MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117658281 · doi:10.2196/84406

Impact of Community-Oriented Medical Education on Medical Students’ Perceptions of Community Health Care: Qualitative Study

2025· article· en· W7117658281 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kiyoshi Shikino, Kazuyo Yamauchi, Nobuyuki Araki, Naoto Ozaki, Yu Kamata, Shinya Aoki, Yota Katsuyama, Daichi Sogai, Mai Miyamoto, Kensuke Yoshimura, Takeshi Oki, Shoichi Ito

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipQualitative researchPerceptionFocus groupCommunity healthIdentity (music)Health careFoundation (evidence)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Physician maldistribution remains a global challenge, with Japan's rural regions facing critical health care shortages. Regional quota programs aim to attract medical students to underserved areas; however, their effectiveness in fostering long-term commitment is uncertain. Community-oriented medical education (COME) programs aim to address this issue by developing students' understanding and dedication to rural health care. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the impact of an enhanced COME program, featuring increased early clinical exposure and faculty development, on first-year regional quota medical students' perception of community health care at Chiba University. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional qualitative study comparing 2 cohorts, 20 students enrolled from the existing COME course (April-December 2021) and 20 from the revised course (April-December 2022). The revised course included an additional day of community-based clinical exposure supervised by COME-trained attending physicians. Students' written reflections were analyzed using qualitative content analysis and categorized according to the Fink Taxonomy of significant learning, comprising 6 domains, including foundational knowledge, application, integration, human dimension, caring, and learning how to learn. Reflections were synthesized into higher-order themes crosswalked to the Fink domains. RESULTS: Demographics were similar between the 2021 and 2022 cohorts. In 2021, 311 learning codes were identified across foundational knowledge (n=128), application (n=91), integration (n=40), human dimension (n=16), caring (n=30), and learning how to learn (n=6). In 2022, codes increased to 385, with notable growth in caring (n=58) and human dimension (n=57), alongside increases in learning how to learn (n=15) and integration (n=45). Theme-based synthesis identified four overarching themes: (1) community health care as an interconnected, resource-constrained system; (2) patient-centered relationships and trust through communication and teamwork; (3) emerging professional identity and responsibility toward community service; and (4) developing a self-directed learning orientation for community practice. Qualitative analysis revealed that students gained a deeper understanding of patient-centered care, interprofessional collaboration, and social challenges in rural health care. The consistency in the foundational knowledge domain underscored a stable conceptual foundation, while the increase in affective and reflective domains reflected greater emphasis on interpersonal, value-oriented, and reflective learning in the revised cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Enhancements of the COME program, including additional early clinical exposure and faculty development, were associated with improved students' perceptions of community health care. The increased focus on the caring and human dimension domains underscores the role of practical experiences in fostering collaboration, communication, and patient-centered care. The theme-based synthesis further suggests that the revised program prompted more frequent reflections on professional identity formation and self-directed learning while maintaining a stable foundation of community health care concepts. Mentorship by community hospital attendings, alongside structured clinical exposure, appears crucial in shaping medical students' understanding and commitment to rural medicine. Ongoing longitudinal evaluations are warranted to assess the sustained impact of COME programs on career trajectories in underserved areas.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.620
Teacher spread0.571 · 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 designQualitative
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 venueJMIR Medical EducationSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207