Cited by 38Occupational and Professional Licensing RegulationHealthcare RegulationGlobal Health Workforce Issues

Design, delivery and effectiveness of health practitioner regulation systems: an integrative review

Open access
Leslie, Kathleen, Bourgeault, Ivy Lynn, Carlton, Anne-Louise, Balasubramanian, Madhan, Mirshahi, Raha, Short, Stephanie D., Carè, Jenny, Cometto, Giorgio +1 more·2023·Human Resources for Health

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Health practitioner regulation (HPR) systems are increasingly recognized as playing an important role in supporting health workforce availability, accessibility, quality, and sustainability, while promoting patient safety. This review aimed to identify evidence on the design, delivery and effectiveness of HPR to inform policy decisions. METHODS: We conducted an integrative analysis of literature published between 2010 and 2021. Fourteen databases were systematically searched, with data extracted and synthesized based on a modified Donabedian framework. FINDINGS: This large-scale review synthesized evidence from a range of academic (n = 410) and grey literature (n = 426) relevant to HPR. We identified key themes and findings for a series of HPR topics organized according to our structures-processes-outcomes conceptual framework. Governance reforms in HPR are shifting towards multi-profession regulators, enhanced accountability, and risk-based approaches; however, comparisons between HPR models were complicated by a lack of a standardized HPR typology. HPR can support government workforce strategies, despite persisting challenges in cross-border recognition of qualifications and portability of registration. Scope of practice reform adapted to modern health systems can improve access and quality. Alternatives to statutory registration for lower-risk health occupations can improve services and protect the public, while standardized evaluation frameworks can aid regulatory strengthening. Knowledge gaps remain around the outcomes and effectiveness of HPR processes, including continuing professional development models, national licensing examinations, accreditation of health practitioner education programs, mandatory reporting obligations, remediation programs, and statutory registration of traditional and complementary medicine practitioners. CONCLUSION: We identified key themes, issues, and evidence gaps valuable for governments, regulators, and health system leaders. We also identified evidence base limitations that warrant caution when interpreting and generalizing the results across jurisdictions and professions. Themes and findings reflect interests and concerns in high-income Anglophone countries where most literature originated. Most studies were descriptive, resulting in a low certainty of evidence. To inform regulatory design and reform, research funders and governments should prioritize evidence on regulatory outcomes, including innovative approaches we identified in our review. Additionally, a systematic approach is needed to track and evaluate the impact of regulatory interventions and innovations on achieving health workforce and health systems goals.

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/s12960-023-00848-y

Cites

251 of 251 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 [18]

  • Existing evidence about the design and outcomes of CCPs is mixed.

    “Although mandatory continuing professional development is an approach that is used widely by professional regulators globally, existing evidence about the design and outcomes of CCPs is mixed [18,247–251].”

    From Nursing regulation in Canada: Insights from a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [18]

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

1 of the 252 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. [5]Carlton A-L. Review of the Allied Health Professions Act 2016: Final report for the Malaysian Ministry of Health on establishing an effective regulatory framework for the allied health professions - findings and recommendations from WHO consultancy conducted September 2020 - July 2021. World Health Organization Western Pacific Region (WHO WPR); 2021 Oct p. 1–114.
  2. [18]Pearson A White H Bath-Hextall F Salmond S Apostolo J Kirkpatrick P A mixed-methods approach to systematic reviews Int J Evid Based Healthc 2015 13 121 131 26196082
  3. [20]Covidence. Covidence: Better systematic review management. Covidence. https://www.covidence.org/
  4. [51]PSA. A new approach to how we review the regulators: 2021 consultations [Internet]. UK Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care. 2021. https://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/what-we-do/improving-regulation/consultation/consultation-on-performance-reviews
  5. [55]Snowball K. Independent Review of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for health professions. Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council (AHMAC); 2014 Dec.
  6. [57]COAG Health Council. Review of Governance of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (NRAS). COAG Health Council; 2017 Nov p. 1–26.
  7. [88]Yam HK. Fit for purpose: Do Hong Kong’s current assessment and monitoring systems for medical practice meet modern day needs? Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. 2018;79:No Pagination Specified.
  8. [106]Woods M. Australia’s Health Workforce: strengthening the education foundation | Independent Review of Accreditation Systems within the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for health professions. Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council, COAG Health Council; 2017 Nov.
  9. [115]Thomas S, Sagan A, Larkin J, Cylus J, Figueras J, Karanikolos M. Policy Brief 36: Strengthening health systems resilience: key concepts and strategies. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2020 Jun p. 1–33. https://eurohealthobservatory.who.int/publications/i/strengthening-health-system-resilience-key-concepts-and-strategies 32716618
  10. [130]Benton DC, George J. Regulating the Regulators? Official Journal of the World Medical Association, Inc. 2018;64:3–8.
  11. [134]Archer J, Lynn N, Roberts M, Coombes L, Gale T, de Bere SR. A Systematic review on the impact of licensing examinations for doctors in countries comparable to the UK. 2015 May p. 1–52. https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/A_systematic_review_on_the_impact_of_licensing_examinations__for_doctors_in_countries_comparable_to_the_UK.pdf_61103496.pdf
  12. [182]Bullock A, Browne J, Poletti C, Dorottya C& E. Review of research into health and care professional regulation. Professional Standards Authority. 2020. https://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/publications/detail/review-of-research-into-health-and-care-professional-regulation

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leslie, K., Bourgeault, I. L., Carlton, A.-L., Balasubramanian, M., Mirshahi, R., Short, S. D., Carè, J., Cometto, G., & Lin, V.
Affiliations
  • Athabasca University (CA)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • RMIT University (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • University of Technology Sydney (AU)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Leslie, Kathleen
Venue
Human Resources for Health
Published
2023-09-04
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
72-72
ISSN
1478-4491 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4386423345
Cited by
38
References
252
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 3
FWCI
2.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Resources for Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • uO Research (University of Ottawa) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
World Health Organization
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Occupational and Professional Licensing Regulation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Regulation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Global Health Workforce Issues
Keywords
health practitioner regulation, healthcare workers, statutory registration, risk-based regulation, continuing professional development, licensing examinations, mandatory reporting, remedial programme, patient safety, health workforce policy
MeSH terms
Accreditation, Government, Government Programs, Health Education, Humans, Databases, Factual

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