Print version ISSN 0042-9686
Bull World Health Organ vol.88 n.6 Genebra Jun. 2010
Priorités de la recherche sur les ressources humaines pour la santé dans les pays à revenu faible ou intermédiaire
Prioridades de las investigaciones sobre recursos humanos para la salud en países de ingresos bajos y medios
Michael Kent RansonI, *; Mickey ChopraII; Salla AtkinsII; Mario Roberto Dal PozIII; Sara BennettI
IAlliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization, 20 avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland
IIHealth Systems Research Unit, Medical Research Council, South Africa
IIIHuman Resources for Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
OBJECTIVE: To identify the human resources for health (HRH) policy concerns and research priorities of key stakeholders in low- and middle-income countries; to assess the extent to which existing HRH research addresses these concerns and priorities; and to develop a prioritized list of core research questions requiring immediate attention to facilitate policy development and implementation.
METHODS: The study involved interviews with key informants, including health policy-makers, researchers and community and civil society representatives, in 24 low- and middle-income countries in four regions, a literature search for relevant reviews of research completed to date, and the assessment of interview and literature search findings at a consultative multinational workshop, during which research questions were prioritized.
FINDINGS: Twenty-one research questions emerged from the key informant interviews, many of which had received little or no attention in the reviewed literature. The questions ranked as most important at the consultative workshop were: (i) To what extent do incentives work in attracting and retaining qualified health workers in underserviced areas? (ii) What is the impact of dual practice and multiple employment? and (iii) How can incentives be used to optimize efficiency and the quality of health care?
CONCLUSION: There was a clear consensus about the type of HRH policy problems faced by different countries and the nature of evidence needed to tackle them. Coordinated action to support and implement research into the highest priority questions identified here could have a major impact on health worker policies and, ultimately, on the health of the poor.
OBJECTIF: Identifier les sujets de préoccupation pour les politiques de gestion des ressources humaines pour la santé (RHS) et les priorités de la recherche pour les acteurs clés des pays à revenu faible ou intermédiaire ; évaluer dans quelle mesure la recherche actuelle sur les ressources humaines pour la santé répond à ces préoccupations et à ces priorités ; et élaborer une liste de thèmes de recherche essentiels, requérant une attention immédiate pour faciliter le développement et la mise en uvre de politiques, avec les priorités associées.
MÉTHODES: L'étude a compris des entretiens avec des informateurs clés (notamment des décideurs politiques et des chercheurs dans le domaine de la santé et des représentants des communautés et de la société civile), qui ont été réalisés dans 24 pays à revenu faible ou intermédiaire appartenant à quatre régions, une recherche bibliographique des revues de la littérature pertinentes effectuées à ce jour et l'évaluation des résultats des entretiens et de la recherche bibliographique dans le cadre d'un atelier consultatif plurinational, au cours duquel les thèmes de recherche ont été classés par priorité.
RÉSULTATS: Vingt-et-un thèmes de recherche ont émergé des entretiens avec les informateurs clés, dont beaucoup n'avaient guère ou pas attiré l'attention d'après la littérature examinée. Les thèmes classés comme les plus importants lors de l'atelier consultatif étaient : (i) dans quelle mesure les dispositions incitatives réussissent-elles à attirer et à retenir la main d'uvre médicale qualifiée dans les zones mal desservies ? (ii) quel est l'impact des pratiques doubles et des emplois multiples ? et (iii) Comment peut-on utiliser des mesures incitatives pour optimiser l'efficacité et la qualité des soins de santé ?
CONCLUSION: Il n'y avait pas de consensus clair sur le type de problème rencontré par les différents pays dans leur politique RHS et sur la nature des éléments nécessaires pour y faire faire face. Une action coordonnée pour appuyer et mettre en uvre la recherche sur les thèmes identifiés comme les plus fortement prioritaires pourrait avoir un impact majeur sur les politiques en faveur des ressources humaines pour la santé et, en fin de compte, sur la santé des plus démunis.
OBJETIVO: Determinar los problemas decisionales y las prioridades de investigación en materia de recursos humanos para la salud de los principales interesados en los países de ingresos bajos y medios; evaluar en qué medida las investigaciones sobre recursos humanos para la salud abordan esas preocupaciones y prioridades; y elaborar una lista de líneas prioritarias de investigación que requieran atención inmediata para facilitar la formulación y aplicación de políticas.
