| OBSERVEContinuously monitor frameworks, standards, regulatory developments and emerging workforce requirements across 12 countries | MAPStructure intelligence systematically by country, profession, health domain and thematic area into a queryable knowledge base | ANALYSEIdentify convergence, divergence and gaps across frameworks; produce comparative analyses and critical descriptive reviews | ADAPTSupport responsible national contextualisation — translating global standards into regionally and nationally relevant competency systems | IMPLEMENTConnect competency requirements to education, curriculum, assessment and practice — closing the gap between standard and demonstrated competence | CONNECTFacilitate exchange between institutions, educators, regulators and experts across the region and internationally |
Why health workforce competencies matter — and why no regional observatory existed
The global health workforce faces a projected shortfall of 10 million workers by 2030, concentrated disproportionately in low- and middle-income countries and in the regions RHWCO covers — but the numbers crisis is inseparable from a competency crisis. The Lancet Commission on Education of Health Professionals for the 21st Century (Frenk et al., 2010) established that health systems fail not only because of workforce shortages but because of competency misalignment: workers who are present, but whose knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviours do not match the actual health needs of the populations they serve. This distinction — between workforce presence and workforce competence — is the intellectual foundation of RHWCO.
Since 2010, WHO, ASPHER, professional bodies and governments have developed a substantial international architecture of competency frameworks and standards. The WHO Global Competency and Outcomes Framework for UHC (2022) provided the most comprehensive global synthesis to date, followed by the EPHF Framework (2024) for the public-health workforce. But these resources remain dispersed across institutions, professions and countries. Adoption is uneven. In many countries, frameworks have been acknowledged in policy documents without any mechanism for implementation, assessment or verification. No institution existed to systematically observe, map and analyse this evidence for the Caucasus, Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Türkiye — a region of 12 countries, approximately 170 million people, and an estimated 2.5 million health workers navigating profoundly different health system contexts, all sharing the challenge of translating global competency evidence into national action. RHWCO is PHIG's answer to that gap.
Since 2010, WHO, ASPHER, professional bodies and governments have developed a substantial international architecture of competency frameworks and standards. The WHO Global Competency and Outcomes Framework for UHC (2022) provided the most comprehensive global synthesis to date, followed by the EPHF Framework (2024) for the public-health workforce. But these resources remain dispersed across institutions, professions and countries. Adoption is uneven. In many countries, frameworks have been acknowledged in policy documents without any mechanism for implementation, assessment or verification. No institution existed to systematically observe, map and analyse this evidence for the Caucasus, Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Türkiye — a region of 12 countries, approximately 170 million people, and an estimated 2.5 million health workers navigating profoundly different health system contexts, all sharing the challenge of translating global competency evidence into national action. RHWCO is PHIG's answer to that gap.
Population needs→
Health services→
Practice activities→
Competencies→
Behaviours→
Learning outcomes→
Curriculum→
Assessment→
Competent practice
Conceptual chain: WHO Global Competency and Outcomes Framework for UHC (2022). Competency development must begin from population needs and observed practice — not from classroom tradition.
The regional workforce challenge: why RHWCO's geography matters
| Epidemiological transition The Caucasus and Central Asia carry a double burden of NCDs and communicable diseases. NCDs account for 86–92% of deaths across RHWCO countries, yet physician training in most of the region remains anchored in hospital-based acute models. The double burden of NCDs and residual communicable diseases — TB, HIV and hepatitis B remain endemic in parts of Central Asia — requires a competency mix that most national training systems have not yet formally defined or assessed. | Migration and workforce depletion Health worker emigration — documented for Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan — creates a competency continuity rupture: tacit clinical and institutional knowledge is lost with each departing professional. Georgia has lost an estimated 20–30% of practising physicians to emigration; Moldova retains the highest health worker emigration rate in Europe; Ukraine’s war has accelerated displacement at scale. RHWCO tracks these patterns through the PHIG Health & Migration Observatory. | Education system legacy Soviet-era health education systems across the region were largely knowledge-transmission models. The transition to competency-based education endorsed by the WHO-ASPHER European Framework requires institutional capacity — curriculum mapping, faculty development, validated assessment tools and functional accreditation systems — that most countries in the region are still building. | Regulatory fragmentation Professional registration, licensure, CPD requirements and accreditation systems vary dramatically across the region. Some countries maintain Soviet-era attestation systems that certify seniority, not competence. The WHO-ASPHER Professionalization Roadmap (2022) identifies regulatory coherence as the prerequisite without which competency frameworks remain aspirational. |
1Foundational International Frameworks
RHWCO draws on an established international competency architecture built over two decades. The frameworks below constitute the primary normative reference layer for RHWCO's work. Inclusion identifies source materials; it does not imply institutional endorsement of RHWCO by the issuing organizations.
|
World Health Organization · Geneva · 2022
Global Competency and Outcomes Framework for Universal Health Coverage
116 pages · 6 domains · 24 competencies · 35 practice activities · ISBN 978-92-4-003466-2
The principal conceptual reference for all RHWCO work. Developed through the WHO Global Health Workforce Network Education Hub with more than 200 contributors across professions and countries, this framework provides a common competency language applicable across all health occupations. It directly connects population health needs to practice activities to competencies to behaviours to learning outcomes to curriculum — the same chain RHWCO adopts as its conceptual spine. The six domains (People-centredness; Decision-making and problem-solving; Communication; Collaboration and teamwork; Evidence-informed practice and learning; Personal and professional conduct) are designed to be contextualised nationally and by profession. RHWCO uses this framework as the common reference point across all country profiles, thematic analyses and comparative studies.
Official WHO publication →
|
World Health Organization · Geneva · 2024
Global Competency and Outcomes Framework for the Essential Public Health Functions
Second major RHWCO pillar · WHO National Workforce Capacity for EPHFs Collection · 2024
Extends the UHC competency architecture specifically to the public-health workforce delivering Essential Public Health Functions — epidemiology, surveillance, health promotion, health protection, emergency preparedness, environmental health and leadership. Particularly important for RHWCO because the Caucasus and Central Asia still maintain large public-health institute systems inherited from the Soviet sanitary-epidemiological service. The EPHF framework maps competencies across: workforce functions → competency domains → behaviours → educational outcomes → capacity requirements. Part of the broader WHO EPHF Workforce Capacity Collection which includes an operational handbook and workforce enumeration guidance. RHWCO uses this as the core reference for Programme 3 — Public Health Workforce.
Official WHO publication →
Collection includes: EPHF operational handbook · workforce enumeration guidance · implementation case studies
|
|
WHO Regional Office for Europe · ASPHER · 2020
Competency Framework for the Public Health Workforce in the European Region
Developed with the Association of Schools of Public Health in the European Region
Critically important for RHWCO: the geographic scope of the WHO European Region encompasses 53 member states including Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Moldova, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. This framework was explicitly designed as a starting point for context-specific competency development — precisely the function RHWCO supports at national level. It covers nine competency areas: public health sciences; methods and tools; assessment of population health needs and determinants; policy formulation; communication; leadership and management; partnerships; equity and ethics; public-health specialisation. The framework addresses workforce planning, continuing professional development, recruitment, accreditation, credentialing and quality assurance. Authors: Czabanowska, Shickle, Burazeri, Gershuni, Otok, Azzopardi-Muscat — many of whom are central figures in ASPHER and WHO/Europe workforce development.
Official WHO/Europe publication →
|
WHO Regional Office for Europe · ASPHER · 2022
Roadmap to Professionalizing the Public Health Workforce in the European Region
Moves beyond competency frameworks to professional system architecture
Competency frameworks do not self-implement. This roadmap addresses the regulatory, institutional and systemic mechanisms required to make competency-based approaches operational: professional identity and registration; credentialing and certification systems; career pathway structures; CPD requirements; regulation and governance frameworks; workforce planning methodology. RHWCO uses this as the conceptual basis for Programme 6 (Assessment Research) and Programme 5 (Competency-Based Education) — because the evidence is clear that competency standards achieve sustained workforce improvement only when embedded in functioning professional and regulatory systems. Produced by WHO/Europe and ASPHER, it is directed at governments, ministries of health, health authorities, public-health institutes, education institutions, professional bodies and employers across the region.
Official WHO/Europe publication →
|
Thematic Competency Frameworks — Active RHWCO Tracks
|
WHO · 2021 · Refugee & Migrant Health · Active RHWCO track
Global Competency Standards for Health Workers Working with Refugees and Migrants
Nine global competency standards covering: health systems and migrants; communication and language; culturally sensitive care; mental health; infectious diseases; sexual and reproductive health; non-communicable diseases; emergency and humanitarian care; advocacy and ethics. Full implementation package: Standards document → Knowledge Guide → Curriculum Guide → Training. PHIG and DTMU delivered the WHO Competency Standards training in Riga, September 2024 as part of a WHO/IOM/EU project covering 10 European countries and training Ukrainian refugee health mediators. This is an active RHWCO implementation track under Programme 4.
Official WHO publication →
|
WHO · 2023 · Self-Care
Self-care Competency Framework: Global Competency Standards
Ten competency standards structured around: self-care concepts and evidence; enabling environments; communication; counselling; support and follow-up; equity and ethics. Full implementation package: Standards → Knowledge Guide → Curriculum Guide. Critical RHWCO reference model: the Self-Care CS family is among the most operationally complete WHO competency packages available — it demonstrates precisely how global competency standards translate into teachable, assessable educational programmes with standardised learning outcomes. RHWCO uses this as a case study in the operationalization pathway: standard → knowledge → curriculum → delivery → assessment → practice change.
