MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155573161

Factors influencing family physicians to enter rural practice: does rural or urban background make a difference?

2005· article· en· W2155573161 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRural areaMedicineIncentiveRural historyRural healthFamily medicineSocioeconomicsSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine where rural physicians grew up, when during their training they became interested in rural medicine, factors influencing their decision to practise rural medicine, and differences in these measures according to rural or urban upbringing. DESIGN: Mailed survey. SETTING: Rural Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Rural family physicians who graduated between 1991 and 2000 from a Canadian medical school. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Backgrounds of recently graduated rural physicians, when physicians first became interested in rural practice during training, and most influential factors in decisions to practise rural medicine. RESULTS: Response rate was 59% (382/651). About 33% of rural physicians grew up in communities of less than 10 000 people, 44% in cities of 10 000 to 499 999 people, and 23% in cities of more than 500 000 people. Physicians raised in rural areas were more likely than those raised in urban areas to have some interest in rural family practice at the start and end of medical school (90% vs 67% at the start, 98% vs 91% at the end, respectively, P < .0001). Physicians raised in urban areas were more likely to state that rural medical training was the most influential factor in their choice of rural practice (19% vs 9%, P = .015). Other factors cited as influential were the challenge of rural practice (24% for both urban and rural upbringing), rural lifestyle (14% for urban and 18% for rural upbringing) and, for physicians raised in rural areas, having grown up or spent time in a rural area (27% for rural and 4.1% for urban upbringing, P < .001). Financial incentives were least frequently cited as the most influential factor (7.5% for urban and 4.9% for rural upbringing, P = .35). CONCLUSION: Although other studies have suggested that physicians with a rural upbringing are more likely to practise rural medicine and policy makers might still wish to target students raised in rural areas as candidates for rural medicine, this study shows that physicians raised in urban areas remain the main source of human resources for rural communities. They account for two thirds of new physicians in rural areas. Education in rural medicine during medical training has a stronger influence on physicians raised in urban areas than on physicians raised in rural areas. Undergraduate and postgraduate training periods, therefore, offer an important opportunity for recruiting physicians raised in urban areas to rural practice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.319 · 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