Which Countries Are Losing the Most Doctors and Nurses to Migration?
Summary
The international migration of doctors and nurses has become one of the defining features of the global healthcare workforce.
For wealthy countries experiencing persistent healthcare shortages, international recruitment provides an important source of qualified professionals. For individual doctors and nurses, migration can offer higher salaries, better working conditions, specialist training and improved career opportunities.
For countries of origin, however, the picture is more complicated.
Some nations have invested heavily in educating doctors and nurses only to see significant numbers subsequently move overseas. In countries that already have low health-worker densities, this can place additional pressure on hospitals and primary-care systems.
The scale of the movement is considerable.
According to the OECD's International Migration Outlook 2025, more than 830,000 foreign-born doctors and approximately 1.75 million foreign-born nurses were working across OECD countries in 2020–2021. Among foreign-trained professionals, the figures were approximately 606,000 doctors and 733,000 nurses in 2021–2023.
The largest source countries are not necessarily the countries with the greatest percentage of their workforce abroad.
For doctors, India, Germany, China, Pakistan and Romania were among the largest countries of origin for doctors working in OECD countries.
For nurses, the largest sources included the Philippines, India, Poland, Nigeria and Germany.
But some of the most concerning cases involve countries with relatively fragile health systems. The OECD estimates that approximately 89,000 doctors and 257,000 nurses working in OECD countries were born in countries on the WHO Health Workforce Support and Safeguards List. The largest source countries among these included Nigeria, Pakistan, Haiti, Ghana and Zimbabwe.
This creates a difficult global question:
How can countries with healthcare shortages participate in international migration without losing the workforce their own populations need?
The answer is not simply to prevent doctors and nurses from migrating.
Healthcare professionals have the right to pursue opportunities internationally.
Instead, the emerging international consensus is moving toward ethical recruitment, stronger domestic workforce investment, bilateral agreements, compensation and support for vulnerable health systems, and greater humanitarian investment in countries experiencing severe health needs.
For Huz Health, this is an important distinction.
International recruitment and humanitarian aid do not have to be opposing activities.
They can be part of the same global-health strategy.
The Global Scale of Healthcare Migration
Healthcare migration is no longer a niche phenomenon.
In 2020–2021, OECD countries employed more than 830,000 foreign-born doctors and approximately 1.75 million foreign-born nurses. Foreign-born doctors represented around one-quarter of the physician workforce across the OECD, while foreign-born nurses represented approximately one-sixth of the nursing workforce.
The OECD data also demonstrate how concentrated migration is.
Asia is the largest region of origin, accounting for approximately 40% of migrant doctors and 37% of migrant nurses in OECD countries.
The result is a global healthcare system in which the workforce of one country can become an important component of another country's health system.
This creates enormous benefits.
It also creates dependencies.
A destination country may become dependent upon international nurses to maintain staffing levels.
A source country may become dependent upon remittances while simultaneously experiencing shortages of its own healthcare professionals.
And a third country may become a training ground for professionals who ultimately leave for both source and destination countries.
The OECD describes this as a cascade-like pattern of migration: doctors and nurses move between countries, creating workforce gaps that can subsequently generate further recruitment elsewhere.
Which Countries Lose the Most Doctors?
There are several ways to answer this question.
If we measure the absolute number of doctors born in a country who are working in OECD countries, India is the clear leader.
According to OECD data for approximately 2020–2021:
Country of originDoctors working in OECD countriesIndia98,857Germany31,024China30,342Pakistan29,689Romania25,499United Kingdom24,548Iran19,313Russia18,826Canada17,587Nigeria17,060
These figures refer to foreign-born doctors working in OECD countries, rather than every doctor who has ever emigrated. They therefore provide a valuable but incomplete picture of total global migration.
India stands out dramatically.
Almost 100,000 India-born doctors were working in OECD countries around 2020–2021.
Pakistan, Nigeria and Iran also appear prominently among major source countries.
However, absolute numbers alone can be misleading.