Official WHO publication →
|
|
WHO · 2022 · HIV Module — Adaptation methodology
HIV Module: Global Competency and Outcomes Framework for UHC
Maps HIV prevention, treatment, care and support services onto the practice activities of the parent UHC Competency Framework — a Type C thematic adaptation: specific health services are mapped onto existing cross-cutting competency architecture rather than creating a parallel, disconnected system. This modular approach — anchoring thematic expansions to the UHC framework — is the methodology RHWCO will use for future thematic adaptations including Patient Safety, Emergency Preparedness, NCDs and Mental Health. Related: WHO HIV Knowledge Guide and Curriculum Guide.
Official WHO publication →
|
WHO · June 2026 · Digital Health — Emerging competency stream
Competency Frameworks and Standards for Digital Health: A Landscape Analysis
The most recent major WHO competency publication. Synthesises the rapidly evolving landscape of digital health competency frameworks across six recurring areas: patient care and clinical informatics; data management and governance; communication and digital health literacy; technical proficiency; digital professionalism; and leadership in digital transformation. Produced as part of the WHO Global Initiative on Digital Health (GIDH). RHWCO has designated Digital Health & AI as a dedicated emerging competency stream under Programme 7, noting that the field is developing rapidly and monitoring must precede standard-setting.
Official WHO publication →
|
ILO & UNESCO Instruments — Labour, Education and Qualifications Perspective
|
International Labour Organization · 1977 · Convention C149
Nursing Personnel Convention and Recommendation R157
Only binding international treaty specifically on health workforce · Complements WHO competency standards with labour rights
ILO Convention C149 on Nursing Personnel (1977) and its accompanying Recommendation R157 are the sole binding international instruments devoted specifically to health workforce standards — predating all WHO competency frameworks. C149 requires ratifying states to adopt policies for nursing education and training that meet the needs of the population, and working conditions enabling nurses to carry out their professional responsibilities. Recommendation R157 elaborates on: entry requirements; duration and curriculum of nursing education; practical training; continuing education; career structures; and working conditions. RHWCO treats C149 ratification status and implementation as a baseline indicator in country profiles for the regulatory and rights environment of the nursing workforce — the single largest health worker cadre in every RHWCO country. Complementary instruments: ILO Labour Standards on occupational safety, working hours and social protection applicable to all health workers.
ILO International Labour Standards →
Related: ILO Care Economy framework · Decent Work Agenda for health workers · ILO-WHO joint statement on health worker safety
|
UNESCO · 2019 · Global Convention · ISCED 2013
UNESCO Global Convention on Recognition of Qualifications in Higher Education & ISCED
Global Convention: 113 signatories · Only global binding treaty on qualifications recognition · ISCED: universal education classification system
Two UNESCO instruments are directly operative across all RHWCO countries and essential for understanding health workforce education systems. The UNESCO Global Convention on Recognition of Qualifications (2019) — the first global legally binding treaty on mutual recognition of higher education qualifications — directly enables cross-border recognition of health professional credentials. For RHWCO countries where diploma non-recognition is a primary driver of brain drain and a barrier to managed migration, this Convention provides the legal framework for remediation. ISCED 2013 (International Standard Classification of Education) is the universal standard for classifying education programmes; Health and Welfare at Field 09 is the classification covering all health workforce education globally. ISCED levels (5–8) and fields structure all comparative health education data across RHWCO countries. Without ISCED literacy, health workforce competency data across the region is incomparable. Related: IIEP Paris — health workforce education planning methodology; UNESCO-UNEVOC health sector skills — mid-level and allied health training.
UNESCO Global Convention →
ISCED →
|
These frameworks are produced by their respective issuing organisations. Inclusion in the RHWCO knowledge base identifies source materials and does not imply institutional endorsement of RHWCO or partnership with PHIG unless explicitly stated elsewhere.
A
RHWCO Analytical Framework — A Typology of Health Workforce Competency Documents
Why classification matters before comparison
The competency development literature suffers from a persistent problem of category confusion. Governments cite frameworks as though they are standards. Educators treat curricula as evidence of competence. Regulators reference qualifications as proxies for demonstrated performance. These conflations are not merely semantic: they produce policy decisions and education reform efforts built on category errors — and they explain why many well-intentioned competency initiatives in the RHWCO region have not translated into measurable workforce improvement. A competency framework and a competency standard are not the same document. A curriculum is not evidence that its graduates are competent. A qualification is not the same as assessed performance. Before RHWCO can compare, analyse or advise, it must classify precisely. The typology below is RHWCO's own classification system — the taxonomy applied to every record in the RHWCO Knowledge Hub.
| Type | Document category | Central question answered | Definition and distinguishing features | Canonical example | Legal force |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Normative Standard | What must health workers be able to do, as a binding obligation? | Produced by a body with recognised normative authority (international organisation, statutory regulator, government). Sets minimum requirements that are legally or professionally binding on those who adopt or ratify them. Distinguishing feature: the existence of a compliance mechanism, even if weak. | ILO Convention C149 (Nursing Personnel); EU Directive 2013/55 (professional qualifications minimums); national medical licensing law | Binding |
| 2 | Competency Framework | What should health workers ideally be able to do, structured for systematic use? | Defines competencies, domains, behaviours and often learning outcomes in a structured, interconnected architecture. Produced by authoritative bodies but voluntary in application unless formally adopted. Designed to be contextualised nationally or professionally. The most widely cited document type in the field — and the most commonly misidentified as binding. | WHO UHC Framework (2022); WHO-ASPHER European Framework (2020); CanMEDS | Voluntary |
| 3 | Professional Standard | What does a recognised professional body require of practitioners in this discipline? | Issued by a statutory or recognised professional body (medical council, nursing board, pharmacy chamber). Defines what practitioners must demonstrate to enter, remain in, or advance within a profession. Distinct from a competency framework: a professional standard is discipline-specific, often carries regulatory force within the profession, and links to registration, licensure or membership. Partially binding on members. | UEMS European Training Requirements by specialty; national medical specialist board requirements; ICN position statements on nursing practice | Semi-binding |
| 4 | Educational Framework | What should health education programmes teach and assess? | Translates competency requirements into educational structures: learning outcomes, programme content, teaching approaches and assessment design. The link between a competency framework and a curriculum. Often produced by educational associations or regulators of health education (not health practice). Critical distinction: an educational framework describes what education should achieve — it does not guarantee that any given programme achieves it. | WHO EPHF Framework's educational outcomes layer (2024); WFME Basic Medical Education Standards; AMEE curriculum design guides | Voluntary |
| 5 | National Qualification | What credential does completing a health education programme confer, and what is it worth? | A formal credential awarded upon completion of an accredited programme: degree, diploma, certificate, title. Defined within a national qualifications framework (NQF) and classified by ISCED level and field. Critical distinction from competency: a qualification certifies programme completion — it is not evidence of demonstrated competence unless the programme itself uses validated competency-based assessment throughout. Most qualifications in the RHWCO region certify attendance and examination performance, not demonstrated competence. | MD degree; Bachelor of Nursing; MPH; feldsher diploma; sanitarny vrach (sanitary physician) certificate; community health worker certification | Semi-binding |
| 6 | Curriculum | What will this specific education programme teach, in what sequence, with what resources? | The operationalisation of an educational framework for a specific institution, programme and student cohort. Defines content, sequencing, teaching methods, contact hours and assessment schedule. The most institution-specific document type in the typology. Critical distinction: a well-designed curriculum derived from a competency framework may still fail to produce competent graduates if teaching quality is poor, assessment is not validated, or clinical placement is inadequate. In the RHWCO region, curricula frequently reference international frameworks without structurally implementing them. | University medical faculty curriculum for the 6-year MD programme; nursing school syllabus; public health MPH module catalogue | Institutional |
| 7 | Assessment System | How is competence actually demonstrated and verified? | The tools, methods and processes used to determine whether a health worker has achieved defined competencies: written knowledge examinations, OSCEs, workplace-based assessment tools, direct observation instruments, simulation assessment, portfolios, multisource feedback, progress testing. The most underdeveloped document type in the RHWCO region — and the most critical. Without a validated assessment system, a competency framework remains aspirational. The RHWCO Competency Evidence Ladder (Programme 6) classifies assessment evidence from weakest (self-report) to strongest (validated performance under observation). | ACGME Milestones; OSCE marking criteria; workplace-based assessment (mini-CEX, DOPS); licensing examination blueprints | Institutional / regulatory |
| 8 | Implementation Guidance | How should a framework or standard be put into practice in a specific context? | Operational documents that bridge between frameworks and practice: training manuals, facilitator guides, adaptation toolkits, faculty development resources, rollout plans. Do not define what competencies are required — that is the framework's role — but provide concrete instruction on how to build the capacity to achieve them. Often produced alongside frameworks as companion documents. Critical distinction: implementation guidance is context-sensitive; the WHO Refugee & Migrant Health Knowledge Guide and Curriculum Guide are implementation documents derived from the CS 2021 normative standard. | WHO CS Knowledge Guide (2021); WHO CS Curriculum Guide; WHO EPHF Operational Handbook (2024); RHWCO country adaptation toolkits (planned) | Voluntary / operational |
Why these distinctions matter: three common errors in the RHWCO region
|
Error 1 — Framework adoption as implementation
A government ministry cites adoption of the WHO UHC Competency Framework (Type 2) as evidence of competency-based health education reform. But citing a voluntary framework in a policy document moves the needle from Types 2 to 6 (curriculum) without passing through Types 4 (educational framework), 5 (qualification reform) or 7 (assessment system). In most RHWCO countries, this shortcut is the norm. The result: internationally cited frameworks appear in policy documents and disappear at the classroom door. RHWCO country profiles specifically document the distance between Type 2 adoption and Type 7 implementation for each country assessed.
