Physician perceptions of recruitment and retention factors in an area with a regional medical campus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The factors that influence physicians to establish and maintain their practice in a region are variable. The presence of a regional medical campus (RMC) could influence physicians’ choice. The objective of this study was to explore the factors influencing physician recruitment and retention, and in particular the role of a RMC, in a region of Quebec.Methods: A literature review of factors influencing physicians to stay in a rural area was conducted in order to create an interview guide. Questions were divided into sections: general information, family situation, medical training, career choice, current practice, intent to stay in the region, and impact of the RMC. Thirteen semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with practicing physicians. Data were analyzed using QDAMiner. Results: Recruitment factors were divided into six major themes: type of practice, spousal interest, opportunity for teaching, training in a region, workforce planning, and quality of life. Participants identified positive and negative factors associated with retention. In both cases, family and quality of work environment were mentioned. The RMC was perceived as having important impacts on the quality of professional life, research, medical practice, and regional development.Conclusion: This study highlights the role of RMCs in physician recruitment and retention via multiple impacts on the quality of practice of physicians working in the same area._______Contexte: Les facteurs influençant les médecins à s’établir et à rester dans une région sont variables. La présence d’un campus médical régional (CMR) pourrait influencer ce choix. L’objectif de cette étude était d’explorer les facteurs de recrutement et de rétention influençant les médecins ayant choisi de pratiquer dans la région du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean au Québec, en particulier le rôle du CMR.Méthodes: Une synthèse de la littérature a permis d’identifier différents facteurs influençant les médecins dans leur choix de lieu de pratique. Un guide d’entrevue a été élaboré à partir de ces facteurs. Les questions étaient séparées selon les sections suivantes: informations générales, situation familiale, études médicales, choix de carrière, pratique actuelle, intention de rester dans la région, impact du CMR. Treize entrevues semi-dirigées individuelles ont été réalisées avec des médecins en pratique. Les données ont été analysées avec QDA Miner.Résultats: Les facteurs influençant le recrutement étaient séparés en six thèmes majeurs : type de pratique, intérêt du conjoint, opportunité d’enseigner, formation en région, planification gouvernementale des effectifs médicaux et qualité de vie. Les participants ont identifié des facteurs de rétention négatifs et positifs. Ceux-ci concernaient la famille et la qualité de l’environnement de travail. D’après les participants, le CMR avait un impact direct sur la qualité de la vie professionnelle, la recherche, la pratique médicale et le développement régional.Conclusion: Cette étude a permis de mettre en évidence le rôle des CMRs dans le recrutement et la rétention via de multiples impacts sur la qualité de pratique des médecins exerçant dans la même région.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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 teacher head, 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".