Recruiting refugees to reduce labour shortages in health care professions: experimental evidence on the potential of foreign-language outreach on social media.

BACKGROUND: Many high-income countries are grappling with severe labour shortages in the healthcare sector. Refugees and recent migrants present a potential pool for staff recruitment due to their higher unemployment rates, younger age, and lower average educational attainment compared to the host society's labour force. Despite this, refugees and recent migrants, often possessing limited language skills in the destination country, are frequently excluded from traditional recruitment campaigns conducted solely in the host country's language. Even those with intermediate language skills may feel excluded, as destination-country language advertisements are perceived as targeting only native speakers. This study experimentally assesses the effectiveness of a recruitment campaign for nursing positions in a German care facility, specifically targeting Arabic and Ukrainian speakers through Facebook advertisements. METHODS: We employ an experimental design (AB test) approximating a randomized controlled trial, utilizing Facebook as the delivery platform. We compare job advertisements for nursing positions in the native languages of Arabic and Ukrainian speakers (treatment) with the same advertisements displayed in German (control) for the same target group in the context of a real recruitment campaign for nursing jobs in Berlin, Germany. Our evaluation includes comparing link click rates, visits to the recruitment website, initiated applications, and completed applications, along with the unit cost of these indicators. We assess statistical significance in group differences using the Chi-squared test. RESULTS: We find that recruitment efforts in the origin language were 5.6 times (Arabic speakers) and 1.9 times (Ukrainian speakers) more effective in initiating nursing job applications compared to the standard model of German-only advertisements among recent migrants and refugees. Overall, targeting refugees and recent migrants was 2.4 (Ukrainians) and 10.8 (Arabic) times cheaper than targeting the reference group of German speakers indicating higher interest among these groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results underscore the substantial benefits for employers in utilizing targeted recruitment via social media aimed at foreign-language communities within the country. This strategy, which is low-cost and low effort compared to recruiting abroad or investing in digitalization, has the potential for broad applicability in numerous high-income countries with sizable migrant communities. Increased employment rates among underemployed refugee and migrant communities, in turn, contribute to reducing poverty, social exclusion, public expenditure, and foster greater acceptance of newcomers within the receiving society.

Comparison of clinical and dental panoramic findings: a practice-based crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Aim was to compare clinical findings with x-ray findings using dental panoramic radiography (DPR). In addition, type and frequency of secondary findings in x-rays were investigated. METHODS: Patients were selected on the basis of available DPRs (not older than 12 months). No therapeutic measures were permitted between the DPR and the clinical findings. The clinical findings were carried out by several investigators who had no knowledge of the purpose of the study. A calibrated investigator established the x-ray findings, independently and without prior knowledge of the clinical findings. The evaluation parameters for each tooth were: missing, healthy, carious, restorative or prosthetically sufficient or insufficient treatment. Type and frequency of additional findings in the DPR were documented, e.g. quality of a root canal filling and apical changes. RESULTS: Findings of 275 patients were available. Comparison showed a correspondence between clinical and radiographic finding in 93.6% of all teeth (n = 7,789). The differences were not significant (p > 0.05). Regarding carious as well as insufficiently restored or prosthetically treated teeth, respectively there were significant differences between the two methods (p < 0.05). The DPRs showed additional findings: root fillings in 259 teeth and 145 teeth with periapical changes. CONCLUSIONS: With reference to the assessment of teeth, there was no difference between the two methods. However, in the evaluation of carious as well as teeth with insufficiently restorative or prosthetic treatment, there was a clear discrepancy between the two methods. Therefore, it would have been possible to have dispensed with x-rays. Nevertheless, additional x-ray findings were found.