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
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. The Importance of SMHCM and the Geographical Imbalance of Health Workforce
1.2. The Necessity for Investigating Doctoral SMHCM Students’ Job Preferences
1.3. Methods for Preferences Elicitation
1.4. Research Progress of DCEs in Students Job Preferences
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sampling
2.2. Discrete Choice Experiment
2.3. Selection of Attributes for the Choice Experiment
2.4. DCE Design
2.5. Data Collection
2.6. Data Analysis
〖U〗_ni = v_ni + 〖ε〗_ni =〖 β〗_1〖Location〗_(second-tier city) + β_2 〖Location〗_(first-tier city)+ 〖 β〗_3 〖Housing〗_(allowance) + β_4 〖Housing〗_(provided)+ β_5 〖〖Children〗^’ seducation〗_(good) + β_6 〖Promotion〗_(3 year)+ β_7 〖Promotion〗_(1 year) + β_8 〖Working environment 〗_(better)+ 〖 β〗_9 〖bianzhi 〗_offer + β_10 Monthly Income+〖 ε〗_ni | (1) |
3. Results
3.1. Respondents
3.2. DCE Results
3.3. Willingness to Pay
3.4. Uptake Rate
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
DCE | Discrete Choice Experiment |
WTP | Willingness to Pay |
SMHCM | Social Medicine and Health Care Management |
CDC | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |
CNY | Chinese Yuan |
95% CI | 95% Confidence Intervals |
AIC | Akaike Information Criterion |
BIC | Bayesian Information Criterion |
SE | Standard Error |
SD | Standard Deviation |
References
- Narayan, K.M.V.; Curran, J.W.; Foege, W.H. The COVID-19 Pandemic as an Opportunity to Ensure a More Successful Future for Science and Public Health. JAMA 2021, 325, 525–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, W.N.; Hu, Z.; Wang, Y.D. Health Care Administration, 4th ed.; People’s Medical Publishing House Press: Beijing, China, 2017. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Q.; Zhou, P.; Hu, M.; Huang, J.X. Analysis on the Whereout of Public Health Undergraduate Graduates. China High. Med. Educ. 2010, 7, 3–4. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wang, S.P.; Mao, Y.L.; Wang, X.F.; Bai, X.; Wu, H.Z. Comparison and Analysis on the Health Management Staff between China and Other Countries. Foreign Med. Health Econ. 2011, 28, 49–53. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y.Q.; Chen, H.; Guo, H.Y. Examining Inequality in the Public Health Workforce Distribution in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCs) System in China, 2008–2017. Biomed. Environ. Sci. 2020, 33, 374–383. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Weil, T.P. Health management education in Europe and in the United States: A comparative review and analysis. Health Serv. Manag. Res. 2013, 26, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- China Education Daily. How to Improve Public Health Personnel Training. Available online: http://www.jyb.cn/rmtzgjyb/202003/t20200325_310379.html (accessed on 22 November 2020). (In Chinese).
