Abstract

BackgroundDiscrete choice experiments have become a popular study design to study the labour market preferences of health workers. Discrete choice experiments in health, however, have been criticised for lagging behind best practice and there are specific methodological considerations for those focused on job choices. We performed a systematic review of the application of discrete choice experiments to inform health workforce policy.MethodsWe searched for discrete choice experiments that examined the labour market preferences of health workers, including doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, mid-level and community health workers. We searched Medline, Embase, Global Health, other databases and grey literature repositories with no limits on date or language and contacted 44 experts. Features of choice task and experimental design, conduct and analysis of included studies were assessed against best practice. An assessment of validity was undertaken for all studies, with a comparison of results from those with low risk of bias and a similar objective and context.ResultsTwenty-seven studies were included, with over half set in low- and middle-income countries. There were more studies published in the last four years than the previous ten years. Doctors or medical students were the most studied cadre. Studies frequently pooled results from heterogeneous subgroups or extrapolated these results to the general population. Only one third of studies included an opt-out option, despite all health workers having the option to exit the labour market. Just five studies combined results with cost data to assess the cost effectiveness of various policy options. Comparison of results from similar studies broadly showed the importance of bonus payments and postgraduate training opportunities and the unpopularity of time commitments for the uptake of rural posts.ConclusionsThis is the first systematic review of discrete choice experiments in human resources for health. We identified specific issues relating to this application of which practitioners should be aware to ensure robust results. In particular, there is a need for more defined target populations and increased synthesis with cost data. Research on a wider range of health workers and the generalisability of results would be welcome to better inform policy.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-367) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

  • Discrete choice experiments have become a popular study design to study the labour market preferences of health workers

  • Due to the rapid developments in this application of discrete choice experiment (DCE) and with renewed focus on health worker shortages due to the universal health coverage agenda, we considered it timely to systematically review the use of DCEs in health workforce policy

  • Review of included studies Here we review key study characteristics, commenting on specific methodological debates for this application of DCEs

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Discrete choice experiments have become a popular study design to study the labour market preferences of health workers. Discrete choice experiments in health, have been criticised for lagging behind best practice and there are specific methodological considerations for those focused on job choices. We performed a systematic review of the application of discrete choice experiments to inform health workforce policy. Information systems for tracking health workers are weak in many countries, impeding longitudinal studies [1,2]. Ethical and logistical factors limit the opportunities for natural or controlled experiments [4,7]. In light of this limited toolkit, one approach has become increasingly popular amongst researchers in this area: the discrete choice experiment (DCE)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.