↓ Skip to main content

Managing intra-EU mobility—do WHO principles of ethical recruitment have relevance?

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Managing intra-EU mobility—do WHO principles of ethical recruitment have relevance?
Published in
Human Resources for Health, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12960-017-0247-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Réka Kovács, Edmond Girasek, Eszter Kovács, Zoltán Aszalós, Edit Eke, Károly Ragány, Zoltán Cserháti, Miklós Szócska

Abstract

The WHO Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel provides for guidance in health workforce management and cooperation in the international context. This article aims to examine whether the principles of the voluntary WHO Global Code of Practice can be applied to trigger health policy decisions within the EU zone of free movement of persons. In the framework of the Joint Action on European Health Workforce Planning and Forecasting project (Grant Agreement: JA EUHWF 20122201 (see healthworkforce.eu)), focus group discussions were organised with over 30 experts representing ministries, universities and professional and international organisations. Ideas were collected about the applicability of the principles and with the aim to find EU law compatible, relevant solutions using a qualitative approach based on a standardised, semi-structured interview guide and pre-defined statements. Based on implementation practices summarised, focus group experts concluded that positive effects of adhering to the Code can be identified and useful ideas-compatible with EU law-exist to manage intra-EU mobility. The most relevant areas for intervention include bilateral cooperations, better use of EU financial resources, improved retention and integration policies and better data flow and monitoring. Improving retention is of key importance; however, ethical considerations should also apply within the EU. Compensation of source countries can be a solution to further elaborate on when developing EU financial mechanisms. Intra-EU circular mobility might be feasible and made more transparent if directed by tailor-made, institutional-level bilateral cooperations adjusted to different groups and profiles of health professionals. Integration policies should be improved as discrimination still exists when offering jobs despite the legal environment facilitating the recognition of professional qualifications. A system of feedback on registration/licencing data should be promoted providing for more evidence on intra-EU mobility and support its management. Workforce planning in EU Member States can be supported, and more equitable distribution of the workforce can be provided by building policy decisions on the principles of the WHO Code. Political commitment has to be strengthened in EU countries to adopt implementation solutions for intra-EU problems. Long-term benefits of respecting global principles of the Code should be better demonstrated in order to incentivise all parties to follow such long-term objectives.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 18 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 10 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 14%
Social Sciences 6 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 19 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 09 February 2018.
All research outputs
#4,590,757
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#543
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,452
of 342,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#10
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st 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 56% 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 342,671 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.