IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i18p9474-d631412.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Are the Important Factors Influencing the Recruitment and Retention of Doctoral Students in a Public Health Setting? A Discrete Choice Experiment Survey in China

Author

Listed:
  • Shimeng Liu

    (School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China
    NHC Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China)

  • Yingyao Chen

    (School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China
    NHC Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China)

  • Shunping Li

    (Centre for Health Management and Policy Research, School of Public Health, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China)

  • Ningze Xu

    (School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China
    NHC Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China)

  • Chengxiang Tang

    (School of Public Administration, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China)

  • Yan Wei

    (School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China
    NHC Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China)

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to investigate the employment preferences of doctoral students majoring in social medicine and health care management (SMHCM), to inform policymakers and future employers on how to address recruitment and retention requirements at CDCs across China. Methods: An online discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit doctoral SMHCM students’ job preferences. The scenarios were described with seven attributes: monthly income, employment location, housing benefits, children’s education opportunities, working environment, career promotion speed, and bianzhi. A conditional logit model and a mixed logit model were used to evaluate the relative importance of the selected attributes. Results: A total of 167 doctoral SMHCM students from 24 universities completed the online survey. All seven attributes were statistically significant with the expected sign and demonstrated the existence of preference heterogeneity. Monthly income and employment location were of most concern for doctoral SMHCM students when deciding their future jobs. Among the presented attributes, working environment was of least concern. For the sub-group analysis, employment located in a first-tier city was more likely to lead to a higher utility value for doctoral students who were women, married, from an urban area, and had a high annual family income. Unsurprisingly, when compared to single students, married students were willing to forgo more for good educational opportunities for their children. Conclusions: Our study suggests that monthly income and employment location were valued most by doctoral SMHCM students when choosing a job. A more effective human resource policy intervention to attract doctoral SMHCM students to work in CDCs, especially CDCs in third-tier cities should consider both the incentives provided by the job characteristics and the background of students. Doctoral students are at the stages of career preparation, so the results of this study would be informative for policymakers and help them to design the recruitment and retention policies for CDCs.

Suggested Citation

  • Shimeng Liu & Yingyao Chen & Shunping Li & Ningze Xu & Chengxiang Tang & Yan Wei, 2021. "What Are the Important Factors Influencing the Recruitment and Retention of Doctoral Students in a Public Health Setting? A Discrete Choice Experiment Survey in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-14, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:18:p:9474-:d:631412
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/18/9474/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/18/9474/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hensher, David A., 2012. "Accounting for scale heterogeneity within and between pooled data sources," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 480-486.
    2. Esther Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Marcel Jonker & Elly Stolk, 2015. "Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 373-384, October.
    3. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.
    4. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    5. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    7. Jennifer A. Whitty & Ana Sofia Oliveira Gonçalves, 2018. "A Systematic Review Comparing the Acceptability, Validity and Concordance of Discrete Choice Experiments and Best–Worst Scaling for Eliciting Preferences in Healthcare," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(3), pages 301-317, June.
    8. Shimeng Liu & Shunping Li & Yujia Li & Haipeng Wang & Jingjing Zhao & Gang Chen, 2019. "Job preferences for healthcare administration students in China: A discrete choice experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, January.
    9. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    10. Louviere, Jordan J. & Lancsar, Emily, 2009. "Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 527-546, October.
    11. Jorien Veldwijk & Mattijs S Lambooij & Esther W de Bekker-Grob & Henriëtte A Smit & G Ardine de Wit, 2014. "The Effect of Including an Opt-Out Option in Discrete Choice Experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-9, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chandoevwit, Worawan & Wasi, Nada, 2020. "Incorporating discrete choice experiments into policy decisions: Case of designing public long-term care insurance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Genie, Mesfin G. & Ryan, Mandy & Krucien, Nicolas, 2021. "To pay or not to pay? Cost information processing in the valuation of publicly funded healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    4. John Buckell & Vrinda Vasavada & Sarah Wordsworth & Dean A. Regier & Matthew Quaife, 2022. "Utility maximization versus regret minimization in health choice behavior: Evidence from four datasets," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 363-381, February.
    5. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    6. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    7. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    8. Axel Mühlbacher & Uwe Junker & Christin Juhnke & Edgar Stemmler & Thomas Kohlmann & Friedhelm Leverkus & Matthias Nübling, 2015. "Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 613-628, July.
    9. Carol Mansfield & Jessie Sutphin & Marco Boeri, 2020. "Assessing the impact of excluded attributes on choice in a discrete choice experiment using a follow‐up question," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(10), pages 1307-1315, October.
    10. Liu, Yun & Kong, Qingxia & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2019. "Public preferences for health care facilities in rural China: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 237(C), pages 1-1.
    11. de Bekker-Grob, E.W. & Donkers, B. & Bliemer, M.C.J. & Veldwijk, J. & Swait, J.D., 2020. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    12. Vecchiato, D. & Tempesta, T., 2013. "Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 111-120.
    13. Gerzaín Avilés-Polanco & Marco Antonio Almendarez-Hernández & Luis Felipe Beltrán-Morales & Ileana Serrano-Fraire & Alfredo Ortega-Rubio, 2021. "Consumer Preferences for Labeled Plant-Based Products Associated with Traditional Knowledge: A Study in Protected Natural Areas of Northwest Mexico," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-19, April.
    14. Galárraga, Omar & Kuo, Caroline & Mtukushe, Bulelwa & Maughan-Brown, Brendan & Harrison, Abigail & Hoare, Jackie, 2020. "iSAY (incentives for South African youth): Stated preferences of young people living with HIV," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    15. Buckell, John & Hess, Stephane, 2019. "Stubbing out hypothetical bias: improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 93-102.
    16. Ashlyn Hansen & Scott D. Brown & Marie B. H. Yap, 2021. "Enhancing Engagement of Fathers in Web-Based Preventive Parenting Programs for Adolescent Mental Health: A Discrete Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-19, November.
    17. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Shimeng Liu & Shunping Li & Yujia Li & Haipeng Wang & Jingjing Zhao & Gang Chen, 2019. "Job preferences for healthcare administration students in China: A discrete choice experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, January.
    19. Sever, Ivan & Verbič, Miroslav & Klarić Sever, Eva, 2019. "Cost attribute in health care DCEs: Just adding another attribute or a trigger of change in the stated preferences?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    20. Mesfin G. Genie & Nicolas Krucien & Mandy Ryan, 2021. "Weighting or aggregating? Investigating information processing in multi‐attribute choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1291-1305, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:18:p:9474-:d:631412. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.