Regional Medical Campuses in Canada and the United States: A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction
 The development of Regional Medical Campuses (RMCs) in Northern America has been a response to the call to increase undergraduate medical student enrollment and meet the societal needs of healthcare access by addressing physician shortages in underserved and in rural areas. We studied the literature on undergraduate RMCs in US and Canada to identify types of studies and leading themes.
 Methods
 Literature searches were performed within the following databases: Medline OVIDSP, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews OVIDSP, CINAHL EBSCO, ERIC EBSCO, PsycInfo EBSCO, and Web of Science ISI. Articles were included in the review if they discussed undergraduate medical education in allopathic schools in Northern America (US and Canada), were written in English and related to regional medical campuses. Each article was reviewed and assessed by two of the authors, and information extracted from the literature was thematically analyzed.
 Results
 Fifty (50) articles were selected for inclusion in the final review. All selected articles fit the definition of Regional Medical Campus developed by the Association of American Medical Colleges’ Group on Regional Medical Campuses (GRMC). The GRMC has defined that RMCs could be of four distinct types: basic science campuses, where students study pre-clinical (basic sciences) courses; clinical campuses, where clerkship training is completed; longitudinal model (for example, Longitudinal Integrated Clerkships) and, usually 4-year campuses, where both pre-clinical and clinical curriculum is delivered. Thirty-six (36) of the reviewed articles (72%) specifically stated that the development of RMCs was in response to the physician shortage and limited access to healthcare in rural areas. Twenty-five (25) articles discussed program models that spanned both basic science and clinical curricula. Of the 50 articles that were included in the final review, 15 (30%) utilized descriptive methodology, and 35 (70%) involved quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods research, with some being considered “program evaluations.” Four major themes emerged from the reviewed articles: workforce, social accountability, distributed medical education, and regional versus main campus settings.
 Conclusion
 This study is the first comprehensive literature review of publications on Regional Medical Campuses and thus provides a benchmark and direction for future research in the RMCs topic area.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».