Germany and the United Kingdom, for example, are wealthy countries with substantial domestic healthcare systems. Their doctors may migrate because of career opportunities, salaries, lifestyle or professional development.
The consequences are very different from those experienced by a low-income country with only a small number of doctors in the first place.
This is why migration numbers must always be interpreted alongside workforce density and health-system capacity.
India: The World's Largest Source of Migrant Doctors
India is arguably the most important country in the global doctor-migration system.
Approximately 98,857 India-born doctors were working in OECD countries around 2020–2021, according to OECD data. That figure represented a 76% increase compared with approximately 2000–2001.
India's enormous population and large medical education system make it unusual.
The country can produce large numbers of doctors while simultaneously having substantial international migration.
Migration can provide significant benefits to Indian doctors and their families.
It can also generate remittances and international professional networks.
However, India still faces major inequalities in healthcare access, particularly between urban and rural areas.
Consequently, the policy question is not simply whether Indian doctors should be allowed to migrate.
It is how India can simultaneously:
expand medical education;
retain doctors in underserved regions;
improve working conditions;
increase healthcare investment;
and allow doctors to pursue international careers.
India demonstrates why the international migration debate cannot be reduced to the phrase "brain drain."
Migration can be beneficial while still creating workforce challenges.
Pakistan: A Significant Source of Doctors
Pakistan is another major source of internationally mobile doctors.
Approximately 29,689 Pakistan-born doctors were working in OECD countries around 2020–2021, according to OECD data.
The figure represented an increase of approximately 182% since 2000–2001.
Pakistan is particularly important because it appears among the countries identified by WHO as facing significant health workforce pressures.
The OECD estimates that approximately 29,600 doctors born in Pakistan were working in OECD countries in 2020–2021, making Pakistan the largest source of doctors from countries on the WHO safeguards list.
This illustrates the tension at the heart of international recruitment.
Pakistan produces doctors who are internationally attractive.
But Pakistan also has substantial domestic healthcare needs.
International migration can therefore create both an opportunity for individual professionals and a challenge for the health system.
The humanitarian dimension
Pakistan also faces significant humanitarian and disaster-related health pressures.
The country is highly exposed to flooding and other climate-related emergencies, and major disasters can place enormous pressure on healthcare infrastructure.
This means that strengthening healthcare capacity in Pakistan has value beyond ordinary workforce planning.
Investment in hospitals, primary care, emergency preparedness, maternal health, disease surveillance and medical supplies can strengthen the ability of communities to withstand future crises.
For organisations such as Huz Health, this illustrates why recruitment and humanitarian support can be complementary rather than contradictory.
Nigeria: A Major Source of Both Doctors and Nurses
Nigeria is one of the most important countries in the global healthcare migration debate.
It appears among the major source countries for both doctors and nurses.
Around 2020–2021, approximately:
17,060 Nigerian-born doctors
and
54,480 Nigerian-born nurses
were working in OECD countries.
The growth has been substantial.
The number of Nigerian-born doctors working in OECD countries increased by approximately 264% since 2000–2001, while the number of nurses increased by approximately 295%.
Nigeria therefore represents one of the clearest examples of a country simultaneously producing internationally sought-after healthcare professionals and experiencing domestic workforce pressures.
The WHO's 2026 Africa workforce report highlights a broader paradox across the continent: Africa is producing more health workers, but shortages, unemployment and migration are increasing at the same time. The report argues that the problem involves not just education but also employment, distribution, retention and investment.
Nigeria's humanitarian needs
Nigeria also has significant humanitarian health needs.
WHO identifies ongoing humanitarian pressures in north-eastern Nigeria associated with conflict, displacement, food insecurity, infectious diseases and limited access to healthcare.
WHO's Nigeria Health Cluster reported approximately 4 million people in need of humanitarian health assistance as of March 2026.
The needs include primary and secondary healthcare, essential medicines, maternal and infant care, outbreak control, malaria services and immunisation.
This creates an especially important relationship between migration and humanitarian support.