|
Error 2 — Qualification as competence
A health worker holds an MD degree or a nursing diploma (Type 5 — qualification). This is treated in workforce planning, staffing decisions and regulatory systems as equivalent to demonstrated competence (Type 7 — assessment). The logical chain breaks at two points: first, the qualification certifies completion of a programme that may not have been competency-based; second, even if the programme was well-designed, the assessment used to award the qualification may not have been validated against practice performance. The Soviet attestation system — periodic re-examination of knowledge, not performance — institutionalised this error across the RHWCO region and its legacy persists in most countries' CPD requirements.
|
Error 3 — Normative authority conflation
A WHO publication (Type 2 — voluntary competency framework) is cited with the same authority as an ILO Convention (Type 1 — binding normative standard) or a national licensing law (Type 1). This conflation has the opposite effect to Error 1: it overstates the binding force of voluntary frameworks and understates the regulatory gap their absence creates. Equally common: a professional body standard (Type 3) from one country is applied as though it carries the same force in another country where it has no regulatory standing. RHWCO records include provenance data — issuing body, legal basis, adoption mechanism — specifically to prevent this conflation.
|
The competency document chain — how types relate in a functional system
1
Normative Standard
What is required?
→
2
Competency Framework
What should be achieved?
→
3+4
Professional & Educational Standards
What should programmes achieve?
→
5+6
Qualification & Curriculum
What do programmes deliver?
→
7
Assessment System
What can workers actually do?
→
8
Implementation Guidance
How is it built in practice?
In a functional competency system, all eight types are present and aligned. In most RHWCO countries, Types 1–2 exist in some form. Types 3–4 are partial. Types 5–6 exist but are often misaligned with Types 1–2. Type 7 — validated competency assessment — is the most consistently absent. RHWCO country profiles document which types are present, which are absent, and where the misalignments are. This mapping constitutes RHWCO's primary diagnostic contribution at national level.
Source basis: Frenk et al., Lancet 2010 (competency alignment framework); Frank et al., Med Teach 2010 (competency-based medical education); WHO UHC Framework 2022 (adaptation typology); WHO-ASPHER Professionalization Roadmap 2022 (professional system architecture); RHWCO editorial classification system, 2026.
2Geographic Scope — RHWCO Focus Region
RHWCO covers 12 countries across four sub-regions. Inclusion in the scope does not indicate formal membership, institutional agreement or completion of mapping activities. The region accounts for approximately 170 million people and an estimated 2.5 million health workers across enormously varied health system contexts.
|
Caucasus — 3 countries
Georgia · Anchor & demonstration country
→ PHIG Health & Migration Assessment
Pop. 3.7M · WHO Country Office
Armenia · Mapping planned → PHIG Health & Migration Assessment Pop. 2.8M · WHO Country Office Azerbaijan · Mapping planned → PHIG Health & Migration Assessment Pop. 10.1M · WHO Country Office → South Caucasus Regional Report 2026 |
Eastern Europe — 2 countries
Ukraine
Pop. 37M · war-context workforce crisis; massive internal displacement; health worker emigration documented by European Observatory · WHO Country Office Moldova Pop. 2.6M · EU candidate country; European integration driving standards alignment; documented health worker emigration · WHO Country Office |
Central Asia — 5 countries
|
Türkiye — 1 country
Türkiye · Pop. 85M
WHO Country Office Largest health workforce in the RHWCO region; ~1.5M health workers; WHO European Region member; G20 health system; bridges Central Asia, Caucasus, Middle East and EU. Advanced health system transformation experience highly relevant to region. |
RHWCO Region — Key Health Workforce Indicators
| Country | Population | Physicians/10k | Nurses/10k | UHC Index | OOP Health % | Key workforce challenge |
| Georgia Anchor | 3.7M | 53.5 | 41.2 | 62 | ~54% | Urban concentration; emigration; specialist-heavy, PHC-weak |
| Armenia | 2.8M | 44.0 | 56.8 | 63 | ~57% | Post-conflict disruption; Yerevan concentration; diaspora emigration |
| Azerbaijan | 10.1M | 34.9 | 67.8 | 62 | ~75% | Rural deficit; IDP health access; primary care reform underway |
| Ukraine | 37M | 30.0 | 62.3 | 68 | ~43% | War-driven displacement; mass emigration of HWF; trauma care surge |
| Moldova | 2.6M | 30.1 | 51.3 | 67 | ~44% | Highest HWF emigration rate in Europe; EU alignment driving reform |
| Kazakhstan | 19M | 39.4 | 82.5 | 72 | ~28% | Soviet legacy; urban-rural split; active reform (CSHI scheme) |
| Kyrgyzstan | 6.8M | 19.5 | 62.1 | 60 | ~50% | Low density; emigration to Russia/Kazakhstan; PHC underdeveloped |
| Tajikistan | 10M | 17.8 | 40.9 | 54 | ~61% | Lowest physician density in region; severe rural deficit |
| Turkmenistan | 6.1M | 22.3 | 48.8 | 60 | n/a | Limited data availability; state-controlled system; reform nascent |
| Uzbekistan | 36M | 23.8 | 99.0 | 62 | ~39% | Largest Central Asian workforce; reform active; CBE adoption underway |
| Türkiye | 85M | 18.7 | 28.7 | 76 | ~16% | HTP reform success; largest regional HWF; strong education infrastructure |
Sources: WHO Global Health Observatory · UHC Service Coverage Index · WHO National Health Workforce Accounts · European Observatory HiT Reviews. Data approximate; latest available year varies by country. OOP = out-of-pocket health expenditure as share of total health expenditure. CBE = competency-based education. HTP = Health Transformation Programme.
C
Regional Competency Gap Analysis — Preliminary Observations Across the RHWCO Region
What RHWCO finds when it looks at the region
This section presents RHWCO's preliminary analytical observations on the state of health workforce competency systems across the 12 countries in its scope. It draws on published European Observatory Health in Transition reviews, WHO Global Health Observatory workforce data, EU and World Bank health system assessments, and PHIG's own country assessment work. This is not a completed mapping — RHWCO's systematic country profiling programme (Programme 2) is in Phase 1 (Georgia). What follows represents documented observations structured by the RHWCO Framework Typology (Section A) — identifying, for each sub-region, which document types are present, which are absent, where the most critical gaps lie, and what RHWCO considers the primary competency development priority. All observations carry source references; where evidence is limited or uncertain, this is stated explicitly.
How RHWCO structures the gap analysis — three diagnostic questions
|
Question 1
What exists?
Which of the 8 document types (Section A) are present in the country's health workforce system? Are they aligned with international frameworks or developed independently? Does the formal existence of a document correlate with its actual use in education, regulation or practice?
|
Question 2
What is absent?
Which document types are missing entirely — most commonly Type 7 (assessment systems) and Type 4 (educational frameworks aligned to competency standards)? Where does the chain break between framework adoption and practice change?
|
Question 3
What exists on paper only?
This is often the most analytically important finding: documents (curricula, professional standards, CPD requirements) that exist formally but have no implementation infrastructure — no faculty trained to deliver them, no assessment tools to verify them, no enforcement mechanism to require them.
|
RHWCO Typology Presence Matrix — Preliminary Assessment
Ratings: ● Present & functional · ◐ Partial or formal only · ○ Absent or marginal · ? Insufficient evidence · Based on published HiT reviews, WHO GHO data and PHIG assessment work. These are preliminary analytical observations, not official country evaluations.
