Research on education of graduates of bonded medical program for rural health in China: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The government funded bonded medical program for rural health for graduates of bonded medical program for rural health is an essential strategy to alleviate the shortage of healthcare professionals in rural areas of China and to enhance the quality of the primary care professionals. However, previous studies have lacked a comprehensive analysis of the educational methods, current state, and effectiveness across various institutions. This study aims to examine the development, research quality, and future trends in the education of graduates of rural oriented general practice education program from 2010 to 2023, providing insights for future initiatives. Literature on the training of graduates of rural oriented general practice education program published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2023, was retrieved from seven databases: CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, PubScholar, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and assessed the quality of studies using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for Education (NOS-E). Descriptive analysis was performed to summarize and interpret the findings. A total of 37 studies were included, of which 36 were in Chinese and 1 in English. The most common research design was the pre-post test control group (46 %), followed by single-group post-test (22 %) and randomized controlled post-test (22 %). Only 8 % of studies employed a single-group pre-post test design. Of the studies, 97 % focused on undergraduate education, with the primary areas of focus being course adjustments (89 %), teaching method modifications (81 %), and the construction of training models(8 %). Notably, 8 % of training model studies and 19 % of course adjustment studies included courses specifically aimed at rural areas, primary care, or general practice. Outcome evaluations were primarily centered on student feedback (70 %) and improvements in knowledge and skills (86 %), with minimal attention given to behavioral changes (3 %) or benefits to patients and healthcare facilities (3 %). Overall, the quality of the studies was moderate, with a mean MERSQI score of 10.4±2.4 (maximum 14.0). Factors such as sample size, validity of evaluation tools, and outcome indicators contributed to lower scores. The NOS-E score averaged 2.5±1.5 (maximum 5.0), with low scores primarily due to control group comparability and blinding. Although there has been an increase in research on the education and training of graduates of rural oriented general practice education program, the overall quality of the research remains low. Limitations such as insufficient cross-institutional and cross-regional studies, lack of research focusing on the unique characteristics of targeted training, and limited attention to postgraduate and continuing education remain prevalent. Future research should focus on enhancing multi-institutional cooperation, improving research design quality, establishing a unified evaluation system with a focus on rural and general practice education, and integrating continuous curriculum that includes postgraduate and continuing 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 | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".