| Title |
The Code of Practice and its enduring relevance in Europe and Eastern and Southern Africa
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Resources for Health, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12960-016-0122-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Remco van de Pas, Linda Mans, Giulia de Ponte, Yoswa Dambisya |
| Abstract |
The relevance and effectiveness of the WHO Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Personnel will be reviewed by the World Health Assembly in 2015. The origins of the Code of Practice and the global health diplomacy process before and after its adoption are analyzed herein. Case studies from the European and eastern and southern African regions describe in detail successes and failures of the policy implementation of the Code. In Europe, the Code is effective and even more relevant than before, but might require some tweaking. In Eastern and Southern Africa, the code is relevant but far from efficient in mitigating the negative effects of health workforce migration. Solutions to strengthen the Code include clarification of some of its definitions and articles, inclusion of a governance structure and asustainable and binding financing system to reimburse countries for health workforce losses due to migration, and featuring of health worker migration on global policy agendas across a range of institutional policy domains. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 83% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 69 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 29% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 12% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 18 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 12% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 20 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 05 April 2022.
All research outputs
#3,710,309
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#454
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,723
of 366,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#13
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
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 366,926 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.