理解卫生专业人员离开英国国家卫生服务(NHS)的原因——系统回顾和叙述综合。

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Chukwunwuba Richard Onyejesi, Tiffeny James, Kalpa Kharicha
{"title":"理解卫生专业人员离开英国国家卫生服务(NHS)的原因——系统回顾和叙述综合。","authors":"Chukwunwuba Richard Onyejesi, Tiffeny James, Kalpa Kharicha","doi":"10.1177/13558196251384845","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundThere is a global health care workforce crisis with staff shortages and difficulties with recruitment and retention, including in the UK's National Health Service (NHS). To address this, it is important to understand why people decide to leave the NHS. Previous reviews have focused on specific NHS professions and have rarely considered factors in other settings which attract staff away from the NHS. This review aimed to include all professions in a systematic review of factors which \"push\" clinical staff to leave, or consider leaving, the NHS and which \"pull\" them to other destinations.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, and EMBASE for peer-reviewed articles and Google Scholar for grey literature using search terms related to all NHS professions and intentions to leave the NHS. We included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies and analysed data using a textual narrative synthesis with an integrated design.ResultsThirty-two papers were eligible for inclusion. We identified four key push factors: (1) high job demands due to, for example, staff shortages and increased workload; (2) failing organisational structures including poor pay and limited opportunities for career development; (3) personal and emotional factors such as work-related health issues and poor work/life balance, and (4) wider factors, including Brexit. The majority of factors identified as being responsible for high turnover were related to job demands and the organisational structure within the NHS. Factors pulling people to other destinations were discussed less frequently than push factors, but included perceptions of better: pay, working conditions, and work/life balance in other countries. Limitations to the studies included in the review were that evidence on all NHS professions was not available, and many of the studies were based on data collected retrospectively with the risk of recall bias.ConclusionPull and push factors affect multiple NHS professions. Further comparative studies comparing the UK with other countries can help inform potential interventions to improve staff retention.</p>","PeriodicalId":15953,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"13558196251384845"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding why health professionals are leaving the UK national health service (NHS) - A systematic review and narrative synthesis.\",\"authors\":\"Chukwunwuba Richard Onyejesi, Tiffeny James, Kalpa Kharicha\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13558196251384845\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>BackgroundThere is a global health care workforce crisis with staff shortages and difficulties with recruitment and retention, including in the UK's National Health Service (NHS). To address this, it is important to understand why people decide to leave the NHS. Previous reviews have focused on specific NHS professions and have rarely considered factors in other settings which attract staff away from the NHS. This review aimed to include all professions in a systematic review of factors which \\\"push\\\" clinical staff to leave, or consider leaving, the NHS and which \\\"pull\\\" them to other destinations.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, and EMBASE for peer-reviewed articles and Google Scholar for grey literature using search terms related to all NHS professions and intentions to leave the NHS. We included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies and analysed data using a textual narrative synthesis with an integrated design.ResultsThirty-two papers were eligible for inclusion. We identified four key push factors: (1) high job demands due to, for example, staff shortages and increased workload; (2) failing organisational structures including poor pay and limited opportunities for career development; (3) personal and emotional factors such as work-related health issues and poor work/life balance, and (4) wider factors, including Brexit. The majority of factors identified as being responsible for high turnover were related to job demands and the organisational structure within the NHS. Factors pulling people to other destinations were discussed less frequently than push factors, but included perceptions of better: pay, working conditions, and work/life balance in other countries. Limitations to the studies included in the review were that evidence on all NHS professions was not available, and many of the studies were based on data collected retrospectively with the risk of recall bias.ConclusionPull and push factors affect multiple NHS professions. Further comparative studies comparing the UK with other countries can help inform potential interventions to improve staff retention.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15953,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"13558196251384845\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13558196251384845\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13558196251384845","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景全球卫生保健人员短缺,招聘和保留困难,包括英国国家卫生服务体系(NHS)。为了解决这个问题,理解人们为什么决定离开NHS是很重要的。以前的审查侧重于特定的NHS专业,很少考虑其他环境中吸引员工离开NHS的因素。这项审查的目的是将所有职业纳入系统审查的因素中,这些因素“推动”临床工作人员离开或考虑离开NHS,并“吸引”他们前往其他目的地。方法我们检索PubMed、Web of Science、CINAHL和EMBASE的同行评议文章,b谷歌Scholar检索灰色文献,检索词与所有NHS职业和离开NHS的意向相关。我们包括定性、定量和混合方法研究,并使用综合设计的文本叙事综合分析数据。结果32篇论文符合纳入标准。我们确定了四个关键的推动因素:(1)由于人员短缺和工作量增加而导致的高工作需求;(2)组织结构不完善,薪酬低,职业发展机会有限;(3)个人和情感因素,如与工作有关的健康问题和工作/生活平衡不佳;(4)更广泛的因素,包括英国脱欧。被确定为负责高流动率的大多数因素与工作需求和NHS内部的组织结构有关。与推动因素相比,吸引人们前往其他目的地的因素被讨论的频率较低,但包括对其他国家更好的看法:薪酬、工作条件和工作/生活平衡。本综述中纳入的研究的局限性在于,无法获得所有NHS职业的证据,而且许多研究是基于回顾性收集的数据,存在回忆偏倚的风险。结论拉、推因素对NHS多个职业有影响。进一步的比较研究,将英国与其他国家进行比较,可以帮助为潜在的干预措施提供信息,以提高员工保留率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Understanding why health professionals are leaving the UK national health service (NHS) - A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

BackgroundThere is a global health care workforce crisis with staff shortages and difficulties with recruitment and retention, including in the UK's National Health Service (NHS). To address this, it is important to understand why people decide to leave the NHS. Previous reviews have focused on specific NHS professions and have rarely considered factors in other settings which attract staff away from the NHS. This review aimed to include all professions in a systematic review of factors which "push" clinical staff to leave, or consider leaving, the NHS and which "pull" them to other destinations.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, and EMBASE for peer-reviewed articles and Google Scholar for grey literature using search terms related to all NHS professions and intentions to leave the NHS. We included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies and analysed data using a textual narrative synthesis with an integrated design.ResultsThirty-two papers were eligible for inclusion. We identified four key push factors: (1) high job demands due to, for example, staff shortages and increased workload; (2) failing organisational structures including poor pay and limited opportunities for career development; (3) personal and emotional factors such as work-related health issues and poor work/life balance, and (4) wider factors, including Brexit. The majority of factors identified as being responsible for high turnover were related to job demands and the organisational structure within the NHS. Factors pulling people to other destinations were discussed less frequently than push factors, but included perceptions of better: pay, working conditions, and work/life balance in other countries. Limitations to the studies included in the review were that evidence on all NHS professions was not available, and many of the studies were based on data collected retrospectively with the risk of recall bias.ConclusionPull and push factors affect multiple NHS professions. Further comparative studies comparing the UK with other countries can help inform potential interventions to improve staff retention.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: Journal of Health Services Research & Policy provides a unique opportunity to explore the ideas, policies and decisions shaping health services throughout the world. Edited and peer-reviewed by experts in the field and with a high academic standard and multidisciplinary approach, readers will gain a greater understanding of the current issues in healthcare policy and research. The journal"s strong international editorial advisory board also ensures that readers obtain a truly global and insightful perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信