Contributions of US Medical Schools to Primary Care (2003-2014): Determining and Predicting Who Really Goes Into Primary Care.


Journal

Family medicine
ISSN: 1938-3800
Titre abrégé: Fam Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8306464

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 2020
Historique:
entrez: 9 7 2020
pubmed: 9 7 2020
medline: 19 8 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Schools of medicine in the United States may overstate the placement of their graduates in primary care. The purpose of this project was to determine the magnitude by which primary care output is overestimated by commonly used metrics and identify a more accurate method for predicting actual primary care output. We used a retrospective cohort study with a convenience sample of graduates from US medical schools granting the MD degree. We determined the actual practicing specialty of those graduates considered primary care based on the Residency Match Method by using a variety of online sources. Analyses compared the percentage of graduates actually practicing primary care between the Residency Match Method and the Intent to Practice Primary Care Method. The final study population included 17,509 graduates from 20 campuses across 14 university systems widely distributed across the United States and widely varying in published ranking for producing primary care graduates. The commonly used Residency Match Method predicted a 41.2% primary care output rate. The actual primary care output rate was 22.3%. The proposed new method, the Intent to Practice Primary Care Method, predicted a 17.1% primary care output rate, which was closer to the actual primary care rate. A valid, reliable method of predicting primary care output is essential for workforce training and planning. Medical schools, administrators, policy makers, and popular press should adopt this new, more reliable primary care reporting method.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Schools of medicine in the United States may overstate the placement of their graduates in primary care. The purpose of this project was to determine the magnitude by which primary care output is overestimated by commonly used metrics and identify a more accurate method for predicting actual primary care output.
METHODS
We used a retrospective cohort study with a convenience sample of graduates from US medical schools granting the MD degree. We determined the actual practicing specialty of those graduates considered primary care based on the Residency Match Method by using a variety of online sources. Analyses compared the percentage of graduates actually practicing primary care between the Residency Match Method and the Intent to Practice Primary Care Method.
RESULTS
The final study population included 17,509 graduates from 20 campuses across 14 university systems widely distributed across the United States and widely varying in published ranking for producing primary care graduates. The commonly used Residency Match Method predicted a 41.2% primary care output rate. The actual primary care output rate was 22.3%. The proposed new method, the Intent to Practice Primary Care Method, predicted a 17.1% primary care output rate, which was closer to the actual primary care rate.
CONCLUSIONS
A valid, reliable method of predicting primary care output is essential for workforce training and planning. Medical schools, administrators, policy makers, and popular press should adopt this new, more reliable primary care reporting method.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32640470
doi: 10.22454/FamMed.2020.785068
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

483-490

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn

Auteurs

Mark Deutchman (M)

University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, School of Medicine.

Francesca Macaluso (F)

School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus.

Jason Chao (J)

Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine.

Christopher Duffrin (C)

Benedictine University, College of Education and Health Services.

Karim Hanna (K)

University of South Florida, Morsani College of Medicine.

Daniel M Avery (DM)

University of Alabama, College of Community Health Sciences.

Emily Onello (E)

University of Minnesota Medical School, Duluth Campus.

Kathleen Quinn (K)

University of Missouri School of Medicine.

Mary Tabor Griswold (MT)

University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine.

Mustafa Alavi (M)

Oregon Health & Science University.

James Boulger (J)

University of Minnesota Duluth Campus.

Patrick Bright (P)

University of Minnesota Duluth Campus.

Benjamin Schneider (B)

Oregon Health and Science University.

Jana Porter (J)

University of Missouri School of Medicine.

Shannon Luke (S)

University of Missouri School of Medicine.

James Durham (J)

Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College.

Memoona Hasnain (M)

University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine.

Katherine A James (KA)

School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH