ArticleBMJ global health2024
Investing in health workers: a retrospective cost analysis of a cohort of return-of-service bursary recipients in Southern Africa.
Article in BMJ global health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReturn-of-service (RoS) schemes are investment strategies that governments use to increase the pool of health professionals through the issuing of bursaries and scholarships to health sciences students in return for service after graduation. Despite using these schemes for many years, Eswatini, South Africa, Botswana and Lesotho have not assessed the costs and return on investment of these schemes. This study aimed to assess the costs and relative rates of contract defaulting in these four Southern African countries.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was carried out by reviewing databases of RoS beneficiaries for selected health sciences programmes who were funded between 2000 and 2010. Costs of the schemes were assessed by country, degree type and whether bursary holders completed their required service or defaulted on their public service obligations.
resultsOf the 5616 beneficiaries who studied between 1995 and 2019 in the four countries, 1225 (21.8%) beneficiaries from 2/9 South African provinces and Eswatini were presented in the final analysis. Only Eswatini had data on debt recovery or financial repayments. Beneficiaries were mostly medical students and slightly biased towards males. Medical students benefited from 56.7% and 81.3% of the disbursement in Eswatini (~US$2 million) and South Africa (~US$57 million), respectively. Each South African medical student studying in Cuba cost more than five times the rate of medical students who studied in South Africa. Of the total expenditure, 47.7% and 39.3% of the total disbursement is spent on individuals who default the RoS scheme in South Africa and Eswatini, respectively.
conclusionsRoS schemes in these countries have loss of return on investment due to poor monitoring. The schemes are costly, ineffective and have never been evaluated. There are poor mechanisms for identifying beneficiaries who exit their contracts prematurely and inadequate debt recovery processes.
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.