Search

Background and Objectives: Educational components and electives that may influence medical student choice of primary care careers have been studied individually, but not reviewed or synthesized. Examining educational components and electives in a comprehensive manner may inform evidence-based approaches to raise the number of primary care physicians in the United States and help optimize use of finite resources. We sought to determine evidence-based educational components and electives associated with increased medical student choice of primary care careers., Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL for undergraduate medical education articles in English describing an educational component or elective and outcome relevant to primary care specialty choice. We assessed titles, then abstracts, and finally full texts for inclusion in a narrative synthesis., Results: The searches returned 11,211 articles and we found 42 that met the inclusion criteria. The most described components were outpatient clinical rotations, preclinical courses, and preceptorships. The most common electives were international health, summer preceptorships, and rural medicine. While most articles described curricula that appeared to have a positive correlation with primary care specialty choice, six articles found limited benefit. In sum, results were mixed., Conclusions: The current literature is limited, and many contemporary electives have not been studied with respect to primary care choice. Increased attention and funding to studying the impact of electives and other educational components on primary care specialty choice is warranted.

Background and Objectives: There is a persistent shortage of primary care physicians in the United States. Medical schools can help meet societal primary care health needs by graduating more students who select family medicine and other primary care careers. The objective of this narrative review was to evaluate the relationship between clerkships and primary care specialty choice., Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search and narrative review of research articles examining the association between clerkships and primary care specialty choice. We evaluated the quality of included articles using a validated scale, assessed for methodology and outcomes, and synthesized using a narrative approach., Results: We identified 59 articles meeting our research criteria. A required primary care clerkship in the core clerkship year was associated with increased primary care specialty choice. This finding was strongest for family medicine clerkships and family medicine specialty choice. Clerkships that were longer, were of higher quality, exposed students to a wider scope of primary care practice, and occurred within an institutional climate supportive of primary care were also correlated with more students choosing a primary care specialty. While student self-reported interest in primary care often increased following a primary care clerkship, this interest was not always sustained or consistently associated with a primary care residency match or primary care career., Conclusions: Required family medicine and primary care clerkships were correlated with primary care specialty choice. More high-quality research is needed to better understand how to maximize the impact of clerkships on primary care specialty choice.

Background and Objectives: The United States, like many other nations, faces a chronic shortage of primary care physicians. The purpose of this scoping review was to synthesize literature describing evidence-based institutional practices and interventions that support medical students' choices of primary care specialties, published in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand., Methods: We surveyed peer-reviewed, published research. An experienced medical librarian conducted searches of multiple databases. Articles were selected for inclusion based on explicit criteria. We charted articles by topic, methodology, year of publication, journal, country of origin, and presence or absence of funding. We then scored included articles for quality. Finally, we defined and described six common stages of development of institutional interventions., Results: We reviewed 8,083 articles and identified 199 articles meeting inclusion criteria and 41 related articles. As a group, studies were of low quality, but improved over time. Most were quantitative studies conducted in the United States. Many studies utilized one of four common methodologic approaches: retrospective surveys, studies of programs or curricula, large-scale multi-institution comparisons, and single-institution exemplars. Most studies developed groundwork or examined effectiveness or impact, with few studies of planning or piloting. Few studies examined state or regional workforce outcomes., Conclusions: Research examining medical school interventions and institutional practices to support primary care specialty choice would benefit from stronger theoretical grounding, greater investment in planning and piloting, consistent use of language, more qualitative methods, and innovative approaches. Robust funding mechanisms are needed to advance these goals.

Background and Objectives: Student-directed activities such as family medicine interest groups (FMIG) and student-run free clinics (SRFC) have been examined to discover their impact on entry into family medicine and primary care. The objective of this review was to synthesize study results to better incorporate and optimize these activities to support family medicine and primary care choice., Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL to identify all English-language research articles on FMIG and SRFC. We examined how participation relates to entry into family medicine and primary care specialties. Exclusion criteria were nonresearch articles, review articles, and research conducted outside the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. We used a 16-point quality rubric to evaluate 18 (11 FMIG, seven SRFC) articles that met our criteria., Results: Of the nine articles that examined whether FMIG participation impacted entry into family medicine, five papers noted a positive relationship, one paper noted unclear correlation, and three papers noted that FMIG did not impact entry into family medicine. Of the seven articles about SRFC, only one showed a positive relationship between SRFC activity and entry into primary care., Conclusions: Larger-scale and higher quality studies are necessary to determine the impact of FMIG and SRFC on entry into family medicine and primary care. However, available evidence supports that FMIG participation is positively associated with family medicine career choice. In contrast, SRFC participation is not clearly associated with primary care career choice.

Background and Objectives: There is an ongoing shortage of primary care physicians in the United States. Medical schools are under pressure to address this threat to the nation's health by producing more primary care graduates, including family physicians. Our objective was to identify institutional characteristics associated with more medical students choosing primary care., Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review with narrative synthesis to identify medical school characteristics associated with increased numbers or proportions of primary care graduates. We included peer-reviewed, published research from the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The existing literature on characteristics, including institutional geography, funding and governance, mission, and research emphasis, was analyzed and synthesized into summary statements., Results: Ensuring a strong standing of the specialty of family medicine and creating an atmosphere of acceptance of the pursuit of primary care as a career are likely to increase an institution's percentage of medical students entering primary care. Training on regional campuses or providing primary care experiences in rural settings also correlates with a larger percentage of graduates entering primary care. A research-intensive culture is inversely correlated with primary care physician production among private, but not public, institutions. The literature on institutional financial incentives is not of high enough quality to make a firm statement about influence on specialty choice., Conclusions: To produce more primary care providers, medical schools must create an environment where primary care is supported as a career choice. Medical schools should also consider educational models that incorporate regional campuses or rural educational settings.