| Country | T1 Norm. Standard |
T2 Competency Framework |
T3 Professional Standard |
T4 Educational Framework |
T5 National Qualification |
T6 Curriculum |
T7 Assessment System |
T8 Implementation Guidance |
Primary gap | Key source |
| Caucasus | ||||||||||
| Georgia Anchor | ● | ◐ | ◐ | ◐ | ● | ● | ○ | ◐ | T7: No validated competency assessment. Attestation-based CPD. OSCE absent at licensure. | HiT Georgia · PHIG 2026 |
| Armenia | ● | ◐ | ◐ | ○ | ● | ● | ○ | ○ | T4+T7: No competency-referenced educational framework. No practice assessment. Post-Karabakh workforce restructuring without competency framework. | HiT Armenia · PHIG 2026 |
| Azerbaijan | ● | ◐ | ◐ | ○ | ● | ● | ○ | ◐ | T4+T7: MHI Phase 2 reform creates leverage for CBE introduction. No validated assessment. OHS competencies for oil/construction sector workers absent. | HiT Azerbaijan · PHIG 2026 |
| Eastern Europe | ||||||||||
| Ukraine | ● | ◐ | ◐ | ◐ | ● | ● | ◐ | ◐ | Context: war-driven system disruption. Pre-war: most advanced CBE reform in region. Current priority: trauma and emergency competencies; mental health workforce; continuity of education under displacement. EU accession alignment accelerating. | HiT Ukraine |
| Moldova | ● | ◐ | ◐ | ◐ | ● | ● | ○ | ◐ | T7 + retention: highest health worker emigration rate in Europe. EU candidate status creating alignment pressure. Family medicine reform partially CBE-aligned. Assessment for specialist re-certification remains attestation-based. | HiT Moldova |
| Central Asia | ||||||||||
| Kazakhstan | ● | ◐ | ◐ | ◐ | ● | ● | ◐ | ◐ | Most advanced in Central Asia. CSHI reform creating CBE drivers. Nazarbayev University medical school piloting competency-based model. National qualification framework exists but misaligned with WHO frameworks. T7 partial — OSCE introduced at some institutions. | HiT Kazakhstan |
| Kyrgyzstan | ● | ◐ | ○ | ○ | ● | ◐ | ○ | ○ | T3+T4+T7: Professional regulatory system weak. Primary care relies heavily on feldshers without standardised competency framework. Health emigration to Russia and Kazakhstan depletes trained cadres. FETP programme provides competency-based model for epidemiology workforce. | HiT Kyrgyzstan |
| Tajikistan | ● | ○ | ○ | ○ | ● | ◐ | ○ | ○ | Deepest gap in region: lowest physician density (17.8/10k), no documented competency framework adoption, Soviet curriculum largely unchanged, no validated assessment. World Bank reform programme provides entry point. RHWCO mapping priority for Phase 4. | HiT Tajikistan |
| Turkmenistan | ? | ? | ? | ? | ● | ? | ? | ? | Insufficient published evidence. State-controlled health system with limited external review access. RHWCO treats Turkmenistan as a monitoring scope country; active profiling requires access not yet available. | HiT Turkmenistan |
| Uzbekistan | ● | ◐ | ◐ | ◐ | ● | ● | ◐ | ◐ | Largest Central Asian workforce (36M population). Active reform agenda with World Bank engagement. Tashkent Medical Academy piloting CBE. Primary health care competency reform in progress. T7 partial — OSCE introduced but not standardised. | HiT Uzbekistan |
| Türkiye | ||||||||||
| Türkiye | ● | ◐ | ● | ● | ● | ● | ◐ | ● | Most developed system in RHWCO scope. Health Transformation Programme delivered major structural reform. UEMS-aligned postgraduate specialist training. Primary gap: T7 at generalist level — family medicine competency assessment not standardised. Strong RHWCO knowledge-sharing potential. | HiT Türkiye |
Sub-regional synthesis — four distinct competency development landscapes
|
Caucasus
Intermediate regulatory environment, active reform, emigration pressure
All three countries have functioning qualification systems and basic regulatory frameworks, but none has implemented validated competency assessment (Type 7). Georgia is furthest in reform trajectory, supported by EU association and active accreditation development. Armenia faces the additional challenge of post-conflict workforce restructuring without a competency framework to guide it. Azerbaijan's MHI Phase 2 reform creates an exceptional window for introducing competency-referenced contracting and workforce standards. The sub-region's shared challenge is converting framework references in policy documents into curriculum delivery and assessment reality. RHWCO anchor country: Georgia.
|
Eastern Europe
EU alignment pressure, conflict disruption, highest emigration rates
Ukraine had the most advanced pre-war CBE reform trajectory in the RHWCO region — interrupted by systemic disruption since 2022 but with EU accession as a sustaining driver. Moldova faces the paradox of high reform ambition under severe workforce depletion: the country loses health workers faster than it can train them, making retention-through-competency-recognition a strategic imperative. For both countries, EU Directive 2013/55 alignment and the Bologna Process provide the legislative and structural levers; RHWCO's role is mapping the competency gap between current national standards and EU minimum training requirements. Sources: HiT Ukraine · HiT Moldova.
|
Central Asia
Greatest depth of gap, highest reform potential leverage, donor-dependent
Central Asia represents the deepest competency development gap in the RHWCO region — but also the highest leverage opportunity, because reform is funded (World Bank, ADB, EU) and governments have signalled reform intent. The shared challenge is that reform programmes focus on infrastructure and financing (facilities, equipment, insurance) while workforce competency development receives less systematic attention. The ETF and World Bank engagement provides entry points. Kazakhstan is the sub-regional leader with the most developed reform infrastructure; Tajikistan has the most critical baseline gap. The sub-region's primary need is not framework adoption but the translation of existing reform energy into Type 4 (educational frameworks) and Type 7 (assessment systems). Sources: World Bank Health · ETF.
|
Türkiye
Regional leader, UEMS-aligned specialists, knowledge-sharing hub potential
Türkiye's Health Transformation Programme (2003–2013) produced the most comprehensive health system reform in the RHWCO region. UEMS-aligned specialist training, a functioning educational accreditation system, and a large health workforce create the conditions for Türkiye to serve as a knowledge hub for RHWCO regional work — sharing implementation experience on CBE reform, family medicine development and workforce planning that other RHWCO countries are beginning to undertake. Türkiye's primary remaining gap is family medicine competency standardisation and assessment at scale. Source: HiT Türkiye · UEMS.
|
Five cross-cutting findings — consistent across the RHWCO region
|
1
Type 7 is the universal gap
No RHWCO country has a systematically implemented, validated competency assessment system for its health workforce at scale. This is the single most consistent finding across all 12 countries — and the most consequential. Every other reform is limited in its impact while this gap persists.
|
2
Framework adoption ≠ framework use
Several RHWCO countries cite WHO or EU frameworks in policy documents without any evidence of curriculum reform, faculty development or assessment change following adoption. RHWCO records distinguish between formal adoption (Type 2 cited in policy) and operational use (Type 2 reflected in Types 4, 6 and 7).
|
3
Attestation persists as the primary CPD mechanism
Knowledge-based re-attestation every 3–5 years remains the dominant continuing professional development and re-licensure mechanism across the Caucasus and Central Asia. It certifies knowledge review, not competence maintenance. RHWCO treats attestation reform as a prerequisite for meaningful CPD across the region.
|
4
Public health workforce is the least mapped cadre
Every RHWCO country has a public health workforce — sanitary-epidemiological services, national public health institutes, ministry surveillance functions — but in most countries this cadre has no documented competency framework, no professional standard, and no assessment system. The WHO EPHF Framework (2024) is the first global architecture for this cadre; RHWCO Programme 3 applies it to the region.
|
5
Migration creates a competency intelligence vacuum
Health worker emigration is highest precisely in the countries with the weakest competency systems — Georgia, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan. The absence of Type 7 assessment means sending countries cannot document or argue the competency value of workers they are losing, and cannot use competency recognition as a retention or circular migration lever. RHWCO's Health & Migration Observatory tracks this intersection.
|
Sources: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies — Health in Transition (HiT) country reviews for all 12 RHWCO countries · WHO Global Health Observatory — Health Workforce · World Bank Health · European Training Foundation · PHIG Country Assessment Tool 2026 · PHIG South Caucasus Regional Assessment 2026. Typology ratings are RHWCO preliminary analytical observations based on published evidence; they are not official government or WHO country evaluations. Ratings will be updated as Programme 2 country profiling proceeds.
3RHWCO Research & Action Programmes
|
Programme 1 — Competency Intelligence Hub
The Observatory's core infrastructural function. Maintains a structured, continuously updated knowledge base of competency frameworks, professional standards, organisations, experts, country profiles, professions and thematic areas. Every record is source-linked, dated and classified by RHWCO's taxonomy (normative standard / competency framework / educational framework / professional standard / qualification / curriculum / assessment system / implementation guidance). Principal public product: the RHWCO Knowledge Hub. Methodology: AI-assisted discovery with human editorial verification against primary sources.
References: WHO UHC Framework · WHO EPHF Framework Status: ● Active |
Programme 2 — Country Competency Profiles
Structured, comparable national profiles covering: health workforce governance and legislation; education system and institutions; professional registration and licensure; accreditation of education programmes; qualifications frameworks; national competency standards; continuing professional development; assessment systems; identified gaps and priorities. Phase 1: Georgia (anchor country, 2026). Phase 2: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Türkiye. Phase 3: Moldova, Ukraine. Phase 4: Central Asia.
References: European Observatory HiT reviews · WHO NHWA data Status: ● Phase 1 active |
Programme 3 — Public Health Workforce
Who constitutes the public-health workforce in the RHWCO region? What are their functions, and what competencies should they have? The region retains large public-health institute systems, often with unclear professional boundaries. Programme 3 maps EPHFs against existing workforce structures and available competency frameworks, identifies alignment and gaps, and proposes national pathways. Primary references: WHO EPHF Framework 2024 · WHO-ASPHER European Framework · IANPHI
Status: ● Mapping active |
|
Programme 4 — Thematic Competency Tracks
Specialised competency analysis by health domain. Active tracks: Refugee & Migrant Health — WHO CS 2021, active PHIG implementation experience (Riga 2024, PHIG Migration Observatory); Digital Health & AI — WHO Landscape 2026. Planned tracks: Patient Safety (WHO IPS); Emergency Preparedness (ECDC, WHO HSP); NCDs; Mental Health (WHO mhGAP); IPC; AMR.
Status: ● 2 tracks active |
Programme 5 — Competency-Based Education
Connects competency requirements to education systems: learning outcome definition → curriculum mapping → teaching approaches → assessment design → practice validation. Grounded in the RHWCO principle: attendance is not competence. Supports faculty development, curriculum mapping and education system reform. Key methodology references: AMEE competency-based medical education; CanMEDS framework; ACGME milestones; ASPHER Core Curriculum.