- National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. Statistical Bulletin of Health Development in China (2009–2018). Available online: http://www.nhc.gov.cn/wjw/gongb/list.shtml (accessed on 22 November 2020). (In Chinese)
- Whitty, J.A.; Gonçalves, A.S.O. A Systematic Review Comparing the Acceptability, Validity and Concordance of Discrete Choice Experiments and Best-Worst Scaling for Eliciting Preferences in Healthcare. Patient 2018, 11, 301–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, M.; Scott, D.A.; Reeves, C.; Bate, A.; van Teijlingen, E.R.; Russell, E.M.; Napper, M.; Robb, C.M. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: A systematic review of techniques. Health Technol. Assess. 2001, 5, 1–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lagarde, M.; Blaauw, D.A. review of the application and contribution of discrete choice experiments to inform human resources policy interventions. Hum. Resour. Health 2009, 7, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hu, W.X.; Xu, W.H.; Xu, J.G.; Bai, L.L.; Wang, L.D. Bibliometric analysis of research on discrete choice experiment in the healthcare system of China. J. Nanjing Med. Univ. (Soc. Sci.) 2020, 20, 157–161. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Soekhai, V.; de Bekker-Grob, E.W.; Ellis, A.R.; Vass, C.M. Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future. Pharmacoeconomics 2019, 37, 201–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cleland, J.A.; Johnston, P.; Watson, V.; Krucien, N.; Skåtun, D. What do UK medical students value most in their careers? A discrete choice experiment. Med. Educ. 2017, 51, 839–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, P.; Liu, S.; Gong, T.; Li, Q.; Chen, G.; Li, S. Job preferences of undergraduate pharmacy students in China: A discrete choice experiment. Hum. Resour. Health 2021, 19, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orme, B.K. Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research, 3rd ed.; Research Publishers LLC: Glendale, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 1–234. [Google Scholar]
- Marshall, D.; Bridges, J.F.; Hauber, B.; Cameron, R.; Donnalley, L.; Fyie, K.; Johnson, F.R. Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health—How are Studies being Designed and Reported?: An Update on Current Practice in the Published Literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient 2010, 3, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Bekker-Grob, E.W.; Donkers, B.; Jonker, M.F.; Stolk, E.A. Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: A practical guide. Patient 2015, 8, 373–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Louviere, J.J.; Hensher, D.A.; Swait, J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- de Bekker-Grob, E.W.; Ryan, M.; Gerard, K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: A review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012, 21, 145–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Louviere, J.J.; Lancsar, E. Choice experiments in health: The good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Econ. Policy Law 2009, 4 Pt 4, 527–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Liu, S.; Li, S.; Li, Y.; Wang, H.; Zhao, J.; Chen, G. Job preferences for healthcare administration students in China: A discrete choice experiment. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0211345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, T.; Li, S.; Yang, R.; Liu, S.; Chen, G. Job preferences of undergraduate nursing students in eastern China: A discrete choice experiment. Hum. Resour. Health 2019, 17, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mandeville, K.L.; Lagarde, M.; Hanson, K. The use of discrete choice experiments to inform health workforce policy: A systematic review. