↓ Skip to main content

The impact of rural outreach programs on medical students’ future rural intentions and working locations: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
Title
The impact of rural outreach programs on medical students’ future rural intentions and working locations: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Medical Education, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1287-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

George E. Johnson, Fredrick Clive Wright, Kirsty Foster

Abstract

Significant investment has been undertaken by many countries into 'Rural Clinical Training Placement Schemes' for medical students in order to deal with shortages of trained health care professionals in rural and remote locations. This systematic review examines the evidence base of rural educational programs within medical education and focusses on workforce intentions and employment outcomes. The study provides a detailed description of the methodological characteristics of the literature, thematic workforce outcomes and key related factors are identified, study quality is assessed, and the findings are compared within an international context. A systematic review looking at international literature of rural placement programs within medical education between January 2005 to January 2017 from databases including; Medline, Embase, NursingOVID, PubMed and Cochrane. The study adopted the PRISMA protocol. A quality assessment of the literature was conducted based on the Health Gains Notation Framework. Sixty two papers met the inclusion criteria. The review identified three program classifications; Rural Clinical Placement Programs, Rural Clinical Placement Programs combined with a rural health educational curriculum component and Rural Clinical School Programs. The studies included were from Australia, United States, Canada, New Zealand, Thailand and Africa. Questionnaires and tracking or medical registry databases were the most commonly reported research tools and the majority were volunteer programs. Most studies identified potential rural predictors/confounders, however a number did not apply control groups and most programs were based on a single site. There was a clear discrepancy in the ideal rural clinical placement length. Outcomes themes were identified related to rural workforce outcomes. Most studies reported that an organised, well-funded, rural placement or rural clinical school program produced positive associations with increased rural intentions and actual graduate rural employment. Future research should focus on large scale methodologically rigorous multi-site rural program studies, with longitudinal follow up of graduates working locations. Studies should apply pre-and post-intervention surveys to measure change in attitudes and control for predictive confounders, control groups should be applied; and in-depth qualitative research should be considered to explore the specific factors of programs that are associated with encouraging rural employment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 166 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 11%
Student > Master 18 11%
Student > Bachelor 17 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 28 17%
Unknown 62 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 11%
Social Sciences 12 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 5%
Psychology 6 4%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 65 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 August 2022.
All research outputs
#4,681,284
of 23,146,350 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#792
of 3,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,665
of 331,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#21
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,146,350 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,395 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,173 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.