Status: ● Development |
Programme 6 — Competency Assessment Research
How is competence actually demonstrated — and is it? Catalogues and evaluates: written knowledge assessment; objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs); simulation and procedural skills assessment; direct observation of practice; workplace-based assessment tools; portfolios and reflective practice; multisource (360°) feedback; progress testing. Develops the RHWCO Competency Evidence Ladder — a classification of evidence quality from self-report to validated performance. References: AMEE · ACGME milestones · FPH (UK)
Status: ● Research phase |
Programme 7 — Emerging Competencies Observatory
Monitors rapidly evolving workforce requirements where the evidence base is developing faster than institutional frameworks can absorb. Current priorities: Artificial Intelligence in Health — AI literacy; responsible use of clinical decision support; algorithmic bias recognition; communication of AI-derived recommendations; professional accountability in AI-augmented practice. References: WHO Digital Health Landscape 2026; WHO Ethics and Governance of AI for Health. Climate & Health — displacement-related health competencies; WHO Environment, Climate & Health. One Health (One Health Joint Plan of Action); Health Security (IHR 2005); Migration & Health (PHIG Observatory). Core principle: monitor first — do not declare a standard prematurely.
Status: ● Active monitoring
Status: ● Active monitoring
2bEU & European Regulatory Framework Architecture
The European regulatory layer operates through legally binding instruments, recognition directives and funding programmes distinct from WHO normative frameworks. For the RHWCO region — Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova are EU candidates or associates; all 12 RHWCO countries are Council of Europe members — this architecture is directly operative or a proximate policy target for national health workforce reform.
|
European Union · Directive 2013/55/EU
Professional Qualifications Directive — Minimum Training Requirements for Health Professions
Binding across 27 EU member states · Reference standard for EU candidate countries including Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova
The EU's primary instrument for mutual recognition of health professional qualifications. Sets legally binding minimum training requirements for seven health professions: doctors (general and specialist), nurses, dental practitioners, pharmacists, midwives and physiotherapists. These EU minimums are de facto competency standards — any professional trained to Directive requirements is recognised across all 27 member states. For Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova, aligning national training to Directive 2013/55/EU standards is a precondition for professional mobility within the EU. RHWCO maps national training requirements against these EU minimums in country profiles.
EUR-Lex official text →
Automatic recognition for: Doctor · Nurse (general care) · Dental practitioner · Pharmacist · Midwife · Physiotherapist · Veterinarian
|
Bologna Process · 1999 · All 12 RHWCO countries are signatories
European Higher Education Area — Three-Cycle System and Learning Outcomes Framework
49 signatory countries · ECTS credit system · Diploma Supplement · Qualifications Frameworks
The most significant structural lever for competency-based education reform available in the RHWCO region. All 12 RHWCO countries are Bologna signatories. The three-cycle system (Bachelor / Master / Doctoral), European Credit Transfer System, learning outcomes framework and Diploma Supplement create the infrastructure within which health education competency reforms are implemented. The shift from input-based (years of study) to outcome-based (what the graduate can do) curricula — the Bologna reform's core contribution — is the mechanism through which WHO competency frameworks become operational in health education programmes. RHWCO's Programme 5 (Competency-Based Education) works explicitly within the Bologna architecture.
EHEA — European Higher Education Area →
Related: European Qualifications Framework (EQF) · National Qualifications Frameworks · Europass Diploma Supplement
|
|
Council of Europe · 1997 · ETS No. 164
Oviedo Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine
Only legally binding international bioethics treaty · All RHWCO countries are CoE members · Ratification varies
The Council of Europe's foundational bioethics instrument and the only legally binding international treaty on biomedicine. Sets the ethical framework for health professional practice: primacy of the individual, informed consent, privacy, equitable access, and prohibition of financial gain from the human body. Directly relevant to RHWCO because professional ethics is a competency domain — the WHO UHC Framework includes Personal and Professional Conduct as one of its six core domains. RHWCO tracks Oviedo ratification and implementation as a component of the ethics and regulatory environment in each country profile. Related: European Social Charter guarantees the right to health (Art. 11) and safe working conditions (Art. 3) for health workers across all CoE member states.
Council of Europe →
Additional Protocols: genetic testing · biomedical research · organ transplantation. European Social Charter (1961/1996) — rights of health workers
|
European Commission · EU4Health Programme · 2021–2027
EU4Health — European Health Funding and Health Union Framework
€5.1 billion · Health workforce resilience an explicit priority · EU candidate countries increasingly in scope
The EU's primary direct health investment instrument, with health workforce resilience as a named priority: shortages, skills, geographic distribution, crisis preparedness. EU4Health directly funds EU member states and shapes the competency standards and workforce expectations that EU candidate countries (Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova) must align with during accession. The European Health Union framework — cross-border health security, resilience, crisis response — sets the European strategic context within which RHWCO countries are expected to develop compatible workforce competencies. HERA (Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority), created post-COVID, adds a health security workforce dimension directly relevant to RHWCO Programme 4 (Emergency Preparedness track).
EU4Health programme →
Related: EU Joint Action on Health Workforce · HERA · European Health Union · EU Beating Cancer Plan workforce dimension
|
5Framework Comparison — WHO UHC · WHO EPHF · WHO-ASPHER European
The three foundational frameworks RHWCO uses are complementary, not competing. Understanding their scope, intended audience and architecture is essential before selecting a framework basis for national or institutional work.
| WHO UHC Framework 2022 · Geneva |
WHO EPHF Framework 2024 · Geneva |
WHO-ASPHER European 2020 · Copenhagen/Brussels |
|
| Intended workforce | All health workers across all occupations globally | Public-health workforce delivering Essential Public Health Functions | Public-health workforce in the WHO European Region (53 states) |
| Geographic scope | Global — all countries, all income levels | Global — all countries, all income levels | Regional — WHO European Region; directly applicable to all RHWCO countries |
| Architecture | 6 domains → 24 competencies → 35 practice activities → behaviours → learning outcomes | EPHF functions → workforce roles → competency domains → behaviours → education outcomes | 9 competency areas → sub-competencies → workforce planning, CPD, accreditation links |
| Entry point | Population health needs → health services → practice activities → competencies | Essential Public Health Functions → workforce → competencies | Competency areas defined from public health practice and education |
| Adaptation model | Explicit: Type A (national), Type B (professional), Type C (thematic) | Context-specific adaptation expected; operational handbook provided | Explicitly designed as a starting point for national context-specific development |
| Regulatory link | Links to education and curriculum; regulatory embedding not specified | Links to workforce capacity planning and EPHFs delivery | Explicit regulatory dimension: registration, CPD, credentialing, accreditation |
| Companion professionalization tool | — | EPHF operational handbook + workforce enumeration guidance | WHO-ASPHER Roadmap to Professionalizing the PHW (2022) |
| RHWCO primary use | Common reference language across all country profiles, thematic analyses and cross-country comparisons | Core reference for Programme 3 (Public Health Workforce) and EPHF mapping | Primary reference for European-region countries; contextualisation guidance; professionalization roadmap |
| Key limitation | Global scope requires substantial national contextualisation; no regulatory embedding | Public-health-specific; does not cover clinical or allied-health workforce | European Region scope; predates WHO EPHF 2024 (partial overlap requires reconciliation) |
| Relationship | Complementary: UHC provides the cross-cutting language for all workers; EPHF extends it specifically to public health functions; WHO-ASPHER provides the regional contextualisation and professionalization architecture. RHWCO uses all three in combination. | ||
6Thematic Competency Areas
| Universal Health CoverageWHO 2022 global architecture — 6 domains, 24 competencies, 35 practice activities. Cross-cutting foundation for all RHWCO work | Essential Public Health FunctionsWHO 2024 — public-health workforce capacity; epidemiology, surveillance, health promotion, emergency preparedness | Refugee & Migrant HealthWHO CS 2021 — 9 standards, full implementation package; PHIG active delivery experience (Riga 2024) | Digital Health & AIWHO landscape 2026 — emerging stream; AI literacy, clinical informatics, digital professionalism |
| Patient SafetyWHO Patient Safety Curriculum Guide; multi-professional frameworks — mapping planned under Programme 4 | Emergency PreparednessIHR 2005, ECDC, WHO HSP — surge and emergency health workforce competencies; high regional relevance | Infection Prevention & ControlWHO IPC core components — health worker competency standards; post-pandemic priority across the region | NCDsClinical and public-health competencies for NCD prevention and management — dominant burden across RHWCO region |
| Mental HealthWHO mhGAP — task-sharing competencies; high unmet need documented across Caucasus and Central Asia | Primary Health CareAstana Declaration 2018; family medicine; community health workers — major reform agenda across region | Climate & HealthEmerging — climate-displacement health needs; Central Asia heat and water stress; competency frameworks developing | Self-CareWHO 2023 — full implementation package (standards → knowledge → curriculum); RHWCO operationalization case study |
7International Ecosystem — Organisations & Frameworks RHWCO Monitors
RHWCO monitors three distinct layers of institutional architecture: the global normative layer (WHO), the European regulatory and policy layer (EU institutions, Council of Europe), and the professional and academic layer (UEMS, ASPHER, AMEE and discipline-specific bodies). The frameworks and actions listed here are the primary sources of competency standards, professional regulation and workforce intelligence relevant to the RHWCO region. Listings do not imply partnership with RHWCO or PHIG.