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2014, 14, 367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ryan, M.; Kolstad, J.; Rockers, P. How to Conduct a Discrete Choice Experiment for Health Workforce Recruitment and Retention in Remote and Rural Areas: A User Guide with Case Studies; World Health Organization, World Bank, and CapacityPlus: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Wang, Z.; Li, X.; Pang, X.; Wang, S. Application of Discrete Choice Experiment in Health Care: A Bibliometric Analysis. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 673698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed Johnson, F.; Lancsar, E.; Marshall, D.; Kilambi, V.; Mühlbacher, A.; Regier, D.A.; Bresnahan, B.W.; Kanninen, B.; Bridges, J.F. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health 2013, 16, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Huber, J.; Zwerina, K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Mark. Res. 1996, 33, 307–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuhfeld, W.F. Experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. In Marketing Research Methods in SAS; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Fiebig, D.; Louviere, J.J.; Waldman, D. Contemporary Issues in Modelling Discrete Choice Experimental Data in Health Economics; University of New South Wales: Sydney, Australia, 2005; Working paper. [Google Scholar]
- Veldwijk, J.; Lambooij, M.S.; de Bekker-Grob, E.W.; Smit, H.A.; de Wit, G.A. The effect of including an opt-out option in discrete choice experiments. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e111805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McFadden, D.; Train, K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econ. 2000, 15, 447–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hauber, A.B.; González, J.M.; Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C.G.; Prior, T.; Marshall, D.A.; Cunningham, C.; IJzerman, M.J.; Bridges, J.F. Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health 2016, 19, 300–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hensher, D.A. Accounting for scale heterogeneity within and between pooled data sources. Transp. Res. Part A-Policy Pract. 2012, 46, 480–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Train, K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, J.Q. Thoughts and suggestions on modern construction of disease prevention and control system. Chin. J. Prev. Med. 2020, 54, 475–479. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, W.; Jing, W.M.; Wang, Y.J. What Determines the Talent Attractiveness of First-tier Cities? Based on the Random Forest Algorithm of Influential Factors. Sci. Technol. Manag. Res. 2017, 37, 99–108. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Honda, A.; Vio, F. Incentives for non-physician health professionals to work in the rural and remote areas of Mozambique--a discrete choice experiment for eliciting job preferences. Hum. Resour. Health 2015, 13, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Girardi, S.N.; Carvalho, C.L.; Maas, L.W.; Araujo, J.F.; Massote, A.W.; Stralen, A.C.S.V.; Souza, O.A. Preferences for work in primary care among medical students in Minas Gerais State, Brazil: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment. Cad. Saude Publica 2017, 33, e00075316. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rockers, P.C.; Jaskiewicz, W.; Kruk, M.E.; Phathammavong, O.; Vangkonevilay, P.; Paphassarang, C.; Phachanh, I.T.; Wurts, L.; Tulenko, K. Differences in preferences for rural job postings between nursing students and practicing nurses: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Hum. Resour. Health 2013, 11, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lin, M. Pressure and anxiety of young people in contemporary China. Peoples Trib. 2019, 33, 78–80. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Lehmann, U.; Dieleman, M.; Martineau, T. Staffing remote rural areas in middle- and low-income countries: A literature review of attraction and retention. