MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128917405

Factors influencing medical students' choice of family medicine: effects of rural versus urban background.

2012· article· en· W2128917405 on OpenAlexaffabout
Harbir Gill, Scott McLeod, Kimberley Duerksen, Olga Szafran

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecialtyCurriculumFamily medicinePreferenceMedicineRural areaMedical schoolCross-sectional studyMedical psychologyGerontologyMEDLINEMedical educationPsychologyPedagogy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that influence medical students' choice of family medicine versus another specialty and to analyze influential factors by urban versus rural background of students. DESIGN: Cross-sectional questionnaire survey conducted in 2010. SETTING: University of Alberta in Edmonton. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 118 first-, 120 second-, and 107 third-year medical students. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Twenty-two factors influencing preferred career choice, type of community lived in (rural vs. urban), and student age and sex. RESULTS: Overall, 283 (82.0%) students responded to the survey. Those who preferred family medicine rather than another specialty as a career option were older (≥ 25 years) (69.6% vs. 40.9%, P < .001), female (69.6% vs. 39.3%, P < .001), and had previously lived in rural locations (< 25,000 population) (46.8% vs. 23.9%, P < .001). Four factors were significantly associated with students preferring family medicine compared with any other specialty: emphasis on continuity of care (87.3 vs. 45.3%, P < .001); length of residency (73.4% vs. 25.9%, P < .001); influence of family, friends, or community (67.1% vs. 50.2%, P = .011); and preference for working in a rural community (41.8% vs. 10.9%, P < .001). For students with urban backgrounds, the preference for family medicine was more strongly influenced by the opportunity to deal with a variety of medical problems; current debt load; and family, friends, or community than for those with rural backgrounds. Practice location preferences also differed between students from rural and urban backgrounds. CONCLUSION: Medical students who prefer family medicine as a career choice appear to be influenced by a different set of factors than those who prefer other specialties. Being female; being older; having previously lived in a rural location; placing importance on continuity of care; desire for a shorter residency; and influence of family, friends, or community are associated with medical students preferring family medicine. Some differences in factors influencing career choice exist between medical students from rural versus urban backgrounds. To increase the supply of family physicians, medical schools might consider introducing elements into the admissions process and the medical curriculum that encourage family medicine as a career choice.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207