IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0250652.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Employment preferences of healthcare workers in South Africa: Findings from a discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandra Mumbauer
  • Michael Strauss
  • Gavin George
  • Phuti Ngwepe
  • Charl Bezuidenhout
  • Lindsey de Vos
  • Andrew Medina-Marino

Abstract

There is a maldistribution of human resources for health globally, with many Lower- and Middle-Income Countries experiencing significant shortages. We examined healthcare workers’ job preferences in South Africa to identify factors which potentially influence employment decisions. A discrete choice experiment was conducted among 855 South African healthcare workers critical to its national HIV testing and treatment programs. Job characteristics included workload, workplace culture, availability of equipment, training opportunities, sector and facility type, location, salary and benefits. Main effects analysis was conducted using fixed effects logistic regression. Interaction effects identified divergence in preferences. Heavy workload (OR = 0.78; 95% C.I. 0.74–0.83), poor workplace culture (odds ratio 0.66; 95% C.I. 0.62–0.69), insufficient availability of equipment (OR = 0.67; 95% C.I. 0.63–0.70) and infrequent training opportunities (OR = 0.75; 95% C.I. 0.71–0.80) had large, significant effects on worker preferences. An increase in salary of 20% (OR = 1.29; 95% C.I. 1.16–1.44) had a positive effect on preferences, while a salary decrease of 20% (OR = 0.55; 95% C.I. 0.49–0.60) had a strong negative effect. Benefits packages had large positive effects on preferences: respondents were twice as likely to choose a job that included medical aid, pension and housing contributions worth 40% of salary (OR = 2.06; 95% C.I. 1.87–2.26), holding all else constant. Although salary was important across all cadres, benefits packages had larger effects on job preferences than equivalent salary increases. Improving working conditions is critical to attracting and retaining appropriate health cadres responsible for the country’s HIV services, especially in the public sector and underserved, often rural, communities. Crucially, our evidence suggests that factors amenable to improvement such as workplace conditions and remuneration packages have a greater influence on healthcare workers employment decisions than employment sector or location.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandra Mumbauer & Michael Strauss & Gavin George & Phuti Ngwepe & Charl Bezuidenhout & Lindsey de Vos & Andrew Medina-Marino, 2021. "Employment preferences of healthcare workers in South Africa: Findings from a discrete choice experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-17, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0250652
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250652
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250652
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250652&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0250652?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Odile Mackett, 2022. "Decent Work in the South African Macroeconomy: Who are The Winners and Losers?," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 277-305, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0250652. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.