| Literature DB >> 22909189 |
Anna Selva Olid1, Amando Martín Zurro, Josep Jiménez Villa, Antonio Monreal Hijar, Xavier Mundet Tuduri, Angel Otero Puime, Gemma Mas Dalmau, Pablo Alonso- Coello.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During the last decade medical students from most Western countries have shown little interest in family practice. Understanding the factors that influence medical students to choose family medicine is crucial.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22909189 PMCID: PMC3546071 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-12-81
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 2.463
Characteristics of included studies
| Australia | Qualitative: phenomenology* | Descriptive* | Focus groups | Factors influencing career interests of medical students. | 81 first and final year medical students. (36 male, 46 female). Three universities | Interpretative. Thematic analysis. | |
| Japan | Qualitative: phenomenology* | Descriptive* | Semi-structured interviews (students), informal interviews (academic faculty). Field notes. | Factors influencing medical specialty preference in Japan. Understanding of family medicine, primary care and subspecialty practice. | 25 medical students or 3rd to 6th year. (17 male, 8 female). One university | Interpretative. Thematic analysis.* | |
| Canada | Qualitative: phenomenology. | Descriptive | Focus groups Individual interviews | Factors influencing medical students regarding a career in family medicine. | 33 medical students: end of preclinical years and end of the clinical years. (6 male, 27 female). Three universities | Interpretative. Thematic analysis. | |
| Australia | Qualitative: phenomenology | Exploratory-interpretative | Semi-structured phone interviews | Factors that influence students and junior doctors to choose or reject a career in general practice. | 13 medical students (3 male, 10 female), 5 junior doctors, 5 general practice registrars, 15 general physicians. One university. | Interpretative. Thematic analysis. | |
| Spain | Qualitative: case based research. Phenomenology | Interpretative | Focus groups Documental analysis | Explore the reputation of and professional identification processes with family medicine practice among students. | 48 students: 27 2nd year medical students, 21 6th year medical students. One university | Interpretative. Discursive thematic analysis.* | |
| United Kingdom | Mixed: qualitative interactionist and quantitative. | Exploratory, descriptive and interpretative | Focus groups Questionnaires | Factors influencing medical students regarding a career in general practice. | 30 final year medical students after a general practice module: 15 took part in the focus groups. | Interpretative. Framework analysis. | |
| United Kingdom | Qualitative: framework system | Exploratory | Semi-structured interviews. Nominal groups | Views about general practice as a potential career and factors shaping them. | 27 final year medical students (7 male, 8 female). 15 interviewed and 12 formed the nominal group. | Interpretative. Framework system. | |
| Malaysia | Qualitative: interpretative description. | Exploratory | Focus groups | Perceptions of medical students towards primary care and factors that influence them. | 33 final year medical students (21 male, 12 female). Two universities. | Thematic analysis. | |
| United Kingdom | Qualitative: phenomenology | Exploratory | Semi-structured interviews | Views of undergraduate students on their experiences of learning in primary care in a curriculum with a strong community base. | 11 medical students from 3rd to 5th course (6 male, 5 female) | Interpretative. Thematic analysis. Grounded Theory. | |
| USA | Qualitative: phenomenology | Descriptive | Focus groups, two individual interviews, surveys. | To identify beliefs and values that influence career decisions of medical students. | 52 medical students from 4th to 5th course (25 male, 27 female). Three medical schools. | Content and thematic analysis. |
*Unclear, not explicitly reported.
Figure 1Study inclusion/exclusion process.