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2008, 8, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, S.; Li, S.; Yang, R.; Liu, T.; Chen, G. Job preferences for medical students in China: A discrete choice experiment. Medicine 2018, 97, e12358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brodsgaard, K.E. Institutional reform and the Bianzhi system in China. China Q. 2002, 170, 361–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blaauw, D.; Erasmus, E.; Pagaiya, N.; Tangcharoensathein, V.; Mullei, K.; Mudhune, S.; Goodman, C.; English, M.; Lagarde, M. Policy interventions that attract nurses to rural areas: A multicountry discrete choice experiment. Bull. World Health Organ. 2010, 88, 350–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snow, R.C.; Asabir, K.; Mutumba, M.; Koomson, E.; Gyan, K.; Dzodzomenyo, M.; Kruk, M.; Kwansah, J. Key factors leading to reduced recruitment and retention of health professionals in remote areas of Ghana: A qualitative study and proposed policy solutions. Hum. Resour. Health 2011, 9, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Li, N.; Wang, Y.; Yu, D.; Xiao, S.; Liu, Y. Job satisfaction of staff in agencies for disease prevention and control in Hainan Province, China. J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 2020, 70, 523–525. [Google Scholar]
- Gautam, B.; Sapkota, V.P.; Wagle, R.R. Employment preferences of obstetricians and gynecologists to work in the district hospitals: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Nepal. Hum. Resour. Health 2019, 17, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- The Editorial Department of Science and Technology Review. An Analysis of Career Expectations for PhD Graduates. Sci. Technol. Rev. 2008, 12, 19–22. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Qi, X.; Wang, Y.; Xia, L.; Meng, Y.; Li, Y.; Yu, S.; Su, X.; Jin, S.; Li, Y.; Ge, H.; et al. Cross-sectional survey on public health informatics workforce in China: Issues, developments and the future. Public Health 2015, 129, 1459–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, D.; Shi, Y.; Wu, S. Aspects prioritized by nursing undergraduates during choosing a position in grassroots medical institutions analyzed based on the discrete choice experiment. Chin. Gen. Pract. 2017, 20, 3759–3762. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
Attribute | Level | Description |
---|---|---|
Monthly income | CNY 10,000 | Pre-tax salary |
CNY 15,000 | ||
CNY 20,000 | ||
CNY 25,000 | ||
Employment location | First-tier city | Represents the larger cities, such as Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Guangzhou |
Second-tier city | Represents the medium-sized cities, such as Qingdao and Xiamen | |
Third-tier city | Represents the minor cities, such as Weifang and Luoyang | |
Housing benefits | No housing benefits | Housing provided means a decent house is provided. |
Housing allowance provided | ||
Housing provided | ||
Children’ education opportunities | Ordinary | The educational opportunities available for children (including elementary school, middle school, or high school) in the workplace. |
Good | ||
Career promotion speed | 1 year later | The number of years you would have to work before being eligible for promotion. |
3 year later | ||
5 year later | ||
Working environment | Ordinary | Refers to the physical and social environment associated with the work |
Better | ||
bianzhi | None | A job with bianzhi means more stability |
Offer |
Full Sample: n = 167 | Analysis Sample: n = 153 | Excluded Sample: n = 14 | χ2 (p-Value) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | n | % | ||
Age (year), Mean ± SD | 28.8 | 4.5 | 28.8 | 4.5 | 29.1 | 3.5 | |
Gender | 0.026 (0.871) | ||||||
Male | 63 | 37.7 | 58 | 37.9 | 5 | 35.7 | |
Female | 104 | 62.3 | 95 | 62.1 | 9 | 64.3 | |
Birthplace | |||||||
Rural | 59 | 35.3 | 53 | 34.6 | 6 | 42.9 | |
Urban | 108 | 64.7 | 100 | 65.4 | 8 | 57.1 | |
