Recruiting medical students to rural practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To explore the strategies used by rural recruitment programs and their perceived influence on medical students. DESIGN Two original questionnaires delivered electronically, one to medical students and the other to recruiters in rural Ontario communities. SETTING Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS All 525 medical students enrolled in the Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry at the University of Western Ontario in London and physician recruiters in 71 rural communities in Ontario were invited to participate in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The factors that influence medical students to consider rural practice, strategies used by recruiters, and student perceptions of the ethical appropriateness of both. RESULTS The questionnaire was completed by 42.1% of medical students. Lifestyle considerations were an important influence for 93.1% of students. Themes from the qualitative analysis included the ethical appropriateness of financial considerations, economic forces, perceived disadvantages of rural practice, competition between communities, and lack of altruism. Responses were received from recruiters in 43.7% of communities; of those, 92.9% offered financial incentives to attract prospective physicians. CONCLUSION Financial and lifestyle considerations are important influences on medical students’ choice to practise in rural communities. Most medical students felt incentive programs offered by rural communities were ethically appropriate.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.004 |
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".