General practice workforce retention strategies: an umbrella review
Jefferson, L. A.; Golder, S.; Castro-Avila, A. C.; Webster, E.; Anderson, H.; Dale, V.
Show abstract
ObjectiveWe summarise international evidence of interventions to support retention of the general practice workforce, mapping evidence by country, method and workforce group. DesignUmbrella overview of reviews. We mapped evidence according to occupational group, intervention type and outcome to identify trends and gaps. SettingInternational primary care and general practice. ParticipantsGeneral practice workforce, with studies grouped by general practitioners, nurse practitioners and mixed health professional. Main outcome measuresWorkforce retention, including length of employment, stability rates, settlement rates, vacancy rates, unfilled positions, turnover numbers or rates, attrition rates, intentions to stay, leave and return. ResultsOf the 3449 articles identified through database searching and citation tracking, we included 12 reviews. There was a general lack of policy evaluations in some fields and low geographical spread beyond Australia and the US. While stronger evidence exists for interventions such as professional development and fostering supportive environments, mixed findings were reported on financial incentives and limited formal evaluations were found for some intervention types, and professional groups. ConclusionThis overview of research underscores the need for more research evaluating interventions to support the general practice workforce, particularly across wider international settings.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Protocol for a scoping review investigating success in research capacity building for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals 95%
- Knowledge mobilisation of rapid evidence reviews to inform health and social care policy and practice in a public health emergency: appraisal of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre processes and impact, 2021-23 94%
- Wellbeing Impact Study of High-Speed 2 (WISH2): Protocol for a mixed-methods examination of the impact of major transport infrastructure development on mental health and wellbeing 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Interventions To Improve Patient Safety During The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review 93%
- National statutory reporting: not even ticking the boxes? The quality of ‘Learning from Deaths’ reporting in Quality Accounts within the NHS in England 2017-2020 93%
- Evaluating the impact of an enhanced support implementation of the PReCePT (PRevention of Cerebral palsy in Pre-Term labour) quality improvement toolkit to increase the uptake of magnesium sulphate in pre-term deliveries for the prevention of neurodisabilities: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- ‘Leading from the front’ implementation strategies increase the success of influenza vaccination drives among healthcare workers: A reanalysis of Systematic Review evidence using Intervention Component Analysis (ICA) and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) 94%
- Healthcare workers experiences of working on the frontline and views about support during COVID-19 and comparable pandemics: A rapid review and meta-synthesis 94%
- Educational interventions delivered to prescribing advisers to influence primary care prescribing: a very low-cost pragmatic randomised trial using routine data from OpenPrescribing.net 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Understanding the influence of leadership, organisation, and policy on delivering an integrated child health and social care service in community settings: A qualitative exploration using the SELFIE framework 91%
- Staff experiences and perspectives of delivering an integrated child health and social care service in community settings: A qualitative exploration using the SELFIE framework 91%
- Drug company methodologies used for reporting in the UK pharmaceutical industry payment transparency database between 2015-2019: A content analysis 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.