MÉTODOS: El estudio abarcó entrevistas con informantes clave, en particular con formuladores de políticas sanitarias, investigadores y representantes de la comunidad y de la sociedad civil, de 24 países de ingresos bajos y medios de cuatro regiones, una búsqueda bibliográfica de revisiones de interés de investigaciones realizadas hasta la fecha, y la evaluación de entrevistas y resultados de búsquedas bibliográficas en un taller consultivo multinacional, en el que se estableció el orden de prioridad de diversas cuestiones de investigación.
RESULTADOS: De las entrevistas a informantes clave surgieron 21 cuestiones de investigación, muchas de las cuales habían recibido poca o ninguna atención en las publicaciones revisadas. Las preguntas consideradas de mayor importancia en el taller consultivo fueron: (i) ¿En qué medida funcionan los incentivos empleados para atraer y retener a los trabajadores sanitarios cualificados en las zonas subatendidas? (ii) ¿Qué repercusiones tienen la doble práctica y el pluriempleo? (iii) ¿Cómo pueden utilizarse los incentivos para optimizar la eficiencia y la calidad de la atención sanitaria?
CONCLUSIÓN: Hubo un consenso claro acerca del tipo de problemas que afrontan los diferentes países en relación con las políticas de recursos humanos para la salud, así como sobre la naturaleza de la evidencia necesaria para abordarlos. Una acción coordinada tendente a apoyar e implementar las investigaciones sobre las cuestiones más prioritarias aquí identificadas podría tener gran incidencia en las políticas sobre el personal sanitario y, en definitiva, en la salud de los pobres.
Since human resources account for approximately 70% of recurrent expenditure in most health systems, inadequate human resource training, regulation, distribution and management can have enormous implications.1 Many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, suffer from both a shortage of health-care providers and poor distribution of providers within the country. These problems are exacerbated by deficiencies in skill mixes and poor physical and managerial infrastructure.2 Moreover, the failure of health system reforms has been linked to the failure to strengthen policy, planning and management of human resources for health (HRH) early in the process.3
In a recent overview of systematic reviews, significant gaps were found in knowledge about the way training, regulatory, financial and organizational mechanisms affect the supply, distribution and performance of health-care workers. Furthermore, the data available tend to come from high-income settings and may not apply to LMICs.4
Despite the urgent need to address these knowledge gaps and the international nature of HRH problems, there is still no consensus on research priorities. The World Health Organization's (WHO's) Task Force on Health Systems Research included HRH "at the district level and below" and "requirements at higher management levels" as two of the 12 research categories important for attaining the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).5 However, the expert group made no attempt to establish priorities among the 12 categories or the many issues within each category. The Joint Learning Initiative on HRH,2 a consortium of more than 100 health leaders who worked together to identify strategies for strengthening HRH, concluded that "the weak knowledge base of the health workforce hampers planning, policy development, and program operations" (p. 4) and called for donors to "significantly enhance their financing of research..." (p. 139). In addition, a diverse group of participants at the first Global Forum on Human Resources for Health in 2008 called for better research on the health-care workforce.6
This paper presents the results of an initiative that aimed to identify the HRH policy concerns and research priorities of key stakeholders in LMICs, to assess the extent to which existing HRH research addresses these concerns and priorities, and to establish immediate priorities for the research essential for policy development and implementation.
There were three steps in determining research priorities (Fig. 1). First, interviews were conducted with health policy-makers, researchers and community and civil society representatives in 24 LMICs in four regions: East Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Middle East and North Africa, and South-East Asia. They resulted in a series of regional reports. Second, a systematic literature review was carried out to identify completed research, which was then mapped against the needs articulated by stakeholders. Third, the findings of the first two steps were discussed at a consultative multinational workshop during which research issues were ranked and the top-ranked issues were subject to brainstorming.
Data from the regional reports and the systematic literature review were categorized using a predetermined conceptual framework4 that included the main outcomes of human resource policies (i.e. appropriate supply or quantity of health workers, appropriate distribution of health workers, efficient use of health workers and good performance) and broad policy levers (i.e. training, regulatory mechanisms, financial mechanisms, organizational mechanisms, and macromechanisms or mechanisms outside the health-care sector).
