↓ Skip to main content

The 'Brain Drain' of physicians: historical antecedents to an ethical debate, c. 1960–79

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, November 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
The 'Brain Drain' of physicians: historical antecedents to an ethical debate, c. 1960–79
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, November 2008
DOI 10.1186/1747-5341-3-24
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Wright, Nathan Flis, Mona Gupta

Abstract

Many western industrialized countries are currently suffering from a crisis in health human resources, one that involves a debate over the recruitment and licensing of foreign-trained doctors and nurses. The intense public policy interest in foreign-trained medical personnel, however, is not new. During the 1960s, western countries revised their immigration policies to focus on highly-trained professionals. During the following decade, hundreds of thousands of health care practitioners migrated from poorer jurisdictions to western industrialized countries to solve what were then deemed to be national doctor and nursing 'shortages' in the developed world. Migration plummeted in the 1980s and 1990s only to re-emerge in the last decade as an important debate in global health care policy and ethics. This paper will examine the historical antecedents to this ethical debate. It will trace the early articulation of the idea of a 'brain drain', one that emerged from the loss of NHS doctors to other western jurisdictions in the 1950s and 1960s. Only over time did the discussion turn to the 'manpower' losses of 'third world countries', but the inability to track physician migration, amongst other variables, muted any concerted ethical debate. By contrast, the last decade's literature has witnessed a dramatically different ethical framework, informed by globalization, the rise of South Africa as a source donor country, and the ongoing catastrophe of the AIDS epidemic. Unlike the literature of the early 1970s, recent scholarship has focussed on a new framework of global ethics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 144 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 14%
Lecturer 20 13%
Student > Master 17 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 43 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 39 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 19%
Social Sciences 14 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 6%
Arts and Humanities 4 3%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 47 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 October 2021.
All research outputs
#4,835,157
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#118
of 234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,764
of 103,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 234 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 103,056 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.