List of studies, extracted themes and findings
| Tolhurst | ▪Diversity, continuity of care + | ▪A lot of paperwork- | ▪Negative attitudes from specialist and teachers to general practice- | | ▪Poor remuneration- | ▪Undergraduate experiences influenced depending on GPs’ attitudes.+/ - | ▪Less intensity and length of training, less long working hours. |
| | ▪Community and family context + | ▪Serious problems are referred to specialists- | ▪Family and friends pressure to choose a specialty - | | | | |
| | ▪Use of pre-existing skills + | | | | | | |
| | ▪Less medical indemnity issues+ | | | | | | |
| | ▪Discomfort assessing the urgency of undifferentiated problems - | | | | | | |
| | ▪Prefer focus on a particular area of expertise - | | | | | | |
| | ▪Flexibility and part time work allow having a family + | | | | | | |
| | ▪Rural practice: practice a lot of skills +, is workload and a lot of responsibility - | | | | | | |
| Saigal | ▪Holistic perspective. | ▪Common disease, easy to treat. | ▪Personality of physicians influences on choice. | ▪A second career that follows working first in a sub specialty. | | ▪The length and quality of the exposure | |
| | ▪Treat the entire family. | | ▪The presence of a physician role model or mentor. | | | ▪The atmosphere | |
| | ▪Community based. | | | | | | |
| | ▪Long term care. | | | | | | |
| | ▪Good relation doctor-patient+ | | | | | | |
| | ▪Focused on prevention, triage and medical interviews. | | | | | | |
| | ▪Home visits. | | | | | | |
| | ▪Primary consultation before seeing specialists. | | | | | | |
| | ▪Broad knowledge than specialities. | | | | | | |
| Scott | ▪Broad scope of practice especially in rural settings+ | ▪Choosing family medicine seems to limit oneself, especially for high-achieving students- | ▪Role models affect the choice +/− | ▪Lower prestige. | ▪Worries about income during their practice life | ▪Little representation of family medicine in the curriculum - | ▪The easy of matching with family medicine (−) |
| | ▪Enduring relationships with patients. | | ▪Negative view by other specialists- | ▪Second-choice residency. | | | ▪Shorter and physically less demanding residency (+) |
| | ▪Good lifestyle, flexibility+ | | | | | | ▪The culture of the family medicine residency is appealing. (+) |
| Thistlethwaite | ▪Continuity of care+ | ▪Lack of support. | ▪Negative role models.- | ▪Family medicine has prestige but decreasing. | | ▪Medical education mainly hospital based. | |
| | ▪Patient-doctor interaction+ | ▪Lack of time | ▪Negative views of GP expressed by hospital doctors without reasons-. | ▪Social status. | | ▪Having general practice exposure earlier + | |
| | ▪Holistic care+ | ▪Not intellectually challenging. | ▪Negative media coverage- | ▪General practice is seen as inferior choice. | | ▪General practice exposure was more stimulating than expected: needs hand-on experience not just observation. | |
| | ▪Skill mix | | | | | ▪Sell GP as a great job | |
| | ▪Stimulating and variety+ | | | | | | |
| | ▪Working with people+ | | | | | | |
| | ▪Autonomy+ | | | | | | |
| | ▪Flexible working hours and lifestyle+ | | | | | | |
| | ▪Rural practice: hard work. | | | | | | |
| López- Roig | ▪Holistic care + | ▪Broad and superficial knowledge - | ▪Social and academic persuasion for not choosing family medicine. | ▪Lost of social role. | ▪Lower salaries. ▪Less probability of additional income when practicing in the private sector | ▪Undergraduate experiences are significant. | ▪The four year residency programme is unnecessary (−). |
| | ▪Special relationship with patients+ | | | ▪At the bottom of the medical hierarchy. | | ▪Almost no exposure to family medicine practice: poor idea of what family medicine practice is. | |
| | ▪The kindest and more tolerant doctors. | ▪Repetitive - | | ▪Unknown status of family medicine as a medical specialty. | | ▪Exposure to (a few) good family medicine experiences in later training years. | |
| | ▪The largest breath but depthless medical wisdom. | ▪Lack of intellectual challenge. | | ▪Lack of professional recognition. | | | |
| | | ▪Absence of medical “technology”- | | ▪Lower status and facilities. | | | |
| | | ▪Devalued type of knowledge needed to practice. | | ▪Population and health care decision-makers do not appreciate Family medicine. | | | |
| | | ▪Quasi administrative - | | ▪Family medicine is a necessary specialty but undesirable as a career option. | | | |
| | | ▪Elderly patients- | | | | | |
| | | ▪Gatekeepers of the health care system. | | | | | |
| | | ▪First medical contact and referrer to specialties. | | | | | |
| Hogg | ▪Varied, challenging+ | ▪Lower level of control over the medical care and have to refer to specialist.- | ▪Bad mouthing from family and hospital doctors- | ▪Lower status than hospital based careers - | | ▪Perception of the early experiences as not “real” medicine. | |
| | ▪Preference for a career in hospital settings- | | ▪Bad mouthing from family | | | ▪Importance of general practice exposure+ | |
| | ▪Work outside the medical hierarchy. | | ▪No attractive media role models - | | | | |
| | ▪The best of both worlds: a GPs with a special interest | | | | | | |
| | ▪Flexibility + | | | | | | |
| | ▪Control over financial affairs, working hours and lifestyle + | | | | | | |