Nigeria can be a source of healthcare professionals for hospitals in wealthier countries while communities inside Nigeria simultaneously require greater access to healthcare.
That does not mean Nigerian healthcare professionals should be prevented from leaving.
It does mean that international recruitment should ideally exist alongside investment in the Nigerian health system.
The Philippines: The World's Largest Source of Migrant Nurses
When discussing international nurse migration, the Philippines is impossible to ignore.
The OECD estimates that approximately 277,266 Philippines-born nurses were working in OECD countries around 2020–2021.
That figure was approximately 147% higher than in 2000–2001.
The Philippines has developed one of the world's most established international nursing migration systems.
Filipino nurses work across:
the United States;
the United Kingdom;
Canada;
Australia;
New Zealand;
Europe;
the Middle East;
and other international markets.
International nursing has become an important economic and professional pathway for Filipino healthcare workers.
But the domestic healthcare system also needs nurses.
The Philippines therefore demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between migration and exploitation.
A nurse voluntarily choosing to work overseas is not inherently a negative event.
The ethical question concerns whether recruitment is transparent, whether workers are protected and whether international recruitment contributes to unsustainable depletion of the source country's health system.
India: The Second-Largest Source of Migrant Nurses
India is also a major source of internationally mobile nurses.
Approximately 122,400 India-born nurses were working in OECD countries around 2020–2021.
The number increased by approximately 435% since 2000–2001.
That is one of the most striking growth rates among major source countries.
India's enormous population means that international migration should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that the country lacks nursing capacity.
However, substantial regional inequalities remain.
Some Indian states and rural areas experience far greater healthcare workforce challenges than major urban centres.
The long-term challenge is therefore to make international migration compatible with domestic workforce development.
Nigeria, Haiti and Ghana: The Human Cost of Nurse Migration
The relationship between international migration and vulnerable health systems becomes especially clear when examining the WHO Health Workforce Support and Safeguards List.
The WHO's 2023 list contains 55 countries facing some of the world's most pressing health workforce challenges related to universal health coverage.
The criteria include a health-worker density below the global median of 49 doctors, nurses and midwives per 10,000 people and a relatively low universal-health-coverage service index.
Among nurses working in OECD countries who were born in countries on this list, the largest source countries included:
Source countryNurses in OECD countries, approx. 2020–21Nigeria54,000Haiti35,800Ghana21,400Zimbabwe20,800Cameroon17,200
Approximately 257,000 nurses working in OECD countries were born in countries on the WHO safeguards list.
These figures are particularly important because these are not simply countries with large populations and large healthcare systems.
They include countries where health workforce availability is already considered a major constraint on achieving universal health coverage.
Haiti: A Particularly Serious Case
Haiti is one of the clearest examples of the intersection between healthcare migration and humanitarian need.
Approximately 35,800 Haiti-born nurses were working in OECD countries around 2020–2021, according to OECD data.
Haiti's domestic health system, however, is facing an extraordinary humanitarian crisis.
WHO estimates that 4.9 million people in Haiti will require health assistance in 2026.
Escalating violence, displacement, recurrent cholera and institutional breakdown have severely disrupted healthcare access, with many facilities no longer functioning, particularly in Port-au-Prince.
This is precisely the type of situation in which the international migration debate becomes deeply humanitarian.
Haitian nurses have the right to pursue opportunities overseas.
At the same time, Haiti needs healthcare workers, medicines, functioning facilities and emergency support.
The solution cannot simply be to tell Haitian nurses that they are not allowed to leave.
A more sustainable response would involve strengthening Haiti's healthcare system while protecting the rights of Haitian professionals.
A role for humanitarian support
For organisations committed to humanitarian healthcare, Haiti represents an obvious area where financial support can complement ethical recruitment.
Medical supplies, emergency care, maternal health services, disease surveillance, community health programmes and support for functioning healthcare facilities can all help reduce the gap between the country's healthcare needs and its available resources.
For Huz Health, countries such as Haiti demonstrate why humanitarian aid is an important complement to international recruitment.
