Methods for health workforce projection model: systematic review and recommended good practice reporting guideline

Background: Health workforce projection models are integral components of a robust healthcare system. This research aims to review recent advancements in methodology and approaches for health workforce projection models and proposes a set of good practice reporting guidelines. 

Methods: We conducted a systematic review by searching medical and social science databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and EconLit, covering the period from 2010 to 2023. The inclusion criteria encompassed studies projecting the demand for and supply of the health workforce. PROSPERO registration: CRD 42023407858. 

Results: Our review identified 40 relevant studies, including 39 single countries analysis (in Australia, Canada, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Lesotho, Malawi, New Zealand, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Spain, Thailand, UK, United States), and one multiple country analysis (in 32 OECD countries). Recent studies have increasingly embraced a complex systems approach in health workforce modelling, incorporating demand, supply, and demand–supply gap analyses. The review identified at least eight distinct types of health workforce projection models commonly used in recent literature: population-to-provider ratio models (n = 7), utilization models (n = 10), needs-based models (n = 25), skill-mixed models (n = 5), stock-and-flow models (n = 40), agent-based simulation models (n = 3), system dynamic models (n = 7), and budgetary models (n = 5). Each model has unique assumptions, strengths, and limitations, with practitioners often combining these models. Furthermore, we found seven statistical approaches used in health workforce projection models: arithmetic calculation, optimization, time-series analysis, econometrics regression modelling, microsimulation, cohort-based simulation, and feedback causal loop analysis. Workforce projection often relies on imperfect data with limited granularity at the local level. Existing studies lack standardization in reporting their methods. In response, we propose a good practice reporting guideline for health workforce projection models designed to accommodate various model types, emerging methodologies, and increased utilization of advanced statistical techniques to address uncertainties and data requirements. 

Conclusions: This study underscores the significance of dynamic, multi-professional, team-based, refined demand, supply, and budget impact analyses supported by robust health workforce data intelligence. The suggested best-practice reporting guidelines aim to assist researchers who publish health workforce studies in peer-reviewed journals. Nevertheless, it is expected that these reporting standards will prove valuable for analysts when designing their own analysis, encouraging a more comprehensive and transparent approach to health workforce projection modelling.