The WHO-based Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) competitively awarded grants to four organizations in four regions, representing 24 countries, to conduct key informant interviews of policy-makers, researchers and community and civil society representatives. Table 1 lists the countries involved, the types of informant interviewed and the interview topics in each region. In all regions, informants were purposively selected by the four organizations. Between May 2007 and March 2008, informants were asked about their thoughts on policy concerns and research priorities in three areas: health financing, the non-state health sector and HRH.1 Open-ended questions were asked and interviewers used semistructured interview guides.
The data were analysed in several phases by two authors (i.e. MKR and MC). First, regional reports were read and HRH policy concerns and research priorities were extracted and categorized. This process was relatively deductive insofar as the categories used were based largely on the predetermined conceptual framework. Second, policy concerns and research priorities common to at least three regional reports were identified. Third, specific policy concerns and research priorities, as expressed by individual informants, were extracted from country-level reports, which were available for the East Africa and Middle East and North Africa regions only. This last step was carried out to gain some sense of the consistency and breadth of the policy concerns and research priorities identified.
A literature review was carried out to identify current HRH research and to assess the extent to which it addresses the priorities expressed by informants. Our review was limited to existing literature reviews on HRH topics. We searched Medline through the Ovid interface and EMBASE Ovid (Ovid Technologies Inc., New York, United States of America) for entries dated from 1979 to March 2008. The search terms used in Medline are shown, as an example, in Box 1. We also searched the Cochrane Library, which includes the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Reviews of Effectiveness. Grey literature was identified with Google using the search terms "review" or "synthesis" with "human resources for health" or "health workforce". The first 100 results were reviewed for each search combination. In addition, the journal Human resources for health was searched by hand from the first issue in 2003. Also searched were the Equinet web site and other web sites that came to light, and a World Bank bibliography of HRH studies.
Each review identified in the search had to satisfy two inclusion criteria: (i) it had to indicate that a literature search had been carried out, and (ii) it had to have an HRH topic as a primary focus. Multinational reviews and reviews from individual LMICs were included, but those of literature from a single, high-income country were excluded. All Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane citations were screened by two independent reviewers (SH, AS). Disagreements were resolved by consensus following retrieval of the full texts. Of the 3601 citations identified from the published literature, 40 reviews were included by consensus on initial evaluation. Thereafter, 20 additional reviews were included following discussion, plus 12 from the grey literature, resulting in a total of 72 reviews.
A workshop was organized to rank research priorities in April 2008 in Berkeley, California, USA, in conjunction with the Berkeley Global Health Workforce Conference, which focused on HRH research and targeted researchers, policy-makers and representatives of international organizations working in HRH. Following an open invitation to conference participants, two additional LMIC participants were sponsored by the research team to ensure regional diversity and a good skill mix. Ten of the 15 participants were researchers, one was a health policy-maker and the remaining four classified themselves as "other". Seven of the 15 were based at institutions in LMICs. Before the workshop, participants were given an unranked list of emerging priority research questions and an overview of the literature reviews. At the workshop, participants: (i) discussed the list of research questions, (ii) decided on the nature and relative weighting of criteria for ranking research questions, and (iii) ranked the research questions using three criteria (described below). Each research question was scored on the three criteria using a three-point Likert scale, in which 1 = no and 3 = yes, by each of the 15 participants individually using a self-administered questionnaire. Index scores were then calculated for each individual participant and summed across individuals. The authors of this paper did not participate in the ranking.
The following broad policy concerns emerged in interviews from across the regions.
Informants expressed concern about a lack of stewardship from the highest levels, in government ministries, to HRH management at individual facilities. In some countries (e.g. Chile, Costa Rica, Egypt, El Salvador and Jordan), informants commented on the lack of a national HRH plan. In the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as in many countries, it was felt that "the implementation of training programmes and the production of HRH is not linked to strategic planning in order to balance supply with needs and demand". At the facility level, some informants were concerned about the shortage of managers (e.g. in Algeria), while others were concerned about management quality. In Suriname, there was a call for "accountable management of health institutions and organizations - managers who can create a positive and stimulating working environment for health workers".
