MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4386878279 · doi:10.22605/rrh8216

Recruiting the next generation of rural healthcare practitioners: the impact of an online mentoring program on career and educational goals in rural youth

2023· article· en· W4386878279 sur OpenAlexaff
Oshiro, Wisener, Nash, Stanley, Jarvis-Selinger

Notice bibliographique

RevueRural and Remote Health · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésOutreachCurriculumHealth careMedical educationUnit (ring theory)Intervention (counseling)Career PathwaysRural areaWorkforceNursingPsychologyRural healthMedicinePolitical sciencePedagogy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: There is increasing recognition that encouraging and supporting rural youth to pursue healthcare careers could be a promising strategy for addressing shortages of rural healthcare practitioners. Although rural students in health science programs often return to their home communities to practice, they continue to be underrepresented in these programs. Geographic isolation and small community sizes create barriers to entry for rural students, including a lack of educational and outreach services and a smaller pool of role models with experience in pursuing health science careers. Online mentoring has the potential to overcome these barriers by connecting rural youth with experienced role models from outside their communities; therefore, we tested whether this type of intervention could be used to increase interest in and guide rural youth towards rural healthcare careers. METHODS: From 2016 to 2020, our intervention, Rural eMentoring BC, matched 364 youth in rural British Columbia to near-peer mentors enrolled in health science programs. Through an online platform, dyads discussed career and educational options and pathways through a semistructured curriculum consisting of eight units. To determine the likelihood of mentees pursuing a career in rural health care after participating in the program, we deployed pre- and post-unit surveys that evaluated their interest in the following areas: healthcare careers, post-secondary education, working rurally, and finding allies. After completing the program, 209 mentees were invited to complete a program evaluation, which consisted of short-answer questions intended to capture their overall impressions of the program. RESULTS: After completing the career exploration unit, 63 students (out of the 103 who completed the unit) indicated that they were interested in healthcare careers, compared to 37 before. However, students' attitudes towards post-secondary education and finding allies did not change after completing those units, nor did their opinion of working rurally (although there was no unit dedicated to this topic). Encouragingly though, most already held positive opinions of these areas before entering the program. Of the 41 students who took our program evaluation, most viewed the program and their mentors favorably; discussion topics they found most useful included career exploration, learning life skills, and learning how to prepare for, and what to expect from, post-secondary education. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that online mentoring can direct rural youths' career interests toward, and provide a refreshing approach to imparting information about, healthcare professions. Although its longitudinal impacts need to be studied, the changes in attitudes and gains in knowledge observed while participating in this program put these students on the right track for eventually transitioning to health science programs. Arming rural youth with the knowledge and motivation to pursue healthcare careers through near-peer mentorship could be a unique strategy for increasing rural student representation in health science programs, and ultimately the number of rural healthcare professionals.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,813
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,944

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,274
Tête enseignante GPT0,502
Écart entre enseignants0,228 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueRural and Remote HealthMême sujetGlobal Health Workforce IssuesTravaux en français237 207