↓ Skip to main content

A mixed-methods study of health worker migration from Jamaica

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
217 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
A mixed-methods study of health worker migration from Jamaica
Published in
Human Resources for Health, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12960-016-0125-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gail Tomblin Murphy, Adrian MacKenzie, Benjamin Waysome, Joan Guy-Walker, Rowena Palmer, Annette Elliott Rose, Janet Rigby, Ronald Labonté, Ivy Lynn Bourgeault

Abstract

This study sought to better understand the drivers of migration, its consequences, and the various strategies countries have employed to mitigate its negative impacts. The study was conducted in four countries-Jamaica, India, the Philippines, and South Africa-that have historically been 'sources' of health workers migrating to other countries. The aim of this paper is to present the findings from the Jamaica portion of the study. Data were collected using surveys of Jamaica's generalist and specialist physicians, nurses, midwives, and dental auxiliaries, as well as structured interviews with key informants representing government ministries, professional associations, regional health authorities, healthcare facilities, and educational institutions. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression models. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Multiple stakeholder engagement workshops were held across Jamaica to share and validate the study findings and discuss implications for the country. Migration of health workers from Jamaica continues to be prevalent. Its causes are numerous, long-standing, and systemic, and are largely based around differences in living and working conditions between Jamaica and 'destination' countries. There is minimal formal tracking of health worker migration from Jamaica, making scientific analysis of its consequences difficult. Although there is evidence of numerous national and international efforts to manage and mitigate the negative impacts of migration, there is little evidence of the implementation or effectiveness of such efforts. Potential additional strategies for better managing the migration of Jamaica's health workers include the use of information systems to formally monitor migration, updating the national cadre system for employment of health personnel, ensuring existing personnel management policies, such as bonding, are both clearly understood and equitably enforced, and providing greater formal and informal recognition of health personnel. Although historically common, migration of Jamaica's health workers is poorly monitored and understood. Improved management of the migration of Jamaica's health workers requires collaboration from stakeholders across multiple sectors. Indeed, participating stakeholders identified a wide range of potential strategies to better manage migration of Jamaica's health workers, the implementation and testing of which will have potential benefits to Jamaica as well as other 'source' countries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 217 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 15%
Lecturer 25 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 7%
Student > Bachelor 16 7%
Other 40 18%
Unknown 66 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 54 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 14%
Social Sciences 21 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 26 12%
Unknown 74 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 26 January 2023.
All research outputs
#4,369,297
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#522
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,279
of 366,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#16
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 366,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.