Health worker numbers
In all regions and most countries, informants thought that the number of health-care workers should be increased. In Costa Rica, for example, informants said that more "specialists, health technicians and nursing assistants" were needed. In many countries across all four regions, there was concern about the out-migration of human resources, particularly doctors and nurses. In Jordan, there was a call for a "national plan to manage and contain the migration (i.e. brain drain) of health professionals".
Distribution of health workers
In almost all countries, there were disparities in the distribution of health workers between regions, between rural and urban areas, and between public and private sectors. One informant in Algeria commented that although only 8% of the population lives in Algiers, 24% of specialist physicians are located there. In Argentina, the "poor regional distribution" of educational centres needed to be addressed. In many countries (e.g. Algeria and Egypt), the public sector had more difficulty recruiting or retaining human resources than the private sector. In Uganda, one informant reported that workers leave the public sector for the private for-profit sector because of low salaries, heavy workloads and the absence of other incentives. It was reported in several countries that dual practice (i.e. public sector employees practising in the private sector) has had a negative impact on the quality and cost-effectiveness of services provided by the public sector. In the United Republic of Tanzania, where dual practice was identified as an important policy challenge, some informants called for clear policy and regulatory instruments to limit the number of "stolen hours".
Informants expressed concerns about inappropriate ratios of health-care workers, both relative to one another and relative to the burden of illness. For example, in Argentina it was felt that there were too many specialists relative to general practitioners and too many general practitioners relative to nurses. In Algeria, there was a call to modify training curricula to take better account of the epidemiological transition and to adapt programmes targeted at "new" pathologies. In Costa Rica, it was felt that there should be increases in certain specialty HRH areas to address the needs of an ageing population. Also in Costa Rica, it was suggested that some university training programmes could be closed if they "were not aligned with the country's needs". In Jordan and in Peru, it was suggested that training curricula should be changed to reflect health sector needs better.
Often informants simply expressed concerns about the performance of health workers, without mentioning any related intervention. For example, in El Salvador one informant called for an increase in the quality and "warmth" of health-care workers.
In many countries, informants expressed the need to improve monetary and non-monetary incentives for health workers. In Costa Rica, informants stated that wages should be increased in the public sector to match those in the private sector, so as to reduce the flow of trained staff to the private sector. Non-monetary incentives included: in Egypt, career development opportunities; in the Dominican Republic, job "stability" and a reduction in the continuous transfer of staff from one location to another; and, in Nicaragua, the availability of appropriate equipment and instruments.
Informants also had concerns about the quality of health worker training, mechanisms for accrediting training institutions, and the licensing and re-licensing of health-care workers. In Algeria, they said that several problems at training institutions needed to be addressed, including "overload and the low quality of teaching". In several countries (e.g. Peru), they suggested the need for accreditation or regulation of HRH education. In many locations (i.e. Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Panama, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, and the West Bank and Gaza Strip), informants commented on the need to develop continuing medical education programmes. In Egypt, they were concerned about the absence of re-licensing programmes, while in Jordan they suggested that re-licensing should be linked to a system of continuing medical education.
Table 2 lists details of the research questions that emerged from key informant interviews, the quality of existing research on these questions, and any literature reviews identified that dealt with them.
Ranking the questions
Participants in the consultative workshop reviewed and refined the list of research questions before ranking them. The objective was to increase the clarity rather than change the focus of the questions. For example, question 15 on worker substitution was refined to read: "What are the conditions, regulations, and financial and other inputs required to most efficiently and optimally implement task-shifting?" Workshop participants opted to add one additional question that could be inferred from the original list but was not explicitly stated: "What are the barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of HRH plans?"
Based on a literature review of previous priority-setting exercises, Alliance HPSR staff proposed three criteria for ranking the final 22 questions:
- Can the research question be answered?
- Are the results of the research likely to improve health?
- Is there a lack of research on this topic?
Workshop participants agreed to these criteria and decided that they should be weighted equally in deriving combined scores.