Ghana: A Major Source of International Nurses
Ghana is another significant source country.
Approximately 21,400 Ghana-born nurses were working in OECD countries around 2020–2021.
Ghana has also become increasingly prominent in international nursing migration.
The OECD reports that Ghana rose substantially in the ranking of nurse-origin countries since 2000–2001.
Unlike some conflict-affected countries, Ghana is not primarily a humanitarian emergency environment.
Its challenge is more accurately described as health-system development and workforce retention.
WHO's Ghana programme for 2026 focuses on strengthening primary healthcare, health-system resilience, disease surveillance and universal health coverage.
This makes Ghana an example of a country where humanitarian support does not necessarily mean emergency relief.
It can also mean health-system strengthening.
Investment in clinics, training, equipment, maternal and child health, disease prevention and workforce development can help create better conditions for the healthcare workforce domestically.
Zimbabwe: Rapidly Increasing Nurse Migration
Zimbabwe is particularly notable because the growth in international nurse migration has been extremely rapid.
The OECD identifies Zimbabwe as one of the countries experiencing some of the largest increases in the number of migrant nurses since 2000–2001. Zimbabwe rose from approximately 38th place to 11th place among countries of origin for migrant nurses in the OECD dataset.
Approximately 20,800 Zimbabwe-born nurses were working in OECD countries around 2020–2021.
The situation illustrates another important distinction.
Zimbabwe does not have to experience a major war or catastrophic emergency for healthcare workforce migration to become a serious issue.
Economic conditions, professional opportunities and working conditions can all influence whether nurses remain.
Humanitarian and health-system support
Zimbabwe has also faced climate-related emergencies, disease outbreaks and humanitarian pressures.
In January 2026, WHO's Contingency Fund for Emergencies provided funding for a regional flood response involving Zimbabwe, Malawi and Mozambique, including mobile clinics, emergency obstetric and newborn care, cholera supplies, disease surveillance and maintenance of essential health services.
This demonstrates that humanitarian support does not have to be limited to conflict zones.
Countries experiencing workforce migration can simultaneously face climate, disease and health-system pressures.
Cameroon: A Smaller Country With a Significant Workforce Problem
Cameroon provides another example.
Approximately 17,200 Cameroon-born nurses were working in OECD countries around 2020–2021.
The number of migrant nurses from Cameroon has increased substantially since 2000–2001.
Cameroon also experiences significant humanitarian and health pressures.
In 2026, WHO reported that the country was dealing with recurrent cholera, measles, meningitis and mpox outbreaks, natural disasters and security crises that had displaced more than 2 million people.
WHO and the Cameroonian Ministry of Public Health strengthened emergency medical-team capabilities in 2026 to respond to epidemics and disasters.
Cameroon therefore demonstrates the same basic pattern:
internationally mobile healthcare workers + domestic health-system pressure + humanitarian needs.
The Countries Losing the Largest Share of Their Workforce
Absolute numbers tell only part of the story.
Some of the most dramatic cases involve small countries where a surprisingly large proportion of doctors or nurses work overseas.
The OECD reports that seven countries of origin have more doctors working in OECD countries than working domestically.
For nurses, the number rises to 15 countries.
These are primarily small island states and less-developed countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.
This is potentially more significant than simply having 100,000 doctors overseas.
If a country has millions of healthcare workers, losing tens of thousands may be difficult but manageable.
If a country has a few thousand, losing a large proportion can fundamentally alter its healthcare capacity.
The international recruitment debate therefore needs two measures:
Absolute migration
and
migration relative to domestic workforce size.
The United Kingdom and Germany: Losing Doctors While Recruiting Others
Migration is not a one-way system.
Some wealthy countries both lose and gain healthcare professionals.
The United Kingdom is a particularly good example.
British doctors work throughout Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada and other countries.
At the same time, the UK recruits doctors and nurses internationally.
Germany shows a similar pattern.
The OECD describes a cascade-like system in which countries can simultaneously recruit from some countries while losing workers to others.
