Governance systems for skilled health worker migration, their public value and competing priorities: an interpretive scoping review

Kenneth Yakubu; Andrea Durbach; Alexandra van Waes; Sikhumbuzo A Mabunda; David Peiris; Janani Shanthosh; Rohina Joshi

doi:10.1080/16549716.2021.2013600

Governance systems for skilled health worker migration, their public value and competing priorities: an interpretive scoping review

Glob Health Action. 2022 Dec 31;15(1):2013600. doi: 10.1080/16549716.2021.2013600.

Authors

Kenneth Yakubu¹, Andrea Durbach², Alexandra van Waes³, Sikhumbuzo A Mabunda^{1

4}, David Peiris¹, Janani Shanthosh^{1

2}, Rohina Joshi^{4

5}

Affiliations

¹ Faculty of Medicine, The George Institute for Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
² Australian Human Rights Institute, Faculty of Law and Justice, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
³ Department of Health Sciences, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.
⁴ School of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
⁵ Health Systems Science, The George Institute for Global Health India, New Delhi, India.

Abstract

Background: Governments worldwide participate in skilled health worker (SHW) migration agreements to protect access to health services in their countries. Previous studies have described the value offered by these agreements in separate source and destination country perspectives.

Objective: We sought to identify and summarise existing literature on shared value creation for both source and destination countries.

Method: We conducted a systematic scoping review of health databases and grey literature. Using Mark Moore and Colin Talbot frameworks, we summarised the public value propositions in migration agreements and how state actors addressed competing priorities.

Results: Most articles (34/63, 53.9%) reported transnational SHW mobility as the public value proposition for source and destination countries. Fewer articles, 14 (22.2%) and 9 (14.3%) articles, respectively, referred to achieving health workforce sustainability and building capacity for SHW migration governance as shared public values. The most identified competing public value (CPV) was an overriding focus on addressing SHW shortages in destination countries (20/63, 37.7%). Efforts to address this CPV include mitigation of the adverse effects of migration (43/63, 68.3%) and promoting health workforce development in source countries (15, 23.8%). At the same time, state actors retained regulatory discretion for protecting their country's public health interest (34, 54%). Most articles reported the lack of funds (15/63, 23.8%) and implementation mechanisms (19/63, 30.2%) as constraints on the authorising environment and the operational capacity of SHW migration governance systems.

Conclusion: Regarding SHW migration governance, the literature reports shared public value propositions for source and destination countries. It also shows how the value-creating process in the management of SHW migration favours destination countries. Future studies will need to explore shared value creation models that ensure equity in the governance of SHW migration.

Keywords: Health workforce; Immigration; emigration; governance.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review

MeSH terms

Government*
Health Workforce*
Humans
Public Health

Grants and funding

The Scientia PhD Scholarship supports KY and SAM at UNSW but did not provide additional funds for this review. RJ is a Scientia Fellow and Associate Professor at UNSW. She was awarded a Future Leadership Fellowship from the Australian NHF. AVW is supported by the Boston University Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program, while DP is an NHMRC Career Development Fellow and Heart Foundation Future Fellow.