Determinants of an urban origin student choosing rural practice: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The shortage of physicians in rural and remote communities is an ongoing problem. Many studies have shown that the rural background of a student (ie rural origin) is a primary factor in recruiting physicians for practice in rural communities. Scoping reviews are primarily done to gauge the extent of literature on the research question at hand, typically with an intent that future research in that area is a constructive addition to pre-existing knowledge. This scoping review focuses on factors that predispose urban-origin students to choose a carrier in rural medicine. METHODS: The study used Arksey and O'Malley's guidelines for a scoping review of the literature, which, in contrast to a traditional systematic review, is brief yet comprehensive. Medline (Ovid) and PubMed databases were used to review literature published between 1 January 1970 and 30 November 2014. After removing duplicates, articles were screened based on inclusion and exclusion criteria set up by the research team. The literature search resulted in 435 articles, 418 of which were excluded, leaving 17 articles for comprehensive review. RESULTS: Out of these 17 studies, the following four factors that suggest why urban-origin medical students may choose rural practice were generated: geographic diffusion of physicians in response to economic forces such as debt repayment and financial incentives (five studies), scope of practice and personal satisfaction (five studies), undergraduate and postgraduate rural training (nine studies) and premedical school mindset to practice rurally (five studies). CONCLUSIONS: Urban-origin students may choose rural practice because of market forces as well as financial incentives. The participation in undergraduate and postgraduate rural training is reported to positively alter the attitude of urban-origin students. A small subset of these students has a predetermined mindset to practice rurally at the time of matriculation. Obstacles for choosing a rural carrier include, but are not limited to lack of job and education opportunities for spouses/partners, lack of recreational and educational opportunities for children, and obscure opportunities for continuing medical education.
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 | 0.018 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".