No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Setting the Target: Comparing Family Medicine Among US Allopathic Target Schools
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Despite the persistent primary care physician shortage over 2 decades of allopathic medical school expansion, some medical schools are absent a department of family medicine; these schools are designated as “target” schools. These absences are important because evidence has demonstrated the association between structured exposure to family medicine during medical school and the proportion of students who ultimately select a career in family medicine. In this study, we aimed to address part of this gap by defining and characterizing the current landscape of US allopathic target schools. Methods: We identified allopathic target schools by reviewing all Liaison Committee of Medical Education (LCME) accredited institutions for the presence of a family medicine department. To compare these schools in terms of family medicine representation and outcomes, we curated descriptive data from publicly available websites, previously published family medicine match results, and school rankings for primary care. Results: We identified 12 target schools (8.7% of all US allopathic accredited medical schools) with considerable heterogeneity in opportunities for family medicine engagement, leadership, and training. Target schools with greater family medicine representation had increased outcomes for family medicine workforce and primary care opportunities. Conclusion: With growing primary care workforce gaps, target schools have a responsibility to enhance family medicine presence and representation at their institutions. We provide recommendations at the institutional, specialty, and national level to increase family medicine representation at target schools, with the goal that all schools eventually establish a department of family medicine.
... No es una cuestión de preferencia profesional; es un problema de salud pública. 3,4 A nivel internacional, la Medicina Familiar ha evolucionado para asumir roles cada vez más especializados en el manejo de enfermedades complejas, pero en Colombia sigue siendo tratada como una especialidad de "segunda categoría". Esta errada visión ha limitado la posibilidad para que los médicos familiares puedan acceder a una formación continua, impidiendo su avance en áreas críticas del conocimiento médico. ...
Introducción La Medicina Familiar ha sido históricamente la co-lumna vertebral de la atención en salud, garantizando el acceso equitativo a servicios médicos y promovien-do un enfoque integral en la gestión de enfermedades. Sin embargo, a pesar de su relevancia, los médicos familiares en Colombia-y en muchos otros países-enfrentan una discriminación sistemática en su ac-ceso a la subespecialización, lo que no solo limita su desarrollo profesional, sino que también perpetúa un modelo de salud fragmentado, elitista y deficiente. 1,2 La exclusión de los médicos familiares de múlti-ples programas de subespecialización no es casual; sino el resultado de una visión obsoleta y restrictiva del sistema de formación médica. Mientras en países con sistemas de salud avanzados, como Canadá, Rei-no Unido y Estados Unidos de América los médicos familiares pueden subespecializarse en: geriatría, cui-dados paliativos, salud materno-infantil, urgencias o medicina hospitalaria en Colombia y otros países de América Latina se les niega sistemáticamente esta oportunidad. Esta situación no solo demuestra una falta de comprensión sobre la amplitud y la comple-jidad de la Medicina Familiar, sino que refleja un ses-go institucional que favorece a otras especialidades y que ignora la urgente necesidad de contar con espe-cialistas con un enfoque integral en el manejo de los pacientes. 3 El caso de Colombia El acceso a los programas de subespecialización en Colombia está diseñado para excluir a los médicos familiares, ya que la mayoría de las universidades e instituciones hospitalarias establecen requisitos que priorizan a médicos internistas, pediatras y ginecólo-gos, relegando injustamente a quienes han dedicado su formación a la Medicina Familiar. Esta exclusión no solo es arbitraria, sino que también afecta la equi-dad en la atención médica; debido a que impide a los profesionales de la salud-con una visión holística y preventiva-a poder acceder a áreas de alta demanda como: cuidados paliativos, medicina del dolor, geria-tría o medicina del sueño. ¿Cómo es posible que se impida la formación avanzada de quienes tienen el conocimiento y la experiencia en la atención longitudinal del paciente? ¿Por qué se sigue promoviendo un modelo en el que la especialización es un privile-gio de unas pocas disciplinas mientras se relega a los médicos familiares a funciones limitadas? El impacto de esta exclusión es devastador. La fal-ta de médicos familiares con subespecialización re-fuerza la centralización de la atención en hospitales de alta complejidad, colapsando los sistemas de refe-rencia y contrarreferencia, incrementando los costos en salud y reduciendo la eficiencia del sistema. Si se permitiera a los médicos familiares subespecializarse en áreas críticas, se podría reducir la sobrecarga de especialistas en hospitales, optimizar el tratamiento de enfermedades crónicas y mejorar el acceso a aten-ción avanzada en regiones donde la escasez de médi-cos especialistas es una crisis permanente. No es una cuestión de preferencia profesional; es un problema de salud pública. 