|
WHO — Global & European Layer
WHO Health Workforce Department — principal global normative body; produces UHC (2022), EPHF (2024) and thematic competency frameworks
WHO Global Health Workforce Network — multi-stakeholder platform; Education Hub; produced UHC 2022 framework with 200+ contributors WHO Academy (Lyon) — education, training and implementation arm of WHO; delivers competency-based training at scale WHO Global Health Observatory — Health Workforce — primary source for regional workforce density and distribution data WHO Regional Office for Europe — regional normative authority for 53 member states; produced WHO-ASPHER frameworks; covers all RHWCO countries WHO/Europe Publications — health system reviews, policy briefs, workforce reports for the European Region European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies — HiT country reviews; workforce intelligence; policy synthesis for Europe and RHWCO region |
European Union — Regulatory & Policy Layer
European Commission — Health Workforce — EU policy on health workforce planning, mobility and skills; Joint Actions on HWF; directly relevant to EU candidate RHWCO countries (Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia)
EU4Health Programme 2021–2027 — €5.1B EU health programme; funds workforce resilience, crisis response, health promotion and cancer; RHWCO region EU candidates eligible European Health Union — strategic EU framework; health security, resilience and cross-border cooperation; sets workforce standards for EU alignment Directive 2013/55/EU — Professional Qualifications — regulates mutual recognition of professional qualifications across EU; defines minimum training requirements for 7 regulated health professions (doctor, nurse, dentist, pharmacist, midwife, physiotherapist, veterinarian); critical reference for RHWCO countries pursuing EU alignment European Qualifications Framework (EQF) — 8-level framework for recognition and comparison of qualifications across Europe; reference point for RHWCO countries standardising health education credentials EU Skills Agenda & Green / Digital Transitions — European skills policy; includes health sector upskilling; relevant to digital health and climate competencies tracked by RHWCO Programme 7 |
|
Council of Europe — Rights & Ethics Layer
46 member states — includes all RHWCO countries
Council of Europe — 46 member states; human rights framework underpinning health worker obligations; all RHWCO countries are members
Oviedo Convention (1997) — Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine; sets ethical standards for medical practice, research and consent across all CoE states; binding framework for health professional conduct European Social Charter (1961/1996) — guarantees the right to health protection (Article 11) and the right to safe and healthy working conditions (Article 3) for health workers; applies across RHWCO region European Medicines Agency (EMA) — pharmaceutical regulation; pharmacovigilance competencies; directly relevant to pharmacy workforce training standards in RHWCO region Bologna Process — European Higher Education Area; three-cycle degree system; competency-based curricula reform; all RHWCO countries are Bologna signatories — the primary structural lever for CBE reform in the region Europass Framework — CV, diploma supplement, skills passport; credential recognition infrastructure; RHWCO countries use Europass as the practical mechanism for qualifications portability |
EU Agencies — Health Security & Surveillance
ECDC — EPIET/EUPHEM Programmes — European Programme for Intervention Epidemiology Training and European Public Health Microbiology; two-year competency-based fellowship programmes; direct relevance to public health workforce competencies in RHWCO countries seeking EU alignment
ECDC — European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control — field epidemiology training; IPC competencies; emergency preparedness workforce; covers EU and partner countries including Georgia and Ukraine through joint programmes European Medicines Agency (EMA) — regulatory science competencies; pharmacovigilance; Good Clinical Practice training; regulatory workforce development relevant to RHWCO countries seeking EU market alignment European Association of Hospital Pharmacists (EAHP) — competency framework for hospital pharmacy; statements on hospital pharmacy practice; relevant to pharmaceutical workforce development across RHWCO region EU Health Security Committee — coordinates cross-border health security; IHR implementation at EU level; emergency health workforce competencies; relevant to Ukraine and Moldova (EU candidates) and Georgia (EU associate) |
|
ASPHER · EUPHA · EPHA — Public Health Layer
ASPHER — Association of Schools of Public Health in the European Region; produced WHO-ASPHER competency frameworks (2020) and Professionalization Roadmap (2022); accreditation programme for schools of public health; core curriculum; central to RHWCO's competency architecture
EUPHA — European Public Health Association; annual European Public Health Conference; workforce section; policy advocacy; publishes European Journal of Public Health EPHA — European Public Health Alliance; advocacy and civil society voice on health workforce and public health policy at EU level TEPHINET — Training Programmes in Epidemiology and Public Health Interventions Network; global network of FETPs; competency-based epidemiology training; RHWCO region countries have FETP programmes (Georgia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan) IANPHI — International Association of National Public Health Institutes; institutional model; PHIG is a member; framework for EPHI functions and capacity; connects RHWCO's institutional base to the global PHI network |
UEMS & European Professional Bodies
UEMS — Union Européenne des Médecins Spécialistes — European medical specialists; sets postgraduate medical training standards across 47 member organisations; Prof. Pkhakadze is Secretary/Treasurer of the UEMS Section of Public Health; European Training Requirements (ETRs) for each specialty define minimum competency standards for specialist recognition
UEMS Section of Public Health — European training requirements for public health medicine specialists; competency standards for PH physicians; directly linked to RHWCO through Prof. Pkhakadze's role WONCA Europe — World Organisation of Family Doctors European Region; European Definition of General Practice/Family Medicine; competency framework for GPs; highly relevant to PHC reform across RHWCO region PGEU — Pharmaceutical Group of the European Union — community pharmacy competencies and professional standards; relevant to pharmacy workforce development HOPE — European Hospital and Healthcare Federation — hospital management and leadership competencies; Exchange Programme; connects hospital managers across Europe including RHWCO region countries European Nursing Organisations (EFN, ENA) — nursing competency standards; Directive 2013/55/EU nursing minimum training requirements; critical reference for nursing workforce reform in RHWCO countries |
|
Health Professions Education & Training
AMEE — Association for Medical Education in Europe — leading international medical education organisation; AMEE Guides on CBE methodology; ESME courses; Medical Teacher journal; principal methodology reference for RHWCO Programmes 5 and 6
European Training Foundation (ETF) — EU agency for human capital development in partner countries; directly active in Caucasus and Central Asia; skills and qualifications systems reform; workforce intelligence for RHWCO non-EU countries WFME — World Federation for Medical Education — global standards for basic, postgraduate and CPD medical education; WFME recognition of medical schools; accreditation framework; reference for medical education reform across RHWCO region CanMEDS Framework (Royal College of Canada) — physician competency framework widely adopted internationally; 7 roles (Medical Expert, Communicator, Collaborator, Leader, Health Advocate, Scholar, Professional); methodology reference for RHWCO competency architecture ACGME Milestones — competency-based postgraduate medical education; milestone-based developmental assessment; reference for RHWCO Programme 6 (Assessment Research) Maastricht University — FHML/CAPHRI — academic home of WHO-ASPHER framework team (Czabanowska, Otok et al.); problem-based learning origin; health professions education research |
Workforce Intelligence, Financing & Research
OECD Health — Health at a Glance series; Health Working Papers; comparative workforce data for OECD countries; policy recommendations on supply, training and international mobility
World Bank Health Workforce — Human Capital Index; workforce financing; reform lending programmes active in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine and Georgia EU Joint Action on Health Workforce — joint actions on HWF planning, forecasting and needs assessment; methodology applicable to RHWCO EU candidate countries ILO — International Labour Organization — Decent Work Agenda in health sector; Care Economy framework (health and care as employment sector); skills and lifelong learning policy; Nursing Personnel Convention C149 (minimum standards for nursing workforce); active in Central Asia through country programmes Public Health Reviews (BioMed Central) — open-access journal; workforce and public health systems research; RHWCO region authors regularly published Human Resources for Health (BioMed Central) — leading peer-reviewed journal on HWF policy, planning and development; primary publication target for RHWCO outputs Faculty of Public Health (UK) — professionalization reference; competency curriculum; membership examination; CPD framework; professional standards for public health practitioners |
|
ILO — Health Workforce: Labour, Rights and Skills
The ILO frames health workforce from a labour market perspective — complementary to WHO's competency and public health lens. Together they form the two principal international bodies for workforce development; the combined view (competency + labour conditions + skills) is essential for RHWCO country profiles.
ILO International Labour Standards — Nursing Personnel Convention C149 (1977): the only binding international treaty specifically on health workforce; minimum standards for nursing education, training, working conditions and employment; ratification status assessed in every RHWCO country profile ILO Care Economy — positions health and care as an economic sector (200M+ workers globally); care economy investment as both a health system and labour market strategy; directly relevant to RHWCO region where underpaid and informal care work is prevalent ILO Decent Work Agenda — employment, social protection, rights at work, social dialogue applied to health workers; working conditions, wages and occupational safety as workforce retention factors; ILO-WHO joint work on health worker safety ILO Skills and Lifelong Learning — skills anticipation; recognition of prior learning (RPL); skills systems reform; directly applicable to RHWCO countries reforming health professional qualification and recognition frameworks ILO Publications — World Employment and Social Outlook; care economy investment studies; health sector labour market analyses; quantitative workforce projection models used alongside WHO GHO data |
UNESCO — Education, Classification and Qualifications Architecture
UNESCO provides the global education and qualifications architecture within which health workforce competency frameworks are implemented. Where WHO defines what competencies health workers need and ILO defines their labour conditions, UNESCO defines how education systems classify, deliver and certify those competencies.
