↓ Skip to main content

Empirically evaluating the WHO global code of practice on the international recruitment of health personnel’s impact on four high-income countries four years after adoption

Overview of attention for article published in Globalization and Health, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#49 of 997)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
twitter
20 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Empirically evaluating the WHO global code of practice on the international recruitment of health personnel’s impact on four high-income countries four years after adoption
Published in
Globalization and Health, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12992-016-0198-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vivian Tam, Jennifer S. Edge, Steven J. Hoffman

Abstract

Shortages of health workers in low-income countries are exacerbated by the international migration of health workers to more affluent countries. This problem is compounded by the active recruitment of health workers by destination countries, particularly Australia, Canada, UK and USA. The World Health Organization (WHO) adopted a voluntary Code of Practice in May 2010 to mitigate tensions between health workers' right to migrate and the shortage of health workers in source countries. The first empirical impact evaluation of this Code was conducted 11-months after its adoption and demonstrated a lack of impact on health workforce recruitment policy and practice in the short-term. This second empirical impact evaluation was conducted 4-years post-adoption using the same methodology to determine whether there have been any changes in the perceived utility, applicability, and implementation of the Code in the medium-term. Forty-four respondents representing government, civil society and the private sector from Australia, Canada, UK and USA completed an email-based survey evaluating their awareness of the Code, perceived impact, changes to policy or recruitment practices resulting from the Code, and the effectiveness of non-binding Codes generally. The same survey instrument from the original study was used to facilitate direct comparability of responses. Key lessons were identified through thematic analysis. The main findings between the initial impact evaluation and the current one are unchanged. Both sets of key informants reported no significant policy or regulatory changes to health worker recruitment in their countries as a direct result of the Code due to its lack of incentives, institutional mechanisms and interest mobilizers. Participants emphasized the existence of previous bilateral and regional Codes, the WHO Code's non-binding nature, and the primacy of competing domestic healthcare priorities in explaining this perceived lack of impact. The Code has probably still not produced the tangible improvements in health worker flows it aspired to achieve. Several actions, including a focus on developing bilateral codes, linking the Code to topical global priorities, and reframing the Code's purpose to emphasize health system sustainability, are proposed to improve the Code's uptake and impact.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 21%
Student > Bachelor 13 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 10 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 31%
Social Sciences 13 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 13 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 66. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 July 2021.
All research outputs
#456,666
of 20,083,595 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#49
of 997 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,186
of 289,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,083,595 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 997 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 289,998 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them