Back

Routine Data for Workforce Equality Monitoring: Ethnic Inequalities in Recruitment and Workforce Representation in Nursing and Midwifery

Boldbaatar, A.; Strahle, S.; Shamsuddin, A.; Henderson, D.

2026-04-03 nursing
10.64898/2026.03.31.26349776 medRxiv
Show abstract

Aim To examine ethnic inequalities in recruitment outcomes and workforce representation across pay bands among nursing and midwifery staff, and to assess whether routinely collected administrative data can generate reproducible indicators for workforce equality monitoring. Design Retrospective observational study. Methods We analyzed routinely collected administrative data from one NHS Board in Scotland. This included annual staff-in-post data for 2021/22 to 2024/25 and pooled recruitment data on interviewed candidates and conditional job offers for 2021/22 to 2023/24. Ethnicity was grouped as White and non-White. Analyses focused on Bands 5, 6 and 7. Recruitment outcomes were assessed using relative risks for receipt of a conditional job offer among interviewed candidates, comparing White and non-White applicants. Workforce representation across pay bands was assessed using representation quotients. Analyses were descriptive and unadjusted. Results White applicants were more likely than non-White applicants to receive a conditional job offer following interview across all pay bands examined. Inequalities were also evident at Band 5, the usual entry point to registered practice. Workforce composition analyses showed a corresponding gradient in representation, with non-White staff overrepresented in Band 5 and underrepresented in Bands 6 and 7, with little change over the study period. Conclusion Routinely collected administrative data can generate reproducible indicators of ethnic inequality in recruitment and workforce representation. Embedded within existing workforce systems, such analyses could strengthen workforce equality monitoring, support benchmarking and enhance accountability across healthcare settings. Impact Utilising routine administrative data for workforce equality monitoring can support policy and practice aimed at improving accountability, retention and workforce sustainability across health systems. Reporting Method This study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guidelines. Patient or Public Involvement This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct, or reporting.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
38.9%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 12%
14.8%
50% of probability mass above
3
Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
4
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
5
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
6
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
7
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
8
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
9
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
10
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
11
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.4%
12
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
13
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
14
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
15
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
16
British Journal of Anaesthesia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
17
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
18
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
19
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
20
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
21
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
23
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%
24
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%