This means that describing a country simply as a "loser" or "winner" is often misleading.
Healthcare migration is better understood as a network.
Doctors may move from:
Country A → Country B → Country C
while nurses move through a completely different network.
The global workforce therefore behaves less like a simple pipeline and more like a series of interconnected labour markets.
The Brain Drain Versus the Brain Gain
The traditional term is brain drain.
But modern healthcare migration is more complicated than that.
A doctor who leaves one country may:
send remittances home;
fund family education;
develop specialist expertise;
participate in international research;
establish professional networks;
return home later;
provide remote expertise;
or invest in healthcare businesses.
This can create what researchers sometimes describe as brain circulation rather than permanent brain drain.
The challenge is ensuring that the benefits of migration are not overwhelmed by the loss of essential healthcare capacity.
This is why the WHO Global Code of Practice encourages ethical recruitment and why its Health Workforce Support and Safeguards List identifies countries where active international recruitment requires particular caution.
Why International Recruitment Should Not Simply Stop
It would be easy to look at these numbers and conclude that wealthy countries should stop recruiting from developing countries.
That conclusion would be too simplistic.
Healthcare professionals are individuals.
They have the right to make decisions about their careers and lives.
A nurse in Nigeria may want to work in Britain.
A doctor in Pakistan may want to specialise in the United States.
A nurse in the Philippines may want to build a career in Australia.
Preventing all such movement would restrict legitimate individual opportunities.
Furthermore, destination countries genuinely have workforce shortages.
The OECD notes that international recruitment can provide a relatively rapid way to address shortages, even though destination countries must also invest in domestic education and retention.
The answer is therefore not:
"Stop migration."
It is:
"Make migration sustainable."
What Sustainable International Recruitment Looks Like
A sustainable recruitment model can involve several components.
1. Ethical recruitment
Recruiters should provide accurate information about jobs, salaries, registration, immigration and working conditions.
2. Candidate protection
Healthcare professionals should not be exploited through hidden fees, misleading contracts or false promises.
3. Responsible sourcing
Recruitment organisations should understand the workforce circumstances of source countries.
4. Domestic investment
Destination countries should continue investing in their own healthcare education and retention systems.
5. Bilateral partnerships
Countries can establish agreements that provide mutual benefits rather than relying exclusively on private recruitment.
6. Health-system support
Where recruitment involves countries with significant workforce vulnerabilities, destination countries and organisations can support training, infrastructure and healthcare development.
7. Humanitarian assistance
Where source countries face humanitarian emergencies, appropriate humanitarian aid can help protect the health of populations while longer-term workforce challenges are addressed.
This last point is particularly important for organisations operating at the intersection of recruitment and humanitarian work.
The Humanitarian Dimension of Healthcare Migration
The global healthcare workforce cannot be separated from humanitarian crises.
In 2026, WHO estimates that approximately 239 million people require humanitarian assistance worldwide.
Its 2026 Health Emergency Appeal seeks approximately US$1 billion to respond to 36 health emergencies, including 14 Grade 3 emergencies requiring the highest level of organisational response.
Many of these emergencies occur in countries that already experience healthcare workforce shortages.
Conflict can force healthcare workers to flee.
Economic collapse can push professionals overseas.
Natural disasters can destroy healthcare facilities.
Disease outbreaks can overwhelm already understaffed systems.
The result can be a vicious cycle:
weak health system → poor working conditions → healthcare-worker migration → even weaker health system → greater humanitarian vulnerability.
Breaking that cycle requires more than recruitment.
It requires investment.
Where Huz Health's Humanitarian Mission Fits
For Huz Health, this creates an opportunity to connect two activities that are often treated separately:
international healthcare recruitment
and
humanitarian healthcare support.
Huz Health's model of donating 10% of profits toward humanitarian causes provides a practical mechanism for linking the commercial and humanitarian sides of healthcare.
The principle is straightforward:
A healthcare professional may leave a country to pursue a better opportunity abroad.
Huz Health can help that professional achieve their career objective ethically.