Marital status | 0.529 (0.912) | ||||||
Unmarried | 118 | 70.7 | 107 | 69.9 | 11 | 78.6 | |
Married | 48 | 28.7 | 45 | 29.4 | 3 | 21.4 | |
Divorced/Widow | 1 | 0.6 | 1 | 0.7 | 0 | 0 | |
Monthly consumption (CNY) | 3.465 (0.629) | ||||||
<1500 | 33 | 19.8 | 29 | 19.0 | 4 | 28.6 | |
1500–2500 | 70 | 41.9 | 65 | 42.5 | 5 | 35.7 | |
2500–3500 | 23 | 13.8 | 21 | 13.7 | 2 | 14.3 | |
3500–4500 | 14 | 8.4 | 14 | 9.2 | 0 | 0 | |
4500–5500 | 4 | 2.4 | 3 | 2.0 | 1 | 7.1 | |
>5500 | 23 | 13.8 | 21 | 13.7 | 2 | 14.3 | |
Annual family income (CNY) | 2.865 (0.826) | ||||||
<50,000 | 29 | 17.3 | 25 | 16.3 | 4 | 28.6 | |
50,000–100,000 | 39 | 23.3 | 36 | 23.5 | 3 | 21.4 | |
100,000–150,000 | 37 | 22.2 | 33 | 21.6 | 4 | 28.6 | |
150,000–200,000 | 22 | 13.2 | 21 | 13.7 | 1 | 7.1 | |
200,000–250,000 | 12 | 7.2 | 11 | 7.2 | 1 | 7.1 | |
250,000–300,000 | 8 | 4.8 | 8 | 5.2 | 0 | 0 | |
>300,000 | 20 | 12.0 | 19 | 12.4 | 1 | 7.1 | |
Will you take a job related to your major after graduation? | 0.971 (0.615) | ||||||
Yes | 131 | 78.4 | 121 | 79.1 | 10 | 71.4 | |
No | 3 | 1.8 | 3 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 | |
Not sure | 33 | 19.8 | 29 | 18.9 | 4 | 28.6 | |
Career planning (multiple-choice: Times was selected) | |||||||
University or scientific research institution | 126 | ||||||
Hospital | 63 | ||||||
CDCs | 18 | ||||||
Government agency | 71 | ||||||
Pharmaceutical company | 39 | ||||||
Others | 6 |
Attributes and Levels | β | SE | SD | SE | WTP (CNY) | 95% CI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Employment location (ref: Third-tier city) | |||||||
Second-tier city | 1.080 *** | 0.147 | 0.931 *** | 0.186 | 8503.9 | 6424.4 | 10,799.6 |
First-tier city | 1.576 *** | 0. 220 | 2.045 *** | 0.238 | 12,409.4 | 9184.9 | 16,177.9 |
Housing benefits (ref: No housing benefits) | |||||||
Housing allowance provided | 0.480 *** | 0.119 | 0.015 | 0.183 | 3779.5 | 1984.0 | 5600.5 |
Housing provided | 1.004 *** | 0.138 | 0.547 *** | 0.177 | 7905.5 | 5910.8 | 10,194.6 |
Children’s education opportunities (ref: Ordinary) | |||||||
Good | 0.498 *** | 0.090 | 0.398 *** | 0.152 | 3921.3 | 2531.4 | 5437.9 |
Career promotion speed (ref: 5 year) | |||||||
3 year | 0.287 *** | 0.112 | 0.004 | 0.196 | 2259.8 | 526.4 | 4076.3 |
1 year | 0.633 *** | 0.124 | 0.609 *** | 0.197 | 4984.3 | 3083.8 | 7047.3 |
Working environment (ref: Ordinary) | |||||||
Better | 0.344 *** | 0.082 | 0.188 | 0.292 | 2708.7 | 1467.3 | 4007.9 |
bianzhi (ref: None) | |||||||
Offer | 0.964 *** | 0.115 | 0.732 *** | 0.126 | 7590.6 | 5890.9 | 9475.5 |
Monthly income | 0.000127 *** | 0.000011 | |||||
LR chi2(10) | 161.950 | ||||||
Number of observations | 3672 | ||||||
Log likelihood | −914.985 | ||||||
AIC | 1867.971 | ||||||
BIC | 1985.932 |
Attributes and Levels | Male (n = 58) | Female (n = 95) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
β | SE | SD | SE | β | SE | SD | SE | |
Second-tier city | 0.803 *** | 0.235 | 0.912 *** | 0.288 | 1.331 *** | 0.211 | 1.102 *** | 0.279 |
First-tier city | 1.248 *** | 0.364 | 2.276 *** | 0.462 | 1.979 *** | 0.306 | 2.107 *** | 0.338 |
Housing allowance provided | 0.357 * | 0.188 | 0.010 | 0.243 | 0.593 *** | 0.171 | 0.102 | 0.571 |
Housing provided | 0.860 *** | 0.198 | 0.139 | 0.486 | 1.145 *** | 0.203 | 0.846 *** | 0.231 |
Good children’s education opportunities | 0.428 *** | 0.133 | 0.043 | 0.356 | 0.572 *** | 0.130 | 0.612 *** | 0.192 |
Career Promotion: 3 year | 0.307 * | 0.183 | 0.047 | 0.307 | 0.316 ** | 0.153 | 0.031 | 0.232 |
Career Promotion: 1 year | 0.779 *** | 0.219 | 0.642 ** | 0.282 | 0.657 *** | 0.173 | 0.662 *** | 0.245 |
Working environment: better | 0.357 ** | 0.139 | 0.254 | 0.318 | 0.368 *** | 0.121 | 0.399 ** | 0.190 |
bianzhi: offer | 0.759 *** | 0.180 | 0.819 *** | 0.229 | 1.189 *** | 0.165 | 0.755 *** | 0.178 |
Monthly income | 0.000139 *** | 0.000020 | 0.000133 *** | 0.000017 | ||||
Attributes and levels | Unmarried (n = 107) | Married (n = 45) | ||||||
