Cited by 29Healthcare RegulationOccupational and Professional Licensing RegulationHealthcare Quality and Management

Recent research into healthcare professions regulation: a rapid evidence assessment

Open access
Browne, Julie, Bullock, Alison, Poletti, Chiara, Cserző, Dorottya·2021·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Over the last decade, regulators have taken significant steps towards tackling perceptions that regulatory systems are burdensome. There has been much international research activity in the regulation of health and care professionals. This article reports a review of studies on health professions regulation between January 2011 and March 2020. Its chief object was to provide robust and up-to-date evidence to assist regulators in policy development and implementation. The main objectives of this study were to: 1. Identify and retrieve research in the field of health and care professions regulation in English since 2011; 2. Evaluate the published research, exploring its utility to regulators and practitioners, and drawing out any key messages; 3. Draw conclusions concerning the scope and limitations of the research literature and identify areas for further research. METHODS: We undertook a rapid evidence assessment (REA) of the international literature on health and care professions regulation, including reviewing ten UK regulators' websites to identify issues of concern and strategic priorities. We retrieved 3833 references, using a four-stage screening process to select the 81 most relevant. RESULTS: Results are reported within six key themes: harm prevention and patient safety; fitness to practise; quality assurance of education and training; registration including maintenance of registers; guidelines and standards and relations with regulatory bodies. CONCLUSIONS: Regulation of professionals in health and care is comparatively undeveloped as a field of academic study. Consequently, the published evidence is diffuse and small-scale. Most work presents relatively weak data of low relevance to regulators, mainly reporting or describing the current position. Few studies are able to show the impact of regulation or demonstrate a causal link between regulation and its effects. To inform their research and policy agendas health and social care regulators need to commission, interpret and apply the scholarly literature more effectively; academics need to engage with regulators to ensure that their research provides high-quality evidence with practical relevance to the regulators' agendas. Further study is needed to explore how effective academic collaborations between regulators and researchers may be created and sustained.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12913-021-06946-8

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous reviews report the health practitioner regulation literature base to be diffuse, primarily descriptive, and insufficient for drawing strong conclusions about the effects of regulatory approaches, policies, and practices on patient safety, the health workforce, and health system outcomes.

    “These authors report the literature base to be diffuse, primarily descriptive, and insufficient for drawing strong conclusions about the effects of various regulatory approaches, policies, and practices on patient safety, the health workforce, and health system outcomes [17,18].”

    From Nursing regulation in Canada: Insights from a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [17]

  • Evidence illustrates a disconnect between what is researched and what regulators identify as priorities.

    “This is particularly important as evidence illustrates a disconnect between what is researched and what regulators identify as priorities [17].”

    From Nursing regulation in Canada: Insights from a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [17]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [24]Thomas L Tibble H Too L Hopcraft M Bismark M Complaints about dental practitioners: an analysis of 6 years of complaints about dentists, dental prosthetists, oral health therapists, dental therapists and dental hygienists in Australia Aust Dent J 2018 63 3 285 293 10.1111/adj.12625 PMC6635754 29862517 · DOI
  2. [51]Baird R Murray R Seale R Foot C Perry C King’s fund review of midwifery regulation 2015 London The King’s Fund

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Browne, J., Bullock, A., Poletti, C., & Cserző, D.
Affiliations
Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Browne, Julie
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2021-09-08
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
934-934
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3196450535
Cited by
29
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4
FWCI
0.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Cardiff University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Occupational and Professional Licensing Regulation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
health professions regulation, professional regulation, regulatory burden, harm prevention, patient safety, fitness to practise, professional registration, professional registers
MeSH terms
Prohibitins, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Research Personnel

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