↓ Skip to main content

Headcount and FTE data in the European health workforce monitoring and planning process

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Headcount and FTE data in the European health workforce monitoring and planning process
Published in
Human Resources for Health, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12960-016-0139-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edmond Girasek, Eszter Kovács, Zoltán Aszalós, Edit Eke, Károly Ragány, Réka Kovács, Zoltán Cserháti, Miklós Szócska

Abstract

Health workforce (HWF) planning and monitoring processes face challenges regarding data and appropriate indicators. One such area fraught with difficulties is labour activity and, more specifically, defining headcount and full-time equivalent (FTE). This study aims to review national practices in FTE calculation formulas for selected EU Member States (MS). The research was conducted as a part of the Joint Action on European Health Workforce Planning and Forecasting. Definitions, categories and terms concerning the five sectoral professions were examined in 14 MS by conducting a survey. To gain a deeper understanding of the international data-reporting processes (Joint Questionnaire on Non-Monetary Health Care Statistics-JQ), six international expert interviews were conducted by using a semi-structured interview guide. Of the 14 investigated countries, four MS indicated that they report FTE to the JQ and that they also calculate FTE data for national planning purposes. The other countries do not use FTE data for national purposes, but most of them do use special calculations and/or estimation methods for converting headcount to FTE. The findings revealed significant differences between national calculation methods when reporting FTE data to the JQ. This diversity in terms of calculations and estimations can lead to biases with respect to international comparisons. This finding was reinforced by the expert interviews, since the experts agreed that the activities of healthcare professionals are a fundamental factor in HWF monitoring and planning. Experts underscored that activity should also be measured by FTE, and not only by headcount. FTE and headcount are significant factors in HWF planning and monitoring; therefore, national data collections should place emphasis on collecting data and calculating the appropriate indicators. National FTE could serve as a call to action for HWF planners due to the lack of matching international FTE data. At the international level, it is beneficial to monitor the trends and numbers regarding human resources and working time. For the moment, the exchange of information and mutual assistance for developing the capacity to apply common methodology could be a first step towards the standardisation of data collections.

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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Master 5 11%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 15 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 7%
Engineering 3 7%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 15 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 29 September 2022.
All research outputs
#6,929,388
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#707
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,770
of 372,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#26
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
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 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 372,889 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.