Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39217386›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2024

Organisational factors associated with healthcare workforce development, recruitment, and retention in the United Kingdom: a systematic review.

Erkan Alkan, Noreen Cushen-Brewster, Philip Anyanwu

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2024. 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. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

3 authors.

Erkan AlkanInstitute of Health and Well-being, University of Suffolk, Ipswich, UK. erkan.alkan@open.ac.uk.
Noreen Cushen-BrewsterSchool of Nursing & Midwifery, University of Suffolk, Ipswich, UK.
Philip AnyanwuInstitute of Health and Well-being, University of Suffolk, Ipswich, UK.

Funding

Health Education England RD22061
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo synthesise evidence regarding organisational practice environment factors affecting healthcare workforce development, recruitment, and retention in the UK. METHODS/DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and PsycINFO yielded ten relevant studies published between 2018 and 2023 and conducted in the UK (the last search was conducted in March 2023). Adhering to The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, two independent reviewers conducted screening, sifting, and data extraction, applying the quality assessment tool for risk of bias.

resultsResults highlight key factors associated with staff intention to leave/turnover/retention: workplace challenges, aggression, moral distress, on-the-job embeddedness, leadership involvement, organisational support, and flexible shift patterns. Notably, aggression from colleagues, including clinical staff but not interdisciplinary personnel, has a more detrimental impact on staff intention to leave than aggression from patients.

conclusionThe complex and context-dependent impacts of these organisational factors on the UK healthcare workforce underscore the need for tailored interventions. The review acknowledges limitations, including bias from excluding qualitative studies, a small pool of included studies, and nurse overrepresentation.

Indexed as

Allied health professionalsNursesOrganisational factorsRecruitmentRetentionTurnoverWorkforce

Identifiers

PMID39217386
PMCPMC11366130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.