Career Intentions and the Determining Factors among Health Science Students: A Systematic Review.

IF 0.6 Q4 NURSING Creative Nursing Pub Date : 2023-02-01 DOI:10.1177/107845352202900113
Njaka Stanley, Raishan Shafini Binti Bakar, Kueh Yee Cheng, Aaron Beryl Nwedu, Intan Idiana Binti Hassan
{"title":"Career Intentions and the Determining Factors among Health Science Students: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Njaka Stanley,&nbsp;Raishan Shafini Binti Bakar,&nbsp;Kueh Yee Cheng,&nbsp;Aaron Beryl Nwedu,&nbsp;Intan Idiana Binti Hassan","doi":"10.1177/107845352202900113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health systemsneed adequate personnelin order to function; improvements in health-care services delivery, and coverage and the enjoyment of standard healthcare as a right, depend on the availability, mixture, quality, and accessibility of the health-care workforce.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This review aimed to synthesize reliable evidence ondetermining factors among health science students' career choices to enhance policy advocacy for better health-care delivery.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We sourced empirical studies from Scopus, PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar. From a total of 9,056 researcharticlesfrom 2010 to 2022, 27 studies with a total of 45,832 respondents met the inclusion criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The majority of the studies were of medical students; internal medicine was the commonest choice (64.3%), with psychiatry and public health receiving lesser attention. In the four available studies of nursing students, midwifery was not chosen at all. There is a paucity of studies on this all-important concept for nursing students. The determining factors of choice of specialty were in four themes: personal, socioeconomic, professional, and educational/policy. Among the barriers to choosing particular specialties were low prestige among colleagues, stigma, long working hours, and poor public recognition.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The career choices of health science students do not reflect an adequate mix of health-care team members to meet the health-care needs of the world. Reforms of policy and educational training are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":54104,"journal":{"name":"Creative Nursing","volume":"29 1","pages":"65-97"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Creative Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/107845352202900113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Health systemsneed adequate personnelin order to function; improvements in health-care services delivery, and coverage and the enjoyment of standard healthcare as a right, depend on the availability, mixture, quality, and accessibility of the health-care workforce.

Purpose: This review aimed to synthesize reliable evidence ondetermining factors among health science students' career choices to enhance policy advocacy for better health-care delivery.

Method: We sourced empirical studies from Scopus, PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar. From a total of 9,056 researcharticlesfrom 2010 to 2022, 27 studies with a total of 45,832 respondents met the inclusion criteria.

Results: The majority of the studies were of medical students; internal medicine was the commonest choice (64.3%), with psychiatry and public health receiving lesser attention. In the four available studies of nursing students, midwifery was not chosen at all. There is a paucity of studies on this all-important concept for nursing students. The determining factors of choice of specialty were in four themes: personal, socioeconomic, professional, and educational/policy. Among the barriers to choosing particular specialties were low prestige among colleagues, stigma, long working hours, and poor public recognition.

Conclusion: The career choices of health science students do not reflect an adequate mix of health-care team members to meet the health-care needs of the world. Reforms of policy and educational training are needed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
健康科学专业学生的职业意向及其决定因素:一项系统回顾。
背景:卫生系统需要足够的人员才能发挥作用;改善保健服务的提供以及标准保健作为一项权利的覆盖面和享受,取决于保健工作人员的可得性、组成、质量和可及性。目的:本综述旨在综合有关卫生科学专业学生职业选择决定因素的可靠证据,以加强政策倡导,以更好地提供卫生保健服务。方法:我们从Scopus、PubMed、ScienceDirect和Google Scholar中获取实证研究。从2010年至2022年共9056篇研究论文中,有27篇研究共45832名受访者符合纳入标准。结果:研究对象以医学生为主;内科是最常见的选择(64.3%),精神病学和公共卫生受到的关注较少。在四项可获得的护理学生研究中,助产学根本没有被选择。对于护理专业的学生来说,这个非常重要的概念的研究很少。专业选择的决定因素有四个主题:个人、社会经济、专业和教育/政策。选择特定专业的障碍包括在同事中声望低、耻辱、工作时间长以及公众认可度低。结论:卫生科学专业学生的职业选择不能反映出卫生保健团队成员的适当组合,以满足世界卫生保健需求。需要改革政策和教育培训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Creative Nursing
Creative Nursing NURSING-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
76
期刊介绍: Creative Nursing is an issue focused journal, unique in its recognition of the values inherent in the nursing profession. Excellence and professionalism are not exclusive to any one discipline or specialty, and the editors of Creative Nursing are dedicated to developing nursing leaders at all levels and in all settings. Today"s health care institutions need creative and innovative solutions. Nurses need to think creatively, to experiment, to take risks, and to innovate. Creative Nursing promotes best practices in all aspects of caring--caring for self, patients, families, colleagues, and communities.
期刊最新文献
Enhancing Inpatient Sleep Environments: A Design Thinking Case Study. Human Communication Elements of the Continuity of Midwife Carer Newsletter: A Descriptive Case Report. Unlocking Job Involvement: Helping New Employees Navigate using Uncertainty Reduction Theory with Psychological Safety as a Mediator. Design Labs-the Power of With. Hierarchies of Actualization.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1