Table 3 ranks the 22 research questions according to the average scores awarded by workshop participants. The question that ranked first overall - "To what extent do financial and non-financial incentives work in attracting and retaining qualified health workers in underserviced areas?" - also received the highest scores for both answerability and potential health impact. We also assessed the sensitivity of the overall ranking to a change in the weighting of the three ranking criteria: we assessed the effect of doubling the weighting of the potential health impact (i.e. the second criterion) relative to the others. The top five questions remained exactly the same, though the question - "What is the impact of dual practice?" - dropped to fourth place. Workshop participants agreed that the final ranking reflected the groups beliefs.
In subsequent discussions, workshop participants felt that the quantity and distribution of health workers was the most critical issue and that research on improving the internal migration and distribution of existing health workers was more important than research into increasing health worker supply or international migration. Participants also thought that it was important to evaluate experience already gained at national and subnational levels with experimentation on dual practice and incentives for retaining health workers in underserved areas. Next, participants felt that improving the performance of existing health workers by reducing dual practice and examining financial incentives could have a significant impact in the short term.
A list of 21 research questions emerged from key informant interviews across 24 LMICs, with the most highly ranked concerning how to improve the distribution and efficient use of health workers. While each broad research topic was common to several countries or regions, there was considerable variation in specific sub-topics. The overview of systematic reviews provided little insight into the relative importance of research questions as many had received little or no attention and authors generally suggested that additional research was still required.
There were several limitations to this exercise. The methods were not standardized across regions. For example, it was difficult to compare findings obtained using a more quantitative and deductive approach in Latin America and the Caribbean with those obtained using a more qualitative and inductive approach in the Middle East and North Africa. In addition, since regions, countries and informants were purposively selected, the results may not be representative and generalizable. The literature review covered only English-language publications, though the exercise is being repeated for Portuguese- and Spanish-language literature. The study did not assess the extent to which research currently being carried out in LMICs might address the research questions because surveying the HRH researchers or funders involved was felt to be beyond its scope. The data collected were categorized using a predetermined conceptual framework and categories not included in the framework may have been neglected. Finally, the researchers who ranked the research questions may have scored issues of personal interest more highly, though this is unlikely, as there was no budget under discussion.
In future priority-setting exercises, how best to translate policy priorities into research questions should be more closely examined. Key informants consulted in this study had much more difficulty discussing research questions than policy concerns, and study team leaders were largely responsible for translating one into the other. This may have introduced a bias because country and regional team leaders may, for example, have neglected policy concerns they felt to be less interesting or researchable. Our study partly compensated for this possible bias by mapping policy concerns (categorized by outcomes of HRH policies) and research questions (categorized by policy interventions or levers) onto a common conceptual framework. This process required those carrying out the final data analysis to reconsider whether each outcome or intervention category had been mentioned during the interviews.
Nevertheless, this is the first study that has carefully documented the engagement of a diverse group of stakeholders, including researchers, policy-makers, civil society representatives and community members, in four geographical regions and 24 LMICs in identifying global research priorities. Because of the geographical diversity of the data, the findings are likely to be transferable to many LMICs. Further, by focusing on HRH issues, the study has produced more specific conclusions than previous, broad, priority-setting exercises.
The relatively small number of literature reviews identified (Table 2) suggests that priority research questions could first be investigated through systematic, desk-based literature reviews. Thereafter, original research will probably involve a range of approaches. Large-scale quantitative work may be required to determine the effects of some HRH interventions, qualitative work may be needed to investigate implementation processes, and multinational case studies may involve both approaches. Currently, there is an active debate on establishing quality in health systems research.35
Since many HRH policy issues are complex, policy-makers need data from several different research perspectives and research funders will have to coordinate efforts to ensure progress. Recently, the Alliance HPSR, in collaboration with the WHO Human Resources for Health Department and the Global Health Workforce Alliance, started to investigate the top-ranked research question, on the effectiveness of financial and non-financial incentives. Further, the Bulletin of the World Health Organization published a theme issue in May 2010 on increasing access to health workers in underserved areas.36 In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Department for International Development has issued a request for research proposals on task-shifting and strategies for scaling-up pre-service training.
This study has demonstrated that there is considerable consensus about the type of HRH policy problems faced by different countries and the nature of evidence needed. However, little research has been carried out in LMICs.4 Research on strategies for improving the distribution, retention, motivation and performance of health workers, as well as on controlling dual practice, is urgently needed. The results could ultimately have a major impact on the health of the poor.
