MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414841363 · doi:10.22605/rrh9474

Influences on medical studentsâ clinical school preferences: outcomes from a Rural Clinical School immersion program in Australia

2025· article· en· W4414841363 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sue Garner, R Mark Beattie, Condon, Füller

Bibliographic record

VenueRural and Remote Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsMedical schoolPerceptionQuarter (Canadian coin)Data collectionSchool systemMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: In Australia, rural clinical schools (RCSs) were developed to address the maldistribution of the rural medical workforce. Evidence demonstrates that medical students who attend an RCS, or have a rural background, are more likely to become rural doctors. To enhance the likelihood of our graduates from Deakin University becoming rural doctors, we strategically combined these two independent factors and created a dedicated rural training stream (RTS), which commenced in 2022. To support the introduction of the RTS and provide students with an authentic RCS experience, we developed a 3-day RCS immersion program for year 1 students. The broad aim was to provide students with experience and knowledge that would allow them to make an informed clinical school preferencing decision. Despite delivering the same curriculum, each of Deakin University's three RCS campuses are shaped by their distinct clinical setting, community and approach to program delivery. To showcase these individual aspects, each RCS designed a bespoke 3-day immersion program centred around three themes: connecting students to the local Indigenous Country, the community and the clinical school. ISSUE: Historically, our students' clinical school preferences have fluctuated annually, with the majority of students generally electing to remain at the years 1 and 2 urban training location. This phenomenon was unsurprising as the majority of students, with metropolitan backgrounds, had little understanding of what living and learning in a rural community would be like. Clinical school promotional activities, before the introduction of the RTS, were held at the preclinical urban campus. Only a small number of students would visit one or more of Deakin University's five clinical schools on an ad-hoc basis. The available research on how medical students make their clinical school preferencing decisions highlights that both personal and learning needs are considerations. However, we lacked evidence on factors influencing our own students' clinical school decisions. Information provided to prospective students focused solely on the clinical schools, with an absence of practical information about the rural community or Country. The introduction of the RTS and immersion program provided an opportunity to explore medical students' decisions when preferencing clinical schools, offering learnings to enhance the associated policies and procedures. LESSONS LEARNED: The program achieved its overarching aim of providing students with realistic exposure to the RCS environment, with 86.9% agreeing the experience helped them to make informed decisions about their clinical school preferences. The program, initially a pilot, has become embedded in the year 1 curriculum. Participation in the immersion program reduced student hesitancy towards attending an RCS, with over a quarter of initially hesitant students ultimately ranking an RCS as their first preference. Furthermore, there was a significant positive shift in students indicating that they were confident that the RCS would be the best environment for them (p=0.001). The linking of immersion evaluation data and clinical school preference information provided insights into students' perceptions of the program, the RCSs and the factors influencing their preferences. When viewed collectively, it was evident that a review of our clinical school allocation process was warranted. This will be monitored as our RTS develops, particularly with the introduction of preclinical learning campuses (2024) in two prominent rural locations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.440 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural and Remote HealthSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207