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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 251 of the 252 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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, Lin, Vivian·2023·Human Resources for Health
DOI 10.1186/s12960-023-00848-yPMC PMC10478314

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

Overview

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

Figures

Fig. 1 Modified Donabedian framework of HPR systems
Fig. 1 Modified Donabedian framework of HPR systemsCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 PRISMA flow diagram for academic literature sources
Fig. 2 PRISMA flow diagram for academic literature sourcesCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Distribution of published literature by topic and structures (S), processes (P), and outcomes (O)
Fig. 3 Distribution of published literature by topic and structures (S), processes (P), and outcomes (O)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Most frequent countries and health occupations in the published literature (n = 410)
Fig. 4 Most frequent countries and health occupations in the published literature (n = 410)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Most frequent countries and health occupations in the grey literature (n = 426)
Fig. 5 Most frequent countries and health occupations in the grey literature (n = 426)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 6 Overview of topics and themes categorized by structures, processes, and outcomes
Fig. 6 Overview of topics and themes categorized by structures, processes, and outcomesCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 7 Most frequent countries and health occupations in published literature addressing the scope and governance of regulatory systems
Fig. 7 Most frequent countries and health occupations in published literature addressing the scope and governance of regulatory systemsCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 8 Most frequent countries and health occupations in the published literature on regulatory institutions
Fig. 8 Most frequent countries and health occupations in the published literature on regulatory institutionsCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 9 Most frequent countries and health occupations in the published literature on regulatory system linkages
Fig. 9 Most frequent countries and health occupations in the published literature on regulatory system linkagesCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 10 Most frequent countries and health occupations in the published literature on registration and monitoring of continuing competence of practitioners
Fig. 10 Most frequent countries and health occupations in the published literature on registration and monitoring of continuing competence of practitionersCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 11 Most frequent countries and health occupations in published literature addressing accreditation of HPE programs
Fig. 11 Most frequent countries and health occupations in published literature addressing accreditation of HPE programsCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 12 Most frequent countries and health occupations in published literature addressing regulation of scopes of practice
Fig. 12 Most frequent countries and health occupations in published literature addressing regulation of scopes of practiceCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 13 Most frequent countries and health occupations in the published literature on regulation of complaints-handling and discipline
Fig. 13 Most frequent countries and health occupations in the published literature on regulation of complaints-handling and disciplineCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 14 Most frequent countries and health occupations in published literature addressing regulation of T&CM practitioners
Fig. 14 Most frequent countries and health occupations in published literature addressing regulation of T&CM practitionersCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 15 Most frequent countries and health occupations in published literature addressing impacts of HPR on health workforce and health system outcomes
Fig. 15 Most frequent countries and health occupations in published literature addressing impacts of HPR on health workforce and health system outcomesCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. 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. Pearson A, White H, Bath-Hextall F, Salmond S, Apostolo J, Kirkpatrick P. A mixed-methods approach to systematic reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2015;13:121.
  3. Covidence. Covidence: Better systematic review management. Covidence. https://www.covidence.org/
  4. 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. Snowball K. Independent Review of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for health professions. Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council (AHMAC); 2014 Dec.
  6. COAG Health Council. Review of Governance of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (NRAS). COAG Health Council; 2017 Nov p. 1–26.
  7. Besançon LJR, Rockey P, van Zanten M. Regulation of health professions: disparate worldwide approaches are a challenge to harmonization. Globalization. 2012;1:3.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Benton DC, George J. Regulating the Regulators? Official Journal of the World Medical Association, Inc. 2018;64:3–8.
  11. 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. Ying X, Kannan V, Greener E, Smith JA, Brasch J, Johnson BA, et al. Full scope-of-practice regulation is associated with higher supply of nurse practitioners in rural and primary care health professional shortage counties. J Nurs Regul. 2018;8:5–13. · DOI
  13. 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

See all 38

Related

See all

Metadata

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
ORCID
Venue
Human Resources for Health
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-09-04
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
72-72
ISSN
1478-4491 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12960-023-00848-y
PMC
PMC10478314
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
Licence
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 › Law › Occupational and Professional Licensing Regulation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Regulation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › 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