Duration of rural training during residency: rural family physicians prefer 6 months.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether rural family physicians thought they had received enough months of rural exposure during family medicine residency, how many months of rural exposure those who were satisfied with their training had had, and how many months of rural exposure those who were not satisfied with their training wanted. DESIGN: Mailed survey. SETTING: Rural Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Rural family physicians who had graduated between 1991 and 2000 from a Canadian medical school. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Respondents' opinions about whether their exposure to rural medicine during training had been adequate. RESULTS: Response rate was 59% (382/651). After excluding physicians who had not had Canadian family medicine residency training, 348 physicians remained, and of those, 58% thought they had had adequate rural exposure during residency. Median duration of rural training among those who thought they had had enough rural exposure was 6 months; median duration of rural exposure among those who thought they had not had enough was 2 months. Median duration of rural exposure desired by those who thought they had not had enough rural training was 6 months. Some physicians wanted much more than 6 months of rural training; for example, one quarter of those satisfied with their rural training had had 10 or more months of rural rotations. Fewer than 1% of respondents thought they had received too much rural training. There was no significant difference in number of months of rural training preferred by men and women (P = .94). One third of respondents had graduated from rural-focused family practice residency programs. Rural program graduates were more likely than non-rural program graduates to report that the duration of their rural training was adequate (84% vs 46%, P < .0001) and to report more mean months of rural exposure (8.9 vs 3.4; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Typical rural family physicians prefer to have 6 months of rural exposure during residency. This finding is consistent with the recommendation of a College of Family Physicians of Canada committee that rural family medicine training programs offer at least 6 months of rural rotations. Almost half of rural family physicians wished they had had more rural training. Both rural-focused and non-rural-focused programs should consider providing opportunities for pursuing elective rotations in rural areas in addition to mandatory rotations if they want to respond to these preferences for training.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".