ISCED — International Standard Classification of Education — the universal standard for classifying education programmes; Health and Welfare at Field 09 covers all health workforce education; ISCED levels (5–8) structure all comparative health education data across RHWCO countries; without ISCED literacy, health workforce competency data across the region is incomparable UNESCO Global Convention on Recognition of Qualifications (2019) — first global legally binding treaty on mutual recognition of higher education qualifications; 113 signatories; directly enables cross-border recognition of health professional credentials; critical for RHWCO countries where diploma non-recognition drives brain drain IIEP — International Institute for Educational Planning (Paris) — health workforce education planning methodology; training needs assessment tools applicable to RHWCO country profile methodology UNESCO-UNEVOC: Skills in the Health Sector — TVET perspective on health workforce; mid-level and community health worker training; highly relevant to Central Asia and Caucasus where auxiliary health workers are the primary care cadre UNESCO Qualifications Recognition — global and regional recognition conventions; quality assurance in higher education; accreditation linkages; RHWCO country profile component |
8RHWCO Publication Series
|
RHWCO Technical Report · No. 1
Health Workforce Competency Frameworks: An International and Regional Landscape
In preparation · 2026
Comprehensive synthesis of international competency architecture covering: WHO framework genealogy (from task-shifting to UHC to EPHFs); European regional frameworks and their development; professional body standards by discipline; key producing organisations and their mandates; and implications for the Caucasus, Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Türkiye. Will constitute RHWCO's foundational reference document.
|
RHWCO Country Report · No. 1
Health Workforce Competencies in Georgia: National Landscape Analysis
Research active · 2026
Systematic mapping of competency frameworks, professional standards, educational requirements, regulatory structures and assessment approaches for Georgia's health and public-health workforce. Covers: Ministry of Health policy; medical education institutions; professional chambers; licensing and CPD requirements; identified competency gaps. Establishes the RHWCO national profile methodology replicable across all Phase 2 countries.
|
|
RHWCO Framework Review · No. 1
WHO Global Competency and Outcomes Framework for UHC (2022): Critical Descriptive Review
Planned · 2027
Purpose and mandate; development process and contributors; architecture (domains, competencies, behaviours, practice activities, learning outcomes, curriculum); adaptation typology (Type A national, Type B professional, Type C thematic); implementation evidence; strengths and limitations; regional implications for RHWCO countries. Target readership: educators, regulators, policymakers and health system decision-makers in the region.
|
RHWCO Comparative Analysis · No. 1
Three Framework Comparison: WHO UHC · WHO EPHF · WHO-ASPHER European
Planned · 2027
Cross-framework domain mapping: where do the three principal WHO/ASPHER frameworks converge and diverge? What is common to all health workers? What is specific to public health? How can the frameworks be used together? What combination is appropriate for which country context in the RHWCO region? Practical guidance for ministries, institutions and regulators selecting a framework basis for national development.
|
Planned series: Framework Reviews · Intelligence Briefs (rapid policy summaries) · Country Profiles · Comparative Analyses · Evidence Briefs · Emerging Competency Alerts · Annual Regional Review · Expert Register. All outputs open access and DOI-registered. Target peer-reviewed journals: Public Health Reviews · Human Resources for Health · Medical Teacher
B
Attendance is Not Competence — The Central Analytical Argument of RHWCO
The most consequential error in health workforce development
Health systems across the RHWCO region — and globally — operate on an assumption so deeply embedded that it is rarely stated explicitly: that a health worker who has completed a recognised education programme is a competent health worker. This assumption is wrong. It is wrong in theory, wrong in the evidence, and wrong in its consequences for patients. It is the central problem that RHWCO's Programme 6 (Assessment Research) and Programme 5 (Competency-Based Education) are designed to address. The distinction between education participation and demonstrated competence is not a technical nuance — it is the difference between a workforce that appears to be equipped and one that is equipped. The RHWCO analytical framework treats this distinction as foundational.
1. The theoretical basis — what competency-based education actually means
Competency-based medical and health education (CBME/CBHE) is defined by Frank et al. (2010) as "an outcomes-based approach to the design, implementation, assessment, and evaluation of a medical education programme, using an organised framework of competencies." The key word is outcomes. Traditional education is designed around inputs: time in lectures, number of clinical placements, hours of supervised practice. Competency-based education is designed around outputs: what the graduate can demonstrably do when they interact with a patient or deliver a public health function.
The distinction was articulated at the level of health systems policy by Frenk et al. in the Lancet Commission on Education of Health Professionals (2010), which identified "instructional" (input-based) education as the first of three generations of health professional education reform failures, and competency-based, systems-oriented education as the necessary third generation. The Commission was explicit that the problem was not a lack of educated workers but a fundamental misalignment between what workers were trained to do and what populations needed them to do.
The mechanism linking attendance to a qualification — rather than demonstrated competence to a qualification — is what Ten Cate (2005) called the distinction between training completion and entrustable professional activity. An Entrustable Professional Activity (EPA) is a unit of professional practice that can be entrusted to a trainee when they have demonstrated sufficient competence — not when they have attended sufficient hours. The EPA framework is now widely adopted in postgraduate medical education and is a reference model for RHWCO's Programme 6 Competency Evidence Ladder.
2. The Soviet legacy — why this problem is acute in the RHWCO region
The RHWCO region carries a specific structural inheritance that makes the attendance-competence gap especially severe. Soviet medical and health education was organised around:
|
Input quantification
Curricula defined by contact hours, lecture counts and clinical rotation schedules rather than learning outcomes. A student who attended the required hours received the required credential — regardless of what was actually learned or retained. This model persists in most RHWCO countries' undergraduate medical and nursing education today.
|
The attestation system
Periodic re-examination (typically every 5 years) of theoretical knowledge — not clinical or public health performance — as the CPD and re-licensure mechanism. Attestation certifies that a practitioner has revised textbook content. It does not assess whether the practitioner's actual practice has improved, deteriorated or remained competent. The system institutionalises the attendance-competence conflation at career level, not just at graduation.
|
Hierarchical supervision without feedback
Clinical training conducted under senior clinician supervision without structured observation tools, performance criteria or feedback mechanisms. The trainee observes and assists — an important form of learning — but receives no validated assessment of their own performance. Direct observation of practice (DOPS), the mini-CEX and structured clinical observation tools were not part of Soviet or post-Soviet training systems and remain largely absent.
|
Knowledge-examination assessment
Final assessment in most RHWCO countries remains primarily written or oral knowledge examination — testing declarative knowledge (knowing that) rather than procedural competence (knowing how) or adaptive performance (applying knowledge appropriately in complex, real situations). The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), the international standard for assessing clinical competence, is absent or marginal in most RHWCO undergraduate and postgraduate programmes.
|
3. The evidence — what the literature shows about attendance and competence
The evidence base on the disconnect between education participation and demonstrated competence is substantial, though most of it originates outside the RHWCO region. RHWCO considers the following the most policy-relevant findings for its work:
| Evidence domain | Key finding | Policy implication for RHWCO region | Primary reference |
| Time in training vs. competence | Duration of training and number of cases observed are weakly correlated with clinical competence when assessed independently. Studies of postgraduate medical trainees show significant variation in competence within the same training year and programme. | Extending the length of medical or nursing programmes does not reliably improve graduate competence unless the additional time includes structured, assessed, competency-referenced practice. | Holmboe et al., AMEE Guide 2010; Swing et al., ACGME 2009 |
| Knowledge examinations vs. performance | Performance on written knowledge examinations is a poor predictor of clinical performance in practice. Knowledge is necessary but not sufficient for competent practice. A practitioner who can answer examination questions about a procedure may be unable to perform it safely. | Most RHWCO country licensing and re-attestation systems that rely exclusively on written examination are measuring the wrong thing. The ACGME milestone model and the Faculty of Public Health (UK) membership examination demonstrate how knowledge assessment can be complemented with portfolio and work-based evidence. | Norman, Med Educ 2002; Epstein & Hundert, JAMA 2002 |
| Self-assessment reliability | Health professionals are poor judges of their own competence. Self-assessed competence correlates poorly with observed performance, and the least competent practitioners tend to overestimate their abilities most severely (the Dunning-Kruger effect in medical education). | Self-report and self-attestation — common in RHWCO region CPD systems — are not valid measures of competence. External assessment against defined criteria is required. | Davis et al., JAMA 2006; Eva & Regehr, Acad Med 2005 |
| Competency-based education outcomes | Programmes that implement competency-based education with validated assessment show measurable improvements in graduate performance compared to time-based programmes, though implementation quality is critical and varies substantially. | The evidence supports CBE — but only when implementation includes validated assessment instruments, not just competency-referenced curricula. Curricular reform without assessment reform does not close the attendance-competence gap. | Frenk et al., Lancet 2010; Carraccio et al., Acad Med 2002 |
| Migration and competence portability | Health workers who hold qualifications from one country are frequently found to have significant competency gaps when assessed on arrival in a destination country, even when their qualifications are formally recognised. This is documented in systematic reviews of internationally educated health professionals in EU countries. | In the RHWCO region, where health worker emigration is a major system challenge for Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, the absence of validated competency assessment in origin countries creates a double problem: the receiving country cannot trust the qualification, and the sending country cannot identify retention levers based on competency evidence. | European Observatory HiT reviews; EU Joint Action on Health Workforce; OECD Health Working Papers |
4. The RHWCO response — Programme 5, Programme 6, and the Competency Evidence Ladder
RHWCO's response to the attendance-competence gap is structured across two programmes and one analytical tool:
|
Programme 5 — Competency-Based Education
Maps the pathway from competency requirement to educational delivery: learning outcome definition → curriculum mapping → teaching method selection → assessment design → practice validation. Works with educational institutions in RHWCO countries to connect existing curricula to WHO and professional competency frameworks, identify alignment gaps, and support faculty development in competency-referenced teaching and formative assessment.