Salla Atkins is also affiliated with the Division of International Health, Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
The authors would like to thank Sarah Hoibak and Angus Steele for their contributions to the literature review and Taghreed Adam, Maia Ambegaokar, Fadi El-Jardali, Gilles Dussault and Felix Rigoli for commenting on the manuscript. We also wish to thank the many colleagues who contributed to the Alliance for HPSR's priority-setting work, including: Delius Asiimwe and Gaspar Munishi (East Africa report); Gonzalo Urcullo, Rodrigo Muñoz and Ricardo Bitrán (Latin America and the Caribbean report); Soewarta Kosen (South-East Asia report); Fadi El-Jardali, Judy Makhoul, Diana Jamal and Victoria Tchaghchaghian (Middle East and North Africa report); Shirley Williams; George Gotsadze; the many country-based investigators; and participants in the workshop in Berkeley, USA.
Funding: This study was funded by the WHO Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research.
Competing interests: None declared.
1. The world health report 2006: working together for health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006. [ Links ]
2. Joint Learning Initiative. Human resources for health: overcoming the crisis. Cambridge: Global Equity Initiative, Harvard University; 2004. [ Links ]
3. Kolehmainen-Aitken RL. Decentralization's impact on the health workforce: Perspectives of managers, workers and national leaders. Hum Resour Health 2004;2:5. doi:10.1186/1478-4491-2-5 PMID:15144558 [ Links ]
4. Chopra M, Munro S, Lavis JN, Vist G, Bennett S. Effects of policy options for human resources for health: an analysis of systematic reviews. Lancet 2008;371:668-74. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60305-0 PMID:18295024 [ Links ]
5. Task Force on Health Systems Research. Informed choices for attaining the Millennium Development Goals: towards an international cooperative agenda for health-systems research. Lancet 2004;364:997-1003. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17026-8 PMID:15364193 [ Links ]
6. Health workers for all and all for health workers. Geneva: Global Health Workforce Alliance; 2008. Available from: http://www.who.int/workforcealliance/forum/2_declaration_final.pdf [accessed 31 March 2009] [ Links ].
7. Sutherland K, Leatherman S. Regulation and quality improvement: a review of the evidence. London: The Health Foundation; 2006. [ Links ]
8. Thomson O'Brien MA, Freemantle N, Oxman AD, Wolf F, Davis DA, Herrin J. Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;2:CD003030. PMID:11406063 [ Links ]
9. O'Brien MA, Rogers S, Jamtvedt G, Oxman AD, Odgaard-Jensen J, Kristoffersen DT et al. Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;4:CD000409. PMID:17943742 [ Links ]
10. Ensor T, Weinzierl S. Regulating health care in low- and middle-income countries: Broadening the policy response in resource constrained environments. Soc Sci Med 2007;65:355-66. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.021 PMID:17451853 [ Links ]
11. Giuffrida A, Gosden T, Forland F, Kristiansen IS, Sergison M, Leese B et al. Target payments in primary care: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;3:CD000531. PMID:10908475 [ Links ]
12. Gosden T, Forland F, Kristiansen IS, Sutton M, Leese B, Giuffrida A et al. Capitation, salary, fee-for-service and mixed systems of payment: effects on the behaviour of primary care physicians. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;3:CD002215. PMID:10908531 [ Links ]
13. Petersen LA, Woodard LD, Urech T, Daw C, Sookanan S. Does pay-for-performance improve the quality of health care? Ann Intern Med 2006;145:265-72. PMID:16908917 [ Links ]
14. Chaix-Couturier C, Durand-Zaleski I, Jolly D, Durieux P. Effects of financial incentives on medical practice: results from a systematic review of the literature and methodological issues. Int J Qual Health Care 2000;12:133-42. doi:10.1093/intqhc/12.2.133 PMID:10830670 [ Links ]
15. Christianson J, Leatherman S, Sutherland K. Financial incentives, health care providers and improvements in quality of care. London: The Health Foundation; 2008. [ Links ]
16. Town R, Kane R, Johnson P, Butler M. Economic incentives and physicians' delivery of preventive care: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2005;28:234-40. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.013 PMID:15710282 [ Links ]
