TY - JOUR
T1 - Medical School Characteristics, Policies, and Practices That Support Primary Care Specialty Choice
T2 - A Scoping Review of 5 Decades of Research
AU - Phillips, Julie P.
AU - Wendling, Andrea L.
AU - Prunuske, Jacob
AU - Polverento, Molly E.
AU - Ledford, Christy J.W.
AU - Erlich, Deborah R.
AU - Guard, Esther L.
AU - Kost, Amanda
AU - Kovar-Gough, Iris
AU - Lee, Amy L.
AU - Liaw, Winston
AU - Nguyen, Bich May
AU - Pratte, Morgan A.
AU - Raleigh, Meghan F.
AU - Sairenji, Tomoko
AU - Seehusen, Dean A.
AU - Walker, Shelby
AU - Young, Virginia
AU - Morley, Christopher P.
N1 - Funding Information:
The majority of included studies (110 of 199, 55%) were unfunded or did not state a funding source (Table 2). Of the 89 funded studies, 36 (40.4%, or 18.0% of the total) indicated a primary federal (national government) funding source (Appendix 2: https://journals.stfm.org/ media/4916/phillips-july22-appendix-2.pdf). The presence of funding did not vary significantly by decade of publication. Studies of institutional pathways were the most likely to have funding (33 of 53, 62%), followed by studies of institutional structure, mission, and culture (23 of 52, 44%). The most common funding sources were the US Health Resources and Services Administration; internal sources (such as medical schools and departments); and state, province, or city government. Three studies were supported by the National Institutes of Health. Funded studies did not have significantly higher quality scores (mean funded quality score 19.9; mean unfunded quality score 20.7; P=.55).
Funding Information:
This project was partially supported by a grant from the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) Foundation (J. Phillips, PI), and also partially by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number D54HP23297, “Academic Administrative Units” (C. Morley, PI). This information or content and conclusions are those of the authors and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by the ABFM, HRSA, HHS, or the US Government.
Funding Information:
Second, the majority of studies were conducted without financial support, and many funded studies were conducted with internal funds (state, local, province, and private foundation funds). The process of obtaining financial support often sharpens the methodological rigor of studies as they are developed; it also allows more resources and expertise to be brought to the work. The pau city of substantial funding to support medical education research has un doubtedly contributed to the weak ness of the literature as a whole.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, Society of Teachers of Family Medicine. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/7/1
Y1 - 2022/7/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85134054390&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85134054390&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.22454/FamMed.2022.440132
DO - 10.22454/FamMed.2022.440132
M3 - Article
C2 - 35833935
AN - SCOPUS:85134054390
SN - 0742-3225
VL - 54
SP - 542
EP - 554
JO - Family Medicine
JF - Family Medicine
IS - 7
ER -