Background and Objectives: Role modeling and mentoring are key aspects of identity formation in medical school and likely influence student specialty choice. No reviews have examined the ways that mentorship relationships impact primary care career choice., Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search to identify articles describing the influence of role models and mentorship on primary care interest, intention, or choice. A content analysis of the included articles determined which articles focused on mentorship versus role modeling and the definitions of each. We coded articles as groundwork, effectiveness, or impact depending on the methodology and outcomes of each study., Results: Searches yielded 362 articles, of which 30 met inclusion criteria. Three offered definitions of role modeling, and one compared and contrasted definitions of mentoring; 17 articles laid groundwork that indicated that role modeling and mentorship are important factors in career choice and specifically in primary care. Thirteen articles reported the effectiveness and impact of role modeling and mentoring in influencing intent to enter primary care or actual career choice. Primary care and non-primary care physicians influenced student interest, intent, and choice of primary care careers; this influence could be positive or negative., Conclusions: Role modeling and mentorship influence primary care career choice. Very few articles defined the studied relationships. More work on the impact of mentorship and role modeling on career choice is needed.

Background and Objectives: Medical schools should understand how to matriculate students who are more likely to enter primary care specialties and put admissions processes into place that achieve this result. However, there are no existing reviews that have systematically evaluated medical school admission practices and primary care specialty choice., Methods: We conducted a narrative synthesis utilizing a systematic literature search to evaluate the effectiveness of medical school admission strategies designed to increase the percentage of graduates entering primary care specialties., Results: We included 34 articles in the narrative review. Multiple prematriculation programs that appear to produce students with a high likelihood of entering primary care have been described in the literature. However, all of these studies are from single institutions, were observational, and limited by selection bias. Applicants who self-identify an interest in primary care, grew up with a rural background, and are older at matriculation are more likely to enter primary care, with stated interest in primary care being most predictive. Gender and race have been associated with primary care specialty choice in some studies, but not all. Insufficient literature on admissions policies and procedures exists to draw conclusions about best practices., Conclusions: Medical schools that want to increase the percentage of graduates entering primary care should consider developing a prematriculation program that attracts and prepares motivated and talented students with primary care interest. Admissions committees should understand which demographic criteria are associated with increased likelihood of entering primary care. The most important identifiable trait is an applicant's stated interest in primary care.

People working on behalf of population health, community health, or public health often experience confusion or ambiguity in the meaning of these and other common terms-the similarities and differences and how they bear on the tasks and division of labor for care delivery and public health. Shared language must be clear enough to help, not hinder people working together as they ultimately come to mutual understanding of roles, responsibilities, and actions in their joint work. Based on an iterative lexicon development process, the authors developed and propose a definitional framework as an aid to navigating among related population and community health terms. These terms are defined, similarities and differences clarified, and then organized into 3 categories that reflect goals, realities, and ways to get the job done. Goals include (a) health as well-being for persons, (b) population health as that goal expressed in measurable terms for groups, and (c) community health as population health for particular communities of interest, geography, or other defining characteristic-groups with shared identity and particular systemic influences on health. Realities are social determinants as influences, health disparities as effects, and health equity as both a goal and a design principle. Ways to get the job done include health care delivery systems for enrollees and public health in population-based civic activities-with a broad zone of collaboration where streams of effort converge in partnership with served communities. This map of terms can enable people to move forward together in a broad zone of collaboration for health with less confusion, ambiguity, and conflict., (© 2021 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

(1) Background : There is increasing scholarly support for the notion that properly implemented and used, technology can be of substantial benefit for older adults. Use of technology has been associated with improved self-rating of health and fewer chronic conditions. Use of technology such as handheld devices by older adults has the potential to improve engagement and promote cognitive and physical health. However, although, literature suggests some willingness by older adults to use technology, simultaneously there are reports of a more cautious attitude to its adoption. Our objective was to determine the opinions towards information technologies, with special reference to brain health, in healthy older adults either fully retired or still working in some capacity including older adult workers and retired adults living in an independent elderly living community. We were especially interested in further our understanding of factors that may play a role in technology adoption and its relevance to addressing health related issues in this population; (2) Methods : Two focus groups were conducted in an inner-city community. Participants were older adults with an interest in their general health and prevention of cognitive decline. They were asked to discuss their perceptions of and preferences for the use of technology. Transcripts were coded for thematic analysis; (3) Results : Seven common themes emerged from the focus group interviews: physical health, cognitive health, social engagement, organizing information, desire to learn new technology, advancing technology, and privacy/security; and (4) Conclusions : This study suggests that in order to promote the use of technology in older adults, one needs to consider wider contextual issues, not only device design per se, but the older adult's rationale for using technology and their socio-ecological context.