| | ▪A backup career when you want to make your life external to the medicine a priority. | | | | | | |
| Edgcumbe et al. 2008
[ | ▪holistic care +/− | ▪General practice as a go-between - | ▪hospital doctors made derogatory comments about general practitioners and vice versa but it not influenced students’ career choice. | ▪Lower status than hospital based specialists - | ▪business aspects of running a practice -. | ▪The career intentions were influenced by experiences of clinical training. | ▪Short, well structured and flexible compared to hospital-based medicine. |
| | ▪variety of conditions + vs monotony – | ▪Prefer acute conditions and deal with problems without referral.- | | ▪The status doesn’t always influences career intentions + | ▪the 2003 GP contract impinges on the professional autonomy - | ▪This experiences were + or – for some students. (some had negative preconceptions before exposure that decreased with it +) | ▪Competition in hospital training is unattractive |
| | ▪anxiety for wanting quick answers in diagnosis – | ▪mundane/ repetitive - | | | ▪Well paid or overpaid (particularly at earlier stages of career) + | | ▪Lack of research +/ - |
| | ▪relationship with patients + | ▪administrative work- | | ▪A second line option after a hospital career- | | | |
| | ▪feeling part of the community + | ▪lack of time - | | | | | |
| | ▪public health + | ▪low-technology environment- | | | | | |
| | ▪concerns in managing risk -☺ | ▪Professional isolation - | | | | | |
| | ▪friendly work environment + | | | | | | |
| | ▪ work anywhere vs remain in one place after buying into a practice +/− | | | | | | |
| | ▪flexibility, lifestyle, easy to have a family + | | | | | | |
| | ▪independence + | | | | | | |
| Chirk-Jenn | ▪holistic, comprehensive + | ▪bored by repetition of common illnesses – | ▪opinions from colleagues and seniors influenced their perceptions | | | ▪disparity between training and practice: what was taught in their classes was not practised: time pressure. lack of support and difficulty in making decisions in a short consultation (−) | |
| | ▪patient centred + | ▪miss the action in the hospital - | ▪lecturers not seem to influence their perceptions (which could be because lecturers weren’t in the real world) | | | ▪positive experience in the attachment | |
| | ▪ the breadth rather than depth of medicine | ▪it teaches skills (communication, evidence-based medicine, counselling) rather than knowledge | | | | | |
| | ▪lacked understanding: equating general practice to part of internal medicine or a combination of all other disciplines. | ▪triage patients - | | | | | |
| | ▪private GPs more patient centred than those in the government health centres | ▪lack of evidence-based practice - | | | | | |
| | ▪relaxing posting | | | | | | |
| Firth | ▪range of case mix + | ▪mundane diseases and boring - | ▪peers saw primary care in a negative light: boring and for taking time off. | | ▪business-driven negative and stressful for some and attractive to other+/− | ▪the majority of scenarios studied based within the hospital setting. This added the notion that GP was less interesting. | ▪Importance of the quality and enthusiasm of the teachers to make Foundation training a success. |
| | ▪increasing amount of medical | | ▪Bad speaking by hospital tutors’. It influenced perceptions | | | ▪benefit of being taught in primary care: cases not available in hospital | |
| | care within primary care. | | ▪positive view of GP role + | | | ▪quality of the placement was the most influential factor | |
| | ▪“Social side” of disease (+) | | ▪media portrayal of the profession as major influence +/ - | | | ▪benefits of an extended period in general Practice + | |
| | ▪quality of care + | | | | | ▪negative experiences difficult to reverse (n) | |
| | ▪relationships + | | | | | ▪the attachments improved student’s views + | |
| | ▪multidisciplinary team + | | | | | | |
| | ▪better lifestyle but it was not an important consideration | | | | | | |
| Mutha | ▪ long –term relationship with patients vs surgical specialities that do interventions with immediate and tangible results + . | ▪ the breadth of information required interfered with the ability to achieve competency and mastery - | ▪clinicians (residents and attending physicians) influenced students’ career decisions +/− | | ▪neither debt nor future income influenced decisions. | ▪perceptions developed during clinical rotations (n) | |
| | ▪ intellectually challenging: address a variety and complexity of medical problems + | | ▪exposure to positive role models influenced some students’ choices + | | ▪Gender differences: for women, the anticipation of being in a dual-income family allowed them to minimize debt or income as a factor in their decision. | ▪inpatient services tended to discount the effects of cognitive specialties. | |
| | | | ▪exposure to positive role models was neither necessary nor sufficient for most of the students’ career decisions (n) | | | | |
| | | | ▪negative role models had strong dissuasive effects on specialty selections - | | | | |
| ▪Women could not identify role models: deterrence from considering particular fields and created anxieties and uncertainties - |
+: Positive perceptions. -: Negative perceptions. n: Neutral perceptions.