Interventions for improving attraction and retention of health workers in rural and underserved areas: a systematic review of systematic reviews
Abstract
Background: Global health workforce shortages exist with disparities in the skill mix and distribution of health workers. Rural and underserved populations are often disadvantaged in terms of access to health care. Methods: This systematic review summarized all systematic reviews that assessed interventions for improving attraction and retention of health workers in rural and underserved areas. We systematically searched selected electronic databases up to 31 March 2020. The authors independently screened the reviews, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Review quality was assessed using the ROBIS tool. Results: There was a paucity of evidence for the effectiveness of the various interventions. Regulatory measures were able to attract health workers to rural and underserved areas, particularly when obligations were attached to incentives. However, health workers were likely to relocate from these areas once their obligations were completed. Recruiting rural students and rural placements improved attraction and retention although most studies were without control groups, which made conclusions on effectiveness difficult. Conclusions: Cost-effective utilization of limited resources and the adoption and implementation of evidence-based health workforce policies and interventions that are tailored to meet national health system contexts and needs are essential.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed
Whiting, P., Savović, J., Higgins, J. P. T., Caldwell, D. M., Reeves, B. C., Shea, B., Davies, P., Kleijnen, J., & Churchill, R. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005 · Cited by 2,272 · see citing works
Becker, L. A., & Oxman, A. D. (2008) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9780470712184.ch22 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
The Midwives Service Scheme in Nigeria
Abimbola, S., Okoli, U., Olubajo, O., Abdullahi, M. J., & Pate, M. A. (2012) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001211 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Esu, E. B., Chibuzor, M., Aquaisua, E., Udoh, E., Sam, O., Okoroafor, S., Ongom, M., Effa, E., Oyo-ita, A., & Meremikwu, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Calabar (NG)
- University Of Calabar Teaching Hospital (NG)
- University of Uyo Teaching Hospital (NG)
- World Health Organization (CH)
- World Health Organization - Nigeria (NG)
- Corresponding author
- Okoroafor, S
- Venue
- Journal of Public Health
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2021-03
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- Supplement_1
- Pages
- i54-i66
- ISSN
- 0943-1853 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3842
- 1741-3850
- OpenAlex
- W3155875155
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 1.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- World Health Organization Country Office
- Government of Canada
- Enhancing the Ability of Frontline Health Workers to Improve Health in Nigeria (–A-035024/1)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Global Health Workforce Issues
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Global Health and Surgery
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare Systems and Challenges
- Keywords
- health workforce retention, rural health workforce, underserved areas, health workforce shortage, health workforce policy, regulatory requirements, financial incentives, rural placements, health care access
- MeSH terms
- Systematic Reviews as Topic, Health Workforce, Health Personnel, Humans, Medically Underserved Area, Rural Health Services
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review