β | SE | SD | SE | β | SE | SD | SE | |
Second-tier city | 1.011 *** | 0.171 | 0.872 *** | 0.226 | 1.298 *** | 0.336 | 1.382 *** | 0.416 |
First-tier city | 1.435 *** | 0.249 | 1.960 *** | 0.302 | 2.076 *** | 0.500 | 2.756 *** | 0.618 |
Housing allowance provided | 0.527 *** | 0.142 | 0.003 | 0.208 | 0.417 | 0.263 | 0.348 | 0.531 |
Housing provided | 0.878 *** | 0.155 | 0.533 ** | 0.216 | 1.434 *** | 0.325 | 0.403 | 0.408 |
Good children’s education opportunities | 0.395 *** | 0.097 | 0.223 | 0.298 | 0.855 *** | 0.233 | 0.659 ** | 0.262 |
Career Promotion: 3 year | 0.108 | 0.128 | 0.014 | 0.210 | 0.847 *** | 0.271 | 0.100 | 0.416 |
Career Promotion: 1 year | 0.527 *** | 0.145 | 0.626 *** | 0.226 | 1.156 *** | 0.302 | 0.759 ** | 0.379 |
Working environment: better | 0.324 *** | 0.104 | 0.442 ** | 0.175 | 0.428 ** | 0.181 | 0.030 | 0.317 |
bianzhi: offer | 0.901 *** | 0.124 | 0.555 *** | 0.158 | 1.362 ** | 0.327 | 1.224 *** | 0.295 |
Monthly income | 0.000133 *** | 0.000014 | 0.000137 *** | 0.000025 | ||||
Attributes and levels | Rural (n = 53) | Urban (n = 100) | ||||||
β | SE | SD | SE | β | SE | SD | SE | |
Second-tier city | 0.586 *** | 0.211 | 0.676 ** | 0.322 | 1.367 *** | 0.205 | 1.111 *** | 0.254 |
First-tier city | 0.801 *** | 0.269 | 1.341 *** | 0.281 | 2.194 *** | 0.330 | 2.405 *** | 0.342 |
Housing allowance provided | 0.496 *** | 0.187 | 0.070 | 0.311 | 0.474 *** | 0.158 | 0.067 | 0.280 |
Housing provided | 1.031 *** | 0.210 | 0.333 | 0.408 | 0.997 *** | 0.180 | 0.662 *** | 0.222 |
Good children’s education opportunities | 0.464 *** | 0.140 | 0.260 | 0.311 | 0.548 *** | 0.118 | 0.483 ** | 0.208 |
Career Promotion: 3 year | −0.051 | 0.178 | 0.013 | 0.271 | 0.486 *** | 0.149 | 0.028 | 0.258 |
Career Promotion: 1 year | 0.421 * | 0.221 | 0.909 *** | 0.253 | 0.753 *** | 0.161 | 0.469 * | 0.265 |
Working environment: better | 0.452 *** | 0.137 | 0.299 | 0.302 | 0.313 *** | 0.107 | 0.110 | 0.369 |
bianzhi: offer | 0.723 *** | 0.177 | 0.759 *** | 0.213 | 1.145 *** | 0.159 | 0.760 *** | 0.179 |
Monthly income | 0.000145 *** | 0.000020 | 0.000123 *** | 0.000015 | ||||
Attributes and levels | ≤150,000 CNY (n = 94) | >150,000 CNY (n = 59) | ||||||
β | SE | SD | SE | β | SE | SD | SE | |
Second-tier city | 0.834 *** | 0.178 | 0.940 *** | 0.258 | 1.523 *** | 0.277 | 1.050 *** | 0.291 |
First-tier city | 1.169 *** | 0.272 | 2.035 *** | 0.316 | 2.396 *** | 0.399 | 2.172 *** | 0.439 |
Housing allowance provided | 0.371 ** | 0.153 | 0.016 | 0.237 | 0.668 *** | 0.207 | 0.111 | 0.336 |
Housing provided | 1.057 *** | 0.171 | 0.397 | 0.280 | 0.912 *** | 0.234 | 0.610 * | 0.280 |
Good children’s education opportunities | 0.504 *** | 0.112 | 0.319 | 0.228 | 0.519 *** | 0.158 | 0.639 *** | 0.234 |
Career promotion speed: 3 year | 0.184 | 0.144 | 0.045 | 0.219 | 0.487 ** | 0.192 | 0.006 | 0.390 |
Career Promotion speed: 1 year | 0.502 *** | 0.159 | 0.614 ** | 0.238 | 0.953 *** | 0.221 | 0.585 * | 0.311 |
Working environment: better | 0.341 *** | 0.110 | 0.311 | 0.278 | 0.364 ** | 0.141 | 0.157 | 0.301 |
bianzhi: offer | 0.958 *** | 0.157 | 0.851 *** | 0.166 | 1.022 *** | 0.185 | 0.601 *** | 0.224 |
Monthly income | 0.000142 *** | 0.000002 | 0.000110 *** | 0.000018 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Liu, S.; Chen, Y.; Li, S.; Xu, N.; Tang, C.; Wei, Y. 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. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9474. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189474
Liu S, Chen Y, Li S, Xu N, Tang C, Wei Y. 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. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(18):9474. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189474
Chicago/Turabian StyleLiu, Shimeng, Yingyao Chen, Shunping Li, Ningze Xu, Chengxiang Tang, and 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" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 18: 9474. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189474