Premala Sureshkumar1, Chris Roberts1, Tyler Clark2, Michael Jones3, Robert Hale4, Marcia Grant1. 1. Sydney Medical School - Northern, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 2. Sydney Medical School - Office of Medical Education, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. Faculty of Human Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, Australia. 4. Hale Consulting, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the factors eligible applicants consider in electing for a rural pathway into specialty training. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Applicants to the Australian General Practice Training program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Applicants' initial preference of either a general or rural pathway to undertake specialty training. RESULTS: Of the 2,221 applicants, 45% were Australian Medical Graduates (AMGs), 27% Foreign Graduates of Accredited Medical Schools (FGAMS) and 29% International Medical Graduates (IMGs). Through government regulation, two thirds (70%) were eligible to train on both general and rural pathways and a third (30%) were required to train rurally. For applicants eligible for general pathway (n = 1552), those with rural background [Odds Ratio (OR) = 3.7, 95% CI 2.7-5.2] and rural clinical school experience (OR = 2.0, 95% CI 1.5-2.8) were more likely to choose the rural pathway. In addition, FGAMS who were eligible for the general pathway were less likely to choose a rural pathway when compared with IMGs (OR = 0.33, 95%CI 0.1 = 0.7). In applicants who changed their training pathway from their initial to revised preference, lower Multiple-Mini-Interview (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.43-0.66) and Situational Judgement Test z-scores (OR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.83) were associated with a higher probability of changing from a general to rural pathway preference. CONCLUSION: For those eligible for a general or rural pathway, rural background and rural clinical school experience are associated with the decision to elect for rural training. Targeted support for international and foreign graduates of Australia/New Zealand schools may influence them to train rurally.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the factors eligible applicants consider in electing for a rural pathway into specialty training. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Applicants to the Australian General Practice Training program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Applicants' initial preference of either a general or rural pathway to undertake specialty training. RESULTS: Of the 2,221 applicants, 45% were Australian Medical Graduates (AMGs), 27% Foreign Graduates of Accredited Medical Schools (FGAMS) and 29% International Medical Graduates (IMGs). Through government regulation, two thirds (70%) were eligible to train on both general and rural pathways and a third (30%) were required to train rurally. For applicants eligible for general pathway (n = 1552), those with rural background [Odds Ratio (OR) = 3.7, 95% CI 2.7-5.2] and rural clinical school experience (OR = 2.0, 95% CI 1.5-2.8) were more likely to choose the rural pathway. In addition, FGAMS who were eligible for the general pathway were less likely to choose a rural pathway when compared with IMGs (OR = 0.33, 95%CI 0.1 = 0.7). In applicants who changed their training pathway from their initial to revised preference, lower Multiple-Mini-Interview (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.43-0.66) and Situational Judgement Test z-scores (OR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.83) were associated with a higher probability of changing from a general to rural pathway preference. CONCLUSION: For those eligible for a general or rural pathway, rural background and rural clinical school experience are associated with the decision to elect for rural training. Targeted support for international and foreign graduates of Australia/New Zealand schools may influence them to train rurally.
Authors: Alison Fielding; Dominica Moad; Amanda Tapley; Andrew Davey; Elizabeth Holliday; Jean Ball; Michael Bentley; Kristen FitzGerald; Catherine Kirby; Allison Turnock; Neil Spike; Mieke L van Driel; Parker Magin Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 3.006