At the same time, a portion of the value created through the recruitment business can be directed toward humanitarian and health-related causes.
This does not "cancel out" the workforce effects of migration.
Nor should humanitarian donations be presented as a substitute for ethical recruitment.
Instead, they represent two complementary forms of contribution:
responsible workforce mobility + humanitarian support.
That distinction is important.
The goal is not to claim that recruiting one nurse from Nigeria somehow compensates for donating medical equipment to Nigeria.
The relationship is more fundamental.
Healthcare recruitment operates within a global system.
If that system creates economic value, some of that value can be redirected toward people and communities experiencing severe healthcare needs.
Countries Where Recruitment and Humanitarian Need Intersect
Several of the world's major source countries demonstrate this connection particularly clearly.
Nigeria
A major source of internationally recruited doctors and nurses, while parts of the country continue to experience conflict, displacement, infectious disease and healthcare-access challenges. WHO's 2026 health-cluster data identify approximately 4 million people in need of humanitarian health assistance.
Haiti
A major source of internationally mobile nurses relative to its health-system capacity, while 4.9 million people are expected to require health assistance in 2026 amid violence, displacement and health-system disruption.
Ghana
A significant source of internationally mobile nurses and a country where continued investment in primary healthcare, health-system resilience and universal health coverage remains important.
Zimbabwe
A rapidly growing source of internationally mobile nurses while also experiencing climate and public-health emergencies that require humanitarian assistance and health-system resilience.
Cameroon
A significant source of internationally mobile nurses while simultaneously dealing with displacement, outbreaks and other humanitarian pressures.
These examples demonstrate why a global healthcare company should look at more than recruitment numbers.
Behind every migration statistic is a healthcare system.
And behind every healthcare system are millions of patients.
What Should Destination Countries Do?
Destination countries have an important responsibility.
International recruitment can help solve immediate shortages, but it should not become an excuse for underinvesting in domestic workforce development.
A sustainable destination-country strategy should include:
increasing nursing and medical-school places;
improving retention;
reducing burnout;
improving working conditions;
supporting older workers to remain in employment;
encouraging return-to-practice;
improving rural recruitment;
and using international recruitment strategically.
International workers should supplement a functioning workforce strategy rather than become the entire workforce strategy.
What Should Source Countries Do?
Source countries also have responsibilities.
They can:
expand training capacity;
create sufficient funded positions;
improve working conditions;
develop specialist career pathways;
negotiate ethical bilateral recruitment agreements;
maintain accurate workforce data;
and create opportunities for returning professionals.
Importantly, source countries should not treat migration as purely negative.
International healthcare workers can become an important national asset.
Diaspora professionals can contribute through:
remittances;
investment;
education;
telemedicine;
research;
mentoring;
short-term return programmes;
and eventual permanent return.
The objective should be circulation of expertise, not simply retention at all costs.
What Should Recruitment Agencies Do?
Recruitment agencies sit in an unusual position.
They are commercial organisations, but their activities affect public health.
This gives them responsibilities that extend beyond filling vacancies.
A responsible international healthcare recruiter should understand:
Who is being recruited?
Where are they coming from?
What is the health workforce situation in their country?
What are they being offered?
What will they actually receive?
Are they protected throughout the process?
What happens after arrival?
Is the recruitment consistent with relevant ethical frameworks?
This is increasingly important as governments implement the WHO Global Code of Practice and as international recruitment receives greater scrutiny.
The Future: From Recruitment to Global Workforce Partnerships
The international healthcare recruitment industry is changing.
The old model was relatively simple:
Hospital has vacancy → recruiter finds foreign healthcare worker → worker relocates.
The emerging model is more sophisticated:
health system shortage → workforce analysis → ethical international recruitment → professional integration → retention → source-country partnership → health-system investment.
This model recognises that recruitment is part of a much larger global workforce ecosystem.
It also creates an opportunity for companies such as Huz Health to differentiate themselves.
A recruiter that understands the global workforce situation can provide more value than one that simply has access to candidates.