3,4 A nivel internacional, la Medicina Familiar ha evolucionado para asumir roles cada vez más espe-cializados en el manejo de enfermedades complejas, pero en Colombia sigue siendo tratada como una es-pecialidad de "segunda categoría". Esta errada visión ha limitado la posibilidad para que los médicos fa-miliares puedan acceder a una formación continua, impidiendo su avance en áreas críticas del conoci-miento médico. ¿Por qué el sistema de salud sigue manteniendo barreras artificiales que impiden el cre-cimiento profesional de estos médicos? ¿Por qué la Medicina Familiar sigue siendo vista como un área menor dentro del ecosistema médico, cuando es la que sostiene a la mayor parte de la atención primaria y secundaria en el país? 5 El argumento de que la Medicina Familiar es una especialidad "generalista" y que no requiere subes-pecialización es falso e insostenible. Esta afirmación ignora el hecho de que la formación de los médicos
Background and objectives:
There is a persistent shortage of primary care physicians in the United States. Medical schools can help meet societal primary care health needs by graduating more students who select family medicine and other primary care careers. The objective of this narrative review was to evaluate the relationship between clerkships and primary care specialty choice.
Methods:
We conducted a systematic literature search and narrative review of research articles examining the association between clerkships and primary care specialty choice. We evaluated the quality of included articles using a validated scale, assessed for methodology and outcomes, and synthesized using a narrative approach.
Results:
We identified 59 articles meeting our research criteria. A required primary care clerkship in the core clerkship year was associated with increased primary care specialty choice. This finding was strongest for family medicine clerkships and family medicine specialty choice. Clerkships that were longer, were of higher quality, exposed students to a wider scope of primary care practice, and occurred within an institutional climate supportive of primary care were also correlated with more students choosing a primary care specialty. While student self-reported interest in primary care often increased following a primary care clerkship, this interest was not always sustained or consistently associated with a primary care residency match or primary care career.
Conclusions:
Required family medicine and primary care clerkships were correlated with primary care specialty choice. More high-quality research is needed to better understand how to maximize the impact of clerkships on primary care specialty choice.
Importance:
The COVID-19 pandemic and calls for racial justice have highlighted the need for schools to promote social mission. Measuring social mission engagement and performance in health professions education may encourage institutional efforts to advance health equity and social justice commitments.
Objective:
To describe the current state of social mission commitment within dental, medical, and nursing schools in the US and to examine how social mission performance compares across school types.
Design, setting, and participants:
This cross-sectional survey study invited all US dental and medical schools and a subset of baccalaureate- and master's degree-conferring nursing schools to participate in a self-assessment to measure their school's social mission commitment from January 29 through October 9, 2019. The survey measured 79 indicators (with indicators defined as responses to specific scored questions that indicated the state or level of social mission commitment) across 18 areas in 6 domains of school functioning (educational program, community engagement, governance, diversity and inclusion, institutional culture and climate, and research) that have potential to enhance social mission engagement and performance. Individual health professions schools were the unit of analysis, and 689 dental, medical, and nursing schools were invited to participate. School deans and program directors were the primary target respondents because of their broad insight into their school's programs and policies and their ability to request data from various internal sources. Demographic information from respondents was not collected because multiple respondents from an institution could complete different sections of the survey.
Main outcomes and measures:
Survey responses were analyzed to create indicator scores, standardized area scores, and an overall social mission score for each school. Using descriptive analyses, frequency and contingency tables of specific indicators within each area were created, and schools were compared based on ownership status (private or public), Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education research classification group (doctoral university with very high research activity [R1], doctoral university with high [R2] or moderate [R3] research activity, baccalaureate or master's nursing college or university, or special focus institution), and discipline group (dental school, medical school granting doctor of osteopathic medicine [DO] degrees, medical school granting doctor of medicine [MD] degrees, nursing school granting baccalaureate-level degrees, or nursing school granting master's-level degrees).