Status: Development
|
Programme 6 — Assessment Research
Catalogues and critically evaluates the assessment tools used and available for health worker competency assessment in the region: written knowledge tests, OSCEs, simulation, direct observation (DOPS, mini-CEX), workplace-based assessment portfolios, multisource (360°) feedback, and progress testing. Identifies which tools are validated, which are absent, and which are feasible given regional resource constraints. Produces the RHWCO Competency Evidence Ladder.
Status: Research phase
|
RHWCO Competency Evidence Ladder
An original RHWCO classification tool ranking the quality of evidence for competence from weakest to strongest: (1) self-report; (2) supervisor attestation; (3) knowledge examination; (4) structured clinical observation; (5) OSCE; (6) validated workplace-based assessment; (7) longitudinal performance data. The Ladder enables RHWCO country profiles to characterise not just whether assessment exists but what type of evidence it produces — and therefore what claims can legitimately be made about demonstrated competence in that country's health workforce.
Status: Concept defined · being operationalised
|
Principal references: Frenk J et al. Lancet 2010;376:1923–58 · Frank JR et al. Med Teach 2010;32:638–45 · Ten Cate O. Med Educ 2005;39:1176–7 · Norman G. Med Educ 2002;36:73–4 · Davis DA et al. JAMA 2006;296:1094–1102 · Epstein RM, Hundert EM. JAMA 2002;287:226–35 · Carraccio C et al. Acad Med 2002;77:361–7 · ACGME Milestones · WHO-ASPHER Professionalization Roadmap 2022
9Methodology & Scientific Principles
RHWCO operates a strict taxonomy distinguishing: normative standards · competency frameworks · educational frameworks · professional standards · national qualifications · curricula · assessment systems · implementation guidance
These categories are related but not equivalent. A WHO global framework is not the same as a national professional standard. A published curriculum is not evidence of what students learn. A qualification is not evidence of demonstrated competence. These distinctions are fundamental to RHWCO's analytical approach and are built into the classification system of every record in the knowledge base.
| Evidence before assertionEvery substantive claim is traceable to an identifiable, accessible primary source — not to secondary summaries or AI-generated text alone | Primary sources firstWHO, governments, regulators, statutory professional bodies and peer-reviewed literature preferred over secondary aggregators | Provenance documentedFor every framework: who developed it, through what process, with what mandate, and when — recorded in the knowledge base record | Context mattersGlobal standards require responsible national contextualisation — the WHO-ASPHER framework explicitly endorses adaptation; mechanical copying is not implementation |
| Competence ≠ attendanceParticipation in education is not evidence of competence. RHWCO's assessment research programme is grounded in this distinction | Transparency of interpretationRHWCO analysis is clearly distinguished from the source material it analyses. Positions are stated as RHWCO positions, not attributed to referenced organisations | Continuously updatedRecords carry verification dates and are reviewed on a defined schedule — the competency field is moving quickly and dated information causes harm | AI-assisted · Human-verified · Source-linkedAI supports discovery and drafting; all substantive claims are verified against identifiable primary sources before publication. Every record links to its source. |
RHWCO and artificial intelligence: AI tools including large language models support discovery, drafting and synthesis. All factual claims, framework descriptions, organisational listings and citations are verified against primary sources before publication. AI-generated text that cannot be verified is not published. Where a claim is uncertain, it is marked as such or omitted.
10Engage With RHWCO
Contribute to the Knowledge BaseRHWCO welcomes contributions from governments, educational institutions, public-health institutes, professional organisations, regulators, researchers and practitioners. The knowledge base is only as good as the information it receives. All submissions are reviewed by the RHWCO editorial team before inclusion.
|
Collaborate with RHWCORHWCO is open to institutional collaboration with organisations sharing its mission of evidence-based competency development for the region. PHIG's existing work in the Country Assessment Tool and Health & Migration Observatory provides RHWCO's operational foundation. RHWCO is an initiative of the Public Health Institute of Georgia, in partnership with the School of Public Health, David Tvildiani Medical University.
|
11Key References
Core academic and institutional literature informing RHWCO's conceptual framework and methodology. Vancouver citation style.
Foundational theory
- Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, et al. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet. 2010;376(9756):1923–58. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61854-5
- Frank JR, Snell L, Ten Cate O, et al. Competency-based medical education: theory to practice. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):638–45. AMEE
- Ten Cate O. Entrustability of professional activities and competency-based training. Med Educ. 2005;39(12):1176–7.
- World Health Organization. Transforming and scaling up health professionals' education and training. Geneva: WHO; 2013. WHO guidelines
WHO normative frameworks
- World Health Organization. Global competency and outcomes framework for universal health coverage. Geneva: WHO; 2022. ISBN 978-92-4-003466-2. who.int
- World Health Organization. Global competency and outcomes framework for the essential public health functions. Geneva: WHO; 2024. who.int
- World Health Organization. Global competency standards for health workers working with refugees and migrants. Geneva: WHO; 2021. who.int
- World Health Organization. Competency frameworks and standards for digital health: a landscape analysis. Geneva: WHO; 2026. who.int
- World Health Organization. Self-care competency framework: global competency standards. Geneva: WHO; 2023. who.int
European & regional frameworks
- Czabanowska K, Shickle D, Burazeri G, et al. Competency framework for the public health workforce in the European Region. Copenhagen: WHO/Europe & ASPHER; 2020. who.int/europe
- WHO Regional Office for Europe, ASPHER. Roadmap to professionalizing the public health workforce in the European Region. Copenhagen: WHO/Europe; 2022. who.int/europe
- Burazeri G, Czabanowska K, Laaser U, Kark JD. Postgraduate public health education in South-East Europe—heads of schools' perspectives. Public Health Rev. 2014;35(2). doi:10.1007/BF03391706
Workforce intelligence & assessment
- Frank JR, Mungroo R, Ahmad Y, Wang M, De Rossi S, Horsley T. Toward a definition of competency-based education in medicine: a systematic review of published definitions. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):631–7.
- World Health Organization. Health workforce 2030: towards a global strategy on human resources for health. Geneva: WHO; 2016. who.int
- OECD. Health at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2023. oecd.org
- Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. CanMEDS 2015 Physician Competency Framework. Ottawa: Royal College; 2015. royalcollege.ca
ILO & UNESCO — Labour and Education Instruments
- International Labour Organization. Nursing Personnel Convention (C149). Geneva: ILO; 1977. ilo.org/international-labour-standards
- International Labour Organization. Nursing Personnel Recommendation (R157). Geneva: ILO; 1977. Companion instrument to C149.
- International Labour Organization. Care work and care jobs for the future of decent work. Geneva: ILO; 2018. ILO Care Economy
- UNESCO. Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications Concerning Higher Education. Paris: UNESCO; 2019. unesco.org
- UNESCO Institute for Statistics. International Standard Classification of Education: ISCED 2011. Montreal: UIS; 2012. uis.unesco.org
- UNESCO-UNEVOC. Skills Development in the Health Sector. Bonn: UNESCO-UNEVOC; 2023. unevoc.unesco.org
This reference list covers the primary academic and institutional sources underlying RHWCO's work. The full RHWCO knowledge base, including annotated framework records with complete bibliographic data, is maintained in the RHWCO Competency Intelligence Hub (Programme 1). Additional references appear inline throughout this page.
Regional Health Workforce Competency Observatory (RHWCO) · An initiative of the Public Health Institute of Georgia (PHIG) · Established 2026 · Based in Tbilisi, Georgia
Scientific Director: Prof. Giorgi Pkhakadze, MD, MPH, PhD · ORCID 0000-0001-7609-4515 · Chair, PHIG · Head, School of Public Health, David Tvildiani Medical University · WHO Consultant, Special Initiative for Health and Migration, Geneva · Secretary/Treasurer, UEMS Section of Public Health
Geographic scope: Caucasus · Eastern Europe · Central Asia · Türkiye
Related PHIG observatories: Health & Migration Observatory · Country Assessment Tool · Georgian Medical Journal
Scientific independence: RHWCO is an independent PHIG initiative. References to WHO, EU institutions, ASPHER, professional organisations and other bodies identify relevant source materials and do not imply institutional endorsement of RHWCO or partnership with PHIG unless explicitly stated. Inclusion in the RHWCO knowledge base does not imply endorsement, affiliation or partnership.
Scientific Director: Prof. Giorgi Pkhakadze, MD, MPH, PhD · ORCID 0000-0001-7609-4515 · Chair, PHIG · Head, School of Public Health, David Tvildiani Medical University · WHO Consultant, Special Initiative for Health and Migration, Geneva · Secretary/Treasurer, UEMS Section of Public Health
Geographic scope: Caucasus · Eastern Europe · Central Asia · Türkiye
Related PHIG observatories: Health & Migration Observatory · Country Assessment Tool · Georgian Medical Journal
Scientific independence: RHWCO is an independent PHIG initiative. References to WHO, EU institutions, ASPHER, professional organisations and other bodies identify relevant source materials and do not imply institutional endorsement of RHWCO or partnership with PHIG unless explicitly stated. Inclusion in the RHWCO knowledge base does not imply endorsement, affiliation or partnership.