And a recruiter that combines workforce expertise with humanitarian commitment can take an even broader approach.
Conclusion: The Real Question Is Not Who Is Losing , But How the System Can Benefit Everyone?
The international migration of doctors and nurses is often described in terms of winners and losers.
Destination countries gain workers.
Source countries lose workers.
But reality is considerably more complicated.
India has nearly 100,000 India-born doctors working across OECD countries.
The Philippines has more than 275,000 Philippines-born nurses.
Nigeria has tens of thousands of doctors and nurses abroad.
Pakistan has almost 30,000 doctors working in OECD countries.
Haiti, Ghana, Zimbabwe and Cameroon have also become significant sources of internationally mobile nurses.
At the same time, many of these countries continue to experience substantial healthcare workforce pressures.
Some face humanitarian emergencies.
Some face chronic underinvestment.
Others struggle with rural healthcare access, disease outbreaks, climate shocks or insufficient healthcare infrastructure.
The answer cannot simply be to stop healthcare professionals from migrating.
Healthcare workers are individuals with the right to pursue opportunities.
The answer is to create a system in which migration produces broader benefits.
Destination countries should invest in domestic training and retention.
Source countries should strengthen their healthcare systems and create better conditions for professionals to remain or return.
Recruiters should operate ethically.
Governments should develop responsible bilateral partnerships.
And organisations involved in international healthcare should consider how some of the economic value generated by global workforce mobility can support communities facing severe healthcare needs.
For Huz Health, this is where recruitment and humanitarianism meet.
Helping a nurse find an international career and helping vulnerable communities access healthcare are not necessarily contradictory goals.
They can be two parts of a broader mission:
building a stronger global healthcare workforce while helping those who currently have the least access to it.
The global healthcare workforce will continue to move.
The challenge for the next decade is ensuring that when it does, patients, healthcare professionals, source countries and destination countries all have a reason to benefit.
core sources referenced:
OECD — International Migration Outlook 2025: International Migration of Health Professionals to OECD Countries
Comprehensive OECD analysis of international migration among doctors and nurses, including country-of-origin rankings, migration growth and the relationship between migration and workforce shortages.
OECD — Health at a Glance 2025: International Migration of Nurses
Detailed data on foreign-born and foreign-trained nurses in OECD countries, including the major source countries and the scale of international nursing migration.
World Health Organization — Health Workforce Support and Safeguards List 2023
WHO framework identifying 55 countries facing the most pressing health workforce challenges related to universal health coverage.
World Health Organization — WHO Health Workforce Support and Safeguards List: Questions and Answers
Explains the methodology behind the safeguards list, including the workforce-density and universal-health-coverage criteria.
World Health Organization — WHO Renews Alert on Safeguards for Health Worker Recruitment
WHO announcement explaining the purpose of the safeguards list and the risks that unmanaged international recruitment can create for vulnerable health systems.
World Health Organization — State of the Health Workforce in Africa 2026
WHO's 2026 analysis of workforce shortages, unemployment, migration, education, retention and investment across Africa.
World Health Organization — Health Emergency Appeal 2026
WHO's global overview of humanitarian health needs in 2026, including approximately 239 million people requiring humanitarian assistance and a funding requirement of approximately US$1 billion.
World Health Organization — Nigeria Health Cluster
Current information on Nigeria's humanitarian health needs and healthcare pressures in 2026.
World Health Organization — Haiti Health Emergency Appeal 2026
Current information on Haiti's healthcare and humanitarian crisis, including the estimated 4.9 million people requiring health assistance in 2026.
World Health Organization — Cameroon Emergency Response, 2026
Information on Cameroon’s 2026 humanitarian and health-security pressures, including displacement, disease outbreaks and emergency medical response.
World Health Organization — Ghana Country Programme
Information on health-system strengthening, primary healthcare and universal health coverage priorities in Ghana.
World Health Organization — Contingency Fund for Emergencies
Information on 2026 emergency funding, including the regional flood response involving Zimbabwe, Malawi and Mozambique.