Health workforce governance and professions: a re-analysis of New Zealand's primary care workforce policy actors.
Actor analysis
Health workforce planning
Health workforce policy
Power
Primary Care
Professions
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 May 2023
07 May 2023
Historique:
received:
07
09
2022
accepted:
27
04
2023
medline:
8
5
2023
pubmed:
7
5
2023
entrez:
6
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This article contributes to the health workforce planning literature by exploring the dynamics of health professions in New Zealand's Primary Care sector and deriving broad lessons for an international audience. Professions tend influence health policy and governance decisions and practices to retain their place, status and influence. Therefore, understanding their power dynamics and the positions that they have on workforce policies and issues assists workforce governance or health system reform plans. Using the infrequently reported health workforce policy tool, actor analysis, a reanalysis of previously collected data is undertaken using an actor-based framework for the study of professionalism. Two models were developed, (1) the framework's original four-actor model and (2) a five-actor model for the comparison of the Medical and Nurse professions. Existing workforce actor data were reclassified, formatted, and entered into actor analysis software to reveal the professions' relative power, inter-relationships and strategic workforce issue positions. In the four-actor model, the Organised user actor is found to be most influential, while the others are found to be dependent. In the five-actor model, the Medical and Nurse professions are individually more influential than their combined position in the four-actor model. Practicing professionals and Organised user actors have strong converging inter-relationships over workforce issues in both models, though in the five-actor model, the Nurse profession has weaker coherency than the Medical profession. The Medical and Nurse professions are found to be in opposition over the workforce issues labelled divisive. These results reflect the professions' potential to influence New Zealand's Primary Care sector, indicating their power and influence over a range of policy and reform measures. As such, the four lessons that are derived from the case indicate to policy makers that they should be aware of situational contexts and actor power, take care when encountering divisive issues and try to achieve broad-based support for proposed policies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This article contributes to the health workforce planning literature by exploring the dynamics of health professions in New Zealand's Primary Care sector and deriving broad lessons for an international audience. Professions tend influence health policy and governance decisions and practices to retain their place, status and influence. Therefore, understanding their power dynamics and the positions that they have on workforce policies and issues assists workforce governance or health system reform plans.
METHODS
METHODS
Using the infrequently reported health workforce policy tool, actor analysis, a reanalysis of previously collected data is undertaken using an actor-based framework for the study of professionalism. Two models were developed, (1) the framework's original four-actor model and (2) a five-actor model for the comparison of the Medical and Nurse professions. Existing workforce actor data were reclassified, formatted, and entered into actor analysis software to reveal the professions' relative power, inter-relationships and strategic workforce issue positions.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In the four-actor model, the Organised user actor is found to be most influential, while the others are found to be dependent. In the five-actor model, the Medical and Nurse professions are individually more influential than their combined position in the four-actor model. Practicing professionals and Organised user actors have strong converging inter-relationships over workforce issues in both models, though in the five-actor model, the Nurse profession has weaker coherency than the Medical profession. The Medical and Nurse professions are found to be in opposition over the workforce issues labelled divisive.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
These results reflect the professions' potential to influence New Zealand's Primary Care sector, indicating their power and influence over a range of policy and reform measures. As such, the four lessons that are derived from the case indicate to policy makers that they should be aware of situational contexts and actor power, take care when encountering divisive issues and try to achieve broad-based support for proposed policies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37149718
doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09459-8
pii: 10.1186/s12913-023-09459-8
pmc: PMC10164347
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
449Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Med J Aust. 2002 Aug 19;177(4):208-11
pubmed: 12175327
Health Policy. 2019 Oct;123(10):917-923
pubmed: 31383372
Soc Sci Med. 1999 Feb;48(3):393-405
pubmed: 10077286
Rural Remote Health. 2019 Aug;19(3):4878
pubmed: 31469964
Health Serv Manage Res. 2018 May;31(2):97-105
pubmed: 29665724
J Health Organ Manag. 2019 Mar 18;33(1):63-77
pubmed: 30859908
Health Policy. 2012 Jun;106(1):97-103
pubmed: 22494525
Med Educ. 2018 Jan;52(1):103-113
pubmed: 28722157
J Adv Nurs. 2008 Apr;62(1):107-15
pubmed: 18352969
N Z Med J. 2019 Feb 1;132(1489):8-14
pubmed: 30703775
J Health Organ Manag. 2017 Jun 19;31(4):503-516
pubmed: 28877617
N Z Med J. 2020 Feb 7;133(1509):17-27
pubmed: 32027635
J Prim Health Care. 2018 Mar;10(1):3-5
pubmed: 30068443
J Prim Health Care. 2009 Jun;1(2):92-3
pubmed: 20690353
Health Policy. 2015 Dec;119(12):1645-54
pubmed: 26489924
Health Policy Plan. 2000 Sep;15(3):239-46
pubmed: 11012397
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Jun 20;16(1):52
pubmed: 29925432
Hum Resour Health. 2018 Sep 10;16(1):45
pubmed: 30200988
Sociol Health Illn. 2005 Jan;27(1):114-37
pubmed: 15762954
J Prim Health Care. 2018 Mar;10(1):6-10
pubmed: 30068444
Acad Med. 2015 Apr;90(4):400-3
pubmed: 25607938
Int J Integr Care. 2011 Jan;11(Spec 10th Anniversary Ed):e138
pubmed: 22128283
Lancet. 2019 Aug 3;394(10196):432-442
pubmed: 31379334
J Prim Health Care. 2016 Sep;8(3):210-219
pubmed: 29530204
Health Policy. 2021 Apr;125(4):495-503
pubmed: 33602531
J Interprof Care. 2019 Jul-Aug;33(4):389-397
pubmed: 30669922
Med J Aust. 2009 Feb 2;190(3):152-6
pubmed: 19203316
J Health Organ Manag. 2018 Nov 19;32(8):1002-1012
pubmed: 30468416
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Apr 24;19(1):239
pubmed: 31014349
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2018 Jan;23(1):66-68
pubmed: 29235372
J Prim Health Care. 2017 Sep;9(3):185-190
pubmed: 29530167
Health Care Manage Rev. 2001 Winter;26(1):56-69; discussion 87-9
pubmed: 11233354