Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40233093›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Preferences of public sector medical doctors, professional nurses and rehabilitation therapists for multiple job holding regulation: A discrete choice experiment.

Busisiwe Precious Matiwane, Laetitia C Rispel, Duane Blaauw

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Busisiwe Precious MatiwaneCentre for Health Policy & South African Research Chairs Initiative (SARChI), School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-4328-2285
Laetitia C RispelCentre for Health Policy & South African Research Chairs Initiative (SARChI), School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-7806-6331
Duane BlaauwCentre for Health Policy, School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRegulating multiple job holding (MJH) among health professionals is challenging for many health systems. The effectiveness of different MJH policy reforms depends on the behavioural responses of different groups of health professionals but little is known about their preferences and likely reactions.

aimInvestigate the preferences of public sector medical doctors, professional nurses, and rehabilitation therapists for different MJH regulations in two South African provinces. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe developed a novel discrete choice experiment (DCE) to evaluate the preferences of health professionals for jobs with varying MJH policy interventions. The DCE attributes included restrictive regulations (banning MJH) versus reward-oriented policies (increased public sector salaries, expanded overtime, improved clinical practice environment, and better hospital management). We produced an unlabelled DCE using an efficient design and administered it to a representative sample of health professionals. Generalized multinomial logit models were used for analysis. We also investigated group heterogeneity, calculated marginal willingness to pay and estimated uptake for different policies.

results1387 participants completed the DCE. The doctors, nurses and rehabilitation therapists were strongly opposed to banning MJH, requiring salary increases of 45.7%, 20.0% and 42.8%, respectively, to accept an MJH ban. Increased public sector salaries significantly increased public sector retention. However, non-financial interventions were also influential. Doctors, nurses, and rehabilitation therapists were willing to forgo 57.9%, 54.8%, and 38.9% of their salaries, respectively, for an improved clinical practice environment. Competent hospital management was also important. There was some preference heterogeneity. Nurses had significantly different preferences for certain attributes compared to the other two groups, and professionals currently engaged in MJH were significantly more opposed to banning MJH.

conclusionThis study provides new information on health professional preferences for different MJH regulations. It confirms the importance of non-financial policy interventions in addressing MJH and the need to tailor MJH policy design.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorNursesPhysiciansPublic SectorAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSalaries and Fringe BenefitsSouth AfricaSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID40233093
PMCPMC11999164

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.