational Centre for Health Workforce Studies, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
My TranNational Centre for Health Workforce Studies, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Daniel MillerHealth Data Analytics Team, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Mark CormackNational Centre for Health Workforce Studies, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Megan CahillNational Centre for Health Workforce Studies, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Jinhu LiNational Centre for Health Workforce Studies, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Tomoko SugiuraHealth Data Analytics Team, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Fan XiangNational Centre for Health Workforce Studies, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth workforce projection models are integral components of a robust healthcare system. This research aims to review recent advancements in methodology and approaches for health workforce projection models and proposes a set of good practice reporting guidelines.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review by searching medical and social science databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and EconLit, covering the period from 2010 to 2023. The inclusion criteria encompassed studies projecting the demand for and supply of the health workforce. PROSPERO registration: CRD 42023407858.

resultsOur review identified 40 relevant studies, including 39 single countries analysis (in Australia, Canada, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Lesotho, Malawi, New Zealand, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Spain, Thailand, UK, United States), and one multiple country analysis (in 32 OECD countries). Recent studies have increasingly embraced a complex systems approach in health workforce modelling, incorporating demand, supply, and demand-supply gap analyses. The review identified at least eight distinct types of health workforce projection models commonly used in recent literature: population-to-provider ratio models (n = 7), utilization models (n = 10), needs-based models (n = 25), skill-mixed models (n = 5), stock-and-flow models (n = 40), agent-based simulation models (n = 3), system dynamic models (n = 7), and budgetary models (n = 5). Each model has unique assumptions, strengths, and limitations, with practitioners often combining these models. Furthermore, we found seven statistical approaches used in health workforce projection models: arithmetic calculation, optimization, time-series analysis, econometrics regression modelling, microsimulation, cohort-based simulation, and feedback causal loop analysis. Workforce projection often relies on imperfect data with limited granularity at the local level. Existing studies lack standardization in reporting their methods. In response, we propose a good practice reporting guideline for health workforce projection models designed to accommodate various model types, emerging methodologies, and increased utilization of advanced statistical techniques to address uncertainties and data requirements.

conclusionsThis study underscores the significance of dynamic, multi-professional, team-based, refined demand, supply, and budget impact analyses supported by robust health workforce data intelligence. The suggested best-practice reporting guidelines aim to assist researchers who publish health workforce studies in peer-reviewed journals. Nevertheless, it is expected that these reporting standards will prove valuable for analysts when designing their own analysis, encouraging a more comprehensive and transparent approach to health workforce projection modelling.

Indexed as

Health WorkforceDelivery of Health CareForecastingHealth PersonnelHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansModels, TheoreticalForecasting modelHealth workforce planningHuman resources for healthProjectionWorkforce modelling

Identifiers

PMID38632567
PMCPMC11025158

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.