Identifying factors influencing program selection in health sciences by underrepresented minority students—a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a critical need to diversify health professionals to better serve the growing minority population in North America. Unfortunately, minority groups remain underrepresented in health professions. Despite recruitment efforts by government and academic institutions, fewer underrepresented minority (URM) students choose careers in healthcare. Identifying the key factors influencing URM students’ decisions to pursue health sciences programs could enhance diversity in these programs through targeted admissions strategies, ultimately leading to a more diverse future healthcare workforce. This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. Five electronic databases and gray literature were searched to identify North American papers published between 1942 and 2022. Identified studies focused on URM students’ perceptions of facilitators and barriers to matriculate into a health science degree. Twenty-one articles were analyzed. Following content analysis, the facilitators and barriers identified comprised personal, socio-cultural, institutional, and financial. The most frequent facilitators reported were scholarships, family support, and the presence of role models. Common barriers included high tuition fees, pre-admission criteria, lack of awareness about the health profession, availability of financial aid, and the admission process. The findings of this review will facilitate the development and implementation of customized, comprehensive strategies to recruit more URM students to health science programs in the future, thereby improving efforts toward creating a diverse healthcare workforce.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".