ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Longitudinal tracking of healthcare professionals: a methodological scoping review.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Learning from the experiences of midwifery students and recent graduates in humanitarian and conflict-affected settings: A prospective cohort study protocol.Women's health (London, England)Article
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
Abstract
backgroundTracking and understanding the progress and experiences of health workers and the outcomes of workforce decisions are essential for evidence-based workforce planning. In this scoping review, we aim to identify longitudinal studies that prospectively tracked healthcare professionals and that specifically focused on workforce issues such as career preferences, choices, and working conditions, and summarise the different approaches and methods used for tracking.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Education Resource Information Center (ERIC), EconLit and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 2000-2022 that longitudinally tracked doctors, nurses, midwives, physician associates/assistants. We further compared articles and conducted a back-and-forward citation search to identify longitudinal tracking studies which sometimes have multiple published articles. We developed a typology of the different tracking approaches, and summarised the major areas assessed and tracked by different studies.
resultsWe identified and analysed 263 longitudinal tracking studies. Based on population recruitment and follow-up methods, we grouped studies into seven categories (cohort studies, multiple-cohort studies, baseline and data linkage studies, baseline and short repeated measure studies, baseline-only studies, data linkage-only studies and repeated survey studies). The majority of studies included used a cohort or multiple-cohort design (n = 180), and several others also used data linkage (n = 45) and repeated measure approaches (n = 24). Sixty-two studies recruited participants while they were students and followed them until they became the active workforce, and nearly half of the included studies started directly from the active workforce stage. Most of the included studies examined workforce issues including employment status, preference or intention (to leave/remain/migrate, specific speciality or location etc.), and work environment, however there was a lack of widely used measurement tools for workforce issues. Additionally, nearly 40% examined wellbeing issues and a subset (20%) examined physical health in the context of workforce-related issues.
conclusionWe described a large number of different healthcare professional longitudinal tracking studies. In order for longitudinal tracking to contribute to effective workforce planning, we recommend employing a mix of cohort and data linkage approaches to collect data across the different stages of the workforce 'working lifespan', and using and continuing to test standardised measurement instruments to better capture experiences related to workforce and wellbeing.
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.