17. Rosenthal MB, Frank RG. What is the empirical basis for paying for quality in health care? Med Care Res Rev 2006;63:135-57. doi:10.1177/1077558705285291 PMID:16595409 [ Links ]
18. Sempowski IP. Effectiveness of financial incentives in exchange for rural and underserviced area return-of-service commitments: systematic review of the literature. Can J Rural Med 2004;9:82-8. PMID:15603680 [ Links ]
19. Foxcroft DR, Cole N. Organisational infrastructures to promote evidence based nursing practice. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;4:CD002212. PMID:14583946 [ Links ]
20. Clements CJ, Streefland PH, Malau C. Supervision in primary health care-can it be carried out effectively in developing countries? Curr Drug Saf 2007;2:19-23. doi:10.2174/157488607779315435 PMID:18690946 [ Links ]
21. Kilminster SM, Jolly BC. Effective supervision in clinical practice settings: a literature review. Med Educ 2000;34:827-40. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00758.x PMID:11012933 [ Links ]
22. Buchan J, Calman L. Skill-mix and policy change in the health workforce: nurses in advanced roles (OECD Health Working Papers No. 17). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2004. [ Links ]
23. Buchan J, Dal Poz MR. Skill mix in the health care workforce: reviewing the evidence. Bull World Health Organ 2002;80:575-80. PMID:12163922 [ Links ]
24. Dovlo D. Using mid-level cadres as substitutes for internationally mobile health professionals in Africa. A desk review. Hum Resour Health 2004;2:7. doi:10.1186/1478-4491-2-7 PMID:15207010 [ Links ]
25. Laurant M, Reeves D, Hermens R, Braspenning J, Grol R, Sibbald B. Substitution of doctors by nurses in primary care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005. 2CD001271. PMID:15846614 [ Links ]
26. Padarath A, Chamberlain C, McCoy D, Ntuli A, Rowson M, Loewenson R. Health personnel in southern Africa: confronting maldistribution and brain drain (Equinet Discussion Paper No. 3.). Harare: Equinet; 2005. [ Links ]
27. El-Jardali F, Jamal D, Abdallah A, Kassak K. Human resources for health planning and management in the Eastern Mediterranean region: facts, gaps and forward thinking for research and policy. Hum Resour Health 2007;5:9. doi:10.1186/1478-4491-5-9 PMID:17381837 [ Links ]
28. Mable AL, Marriott J. Steady state: finding a sustainable balance point: international review of health workforce planning. Wolfe Island: Health Human Resources Strategies Division, Health Canada; 2001. [ Links ]
29. Pagett C, Padarath A. A review of codes and protocols for the migration of health workers (Equinet Discussion Paper No. 50). Harare: Regional Network on Equity in Health in Southern Africa; 2007. [ Links ]
30. Ahmad OB. Managing medical migration from poor countries. BMJ 2005;331:43-5. doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7507.43 PMID:15994693 [ Links ]
31. Diallo K. Data on the migration of health-care workers: sources, uses, and challenges. Bull World Health Organ 2004;82:601-7. PMID:15375450 [ Links ]
32. Dovlo D. Migration of nurses from sub-Saharan Africa: a review of issues and challenges. Health Serv Res 2007;42(3p2):1373-88. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2007.00712.x PMID:17489920 [ Links ]
33. Grobler L, Marais BJ, Mabunda SA, Marindi PN, Reuter H, Volmink J. Interventions for increasing the proportion of health professionals practising in rural and other underserved areas. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;1:CD005314. PMID:19160251 [ Links ]
34. George A. Human resources for health: a gender analysis. Geneva: WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health; 2007. [ Links ]
35. Mills A, Gilson L, Hanson K, Palmer N, Lagarde M. What do we mean by rigorous health-systems research? Lancet 2008;372:1527-9. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61633-5 PMID:18984174 [ Links ]
36. Dayrit MM, Dolea C, Braichet J-M. One piece of the puzzle to solve the human resources for health crisis. Bull World Health Organ 2010;88:322. doi:10.2471/BLT.10.078485 PMID:20461216 [ Links ]
(Submitted: 1 April 2009 - Revised version received: 6 October 2009 - Accepted: 22 October 2009 )