↓ Skip to main content

Implementing the Code of Practice on International Recruitment in Romania – exploring the current state of implementation and what Romania is doing to retain its domestic health workforce

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Implementing the Code of Practice on International Recruitment in Romania – exploring the current state of implementation and what Romania is doing to retain its domestic health workforce
Published in
Human Resources for Health, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12960-016-0119-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ligia Paina, Marius Ungureanu, Victor Olsavszky

Abstract

The Romanian health system is struggling to retain its health workers, who are currently facing strong incentives for migration to Western European health systems. Retention issues, coupled with high levels of migration, complicate Romania's efforts in providing basic health services for rural, underserved, and marginalized populations, as well as in achieving equitable health access for all. The WHO Global Code of Practice on International Recruitment of Health Personnel (the Code) aims to promote ethical international recruitment and health systems strengthening. We explore Romania's implementation of the Code's principles and recommendations. We analysed peer-reviewed and grey literature, in English and Romanian, and sought secondary data from the websites of Romania's largest medical universities. The analysis was guided by the following themes and recommendations in the Code: health personnel development and health systems sustainability, international cooperation, data gathering, information exchange, and implementation and monitoring of the Code. Romania's implementation of the Code was observed to be limited. Gaps were identified with regards to several aspects of the Romanian health system, including the lack of support to health personnel training, recruitment, and retention in order to increase the appeal for health providers to practice in Romania and in underserved areas. In terms of international cooperation, the Code recommends various policy instruments to guide recruitment, including bilateral agreements. However, we could not determine which of these instruments were used as a result of the Code and whether or not they were effective. We identified little evidence of initiatives for health workers' professional and personal support. Insufficient data and few information exchange platforms exist on health workforce issues, hindering active sharing of data on migration with European Union and WHO audiences. We could not identify any evidence of monitoring of the Code's implementation to date. In the absence of major system reforms, health workers will continue to migrate to urban areas and abroad. Romanian policymakers should address more of the Code's recommendations by developing a national policy for human resources for health, a central database to aid health workforce planning and management, stronger platforms for information exchange and civil society engagement, and updated and transparent bilateral agreements.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 100 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 14%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 33 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 14 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 4%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 36 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 July 2016.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#1,068
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,701
of 366,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#27
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 366,924 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.