Results:
Among 689 invited schools, 242 schools (35.1%) completed the self-assessment survey. Of those, 133 (55.0%) were nursing schools, 83 (34.3%) were medical schools, and 26 (10.7%) were dental schools. Response rates ranged from 133 of 420 invited nursing schools (31.7%) to 83 of 203 invited medical schools (40.9%). Most schools included social determinants of health in their curriculum in either required courses (233 of 242 schools [96.3%]) or elective courses (4 of 242 schools [1.7%]), but only 116 of 235 schools (49.4%) integrated social determinants of health across all years of study. Most schools also included health disparities in either their required courses (232 of 242 [95.9%]) or elective courses (6 of 242 [2.5%]); however, only 118 of 235 schools (50.2%) integrated health disparities across all years of study. In several areas of social mission, public schools performed better than private schools (eg, curriculum: mean [SE] standardized area score, 0.13 [0.07] points vs -0.14 [0.09] points, respectively), and R1 doctoral universities and special focus institutions performed better than R2 and R3 doctoral universities and baccalaureate and master's nursing colleges and universities (eg, extracurricular activities: mean [SE] standardized area score, 0.25 [0.09] points for R1 doctoral universities and 0.20 [0.12] points for special focus institutions vs -0.05 [0.12] points for R2 and R3 doctoral universities and - 0.30 [0.12] points for baccalaureate and master's nursing colleges and universities. Different areas of strength emerged for dental, medical, and nursing schools. For example, in the curriculum area, MD-granting medical schools had a mean (SE) standardized area score of 0.38 (0.08) points, which was significantly higher than the standardized area scores of dental schools (mean [SE], -0.21 [0.14] points), DO-granting medical schools (mean [SE], -0.22 [0.13] points), graduate nursing schools (mean [SE], -0.21 [0.19] points), and undergraduate nursing schools (mean [SE], -0.05 [0.10] points).
Conclusions and relevance:
In this study, there was widespread interest from health professions educational leaders in understanding and enhancing social mission commitment. Future work may focus on identifying and promoting best practices using the framework described, providing schools with continued opportunities for self-assessment, and further validating the self-assessment survey.
Objectives:
Primary healthcare internationally is facing a workforce crisis with fewer junior doctors choosing general practice (GP) as a career. In the UK, a national report on GP careers highlighted adverse influences during medical school on students' career choices. The authors explored these influences in two urban UK medical schools, both with relatively low numbers of students entering GP training.
Design:
Using a phenomenological approach, the authors thematically analysed the reflective diaries of four medical students who were recruited as 'participant researchers' over a period of 10 months. These students made regular reflexive notes about their experiences related to GP career perceptions in their academic and personal environments, aiming to capture both positive and negative perceptions of GP careers. The research team discussed emerging data and iteratively explored and developed themes.
Setting:
Two UK medical schools PARTICIPANTS: Undergraduate medical students RESULTS: Seven key themes were identified: the lack of visibility and physicality of GP work, the lack of aspirational GP role models, students' perceptions of a GP career as default, the performativity of student career choice with the perceptions of success linked to specialism, societal perceptions of GP careers, gender stereotyping of career choices and the student perception of life as a GP.
Conclusions:
Students overwhelmingly reflected on negative cues to GP careers, particularly through their experience of the hidden curriculum. Three recommendations are made: the need for increased representation of GP role models in clinical curricula content delivery and senior leadership; ensuring GP clerkships involve an active and authentic student role with patients, enabling students to experience GP's 'work' including managing complexity, uncertainty and risk. Finally, institutions need to consider students' experiences of the hidden curriculum and the effect this can have on students' perception of careers, alongside the challenges of rankings and perceived hierarchical positioning of disciplines.
Background and objectives:
The United States needs more family physicians. Projections based on current trends show a deficit of 52,000 primary care physicians by 2025. Eight national family medicine (FM) organizations have set an ambitious goal of increasing the proportion of US medical school graduates who enter FM residencies to 25% by 2030. This paper describes the most recent number and percentage of students from each US medical school entering Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited FM residency programs, long-term trends in the contribution of allopathic and osteopathic medical schools to the FM workforce, and medical school characteristics associated with higher proportions of FM graduates.
Methods:
Data about graduates entering US ACGME-accredited FM residency programs were collected using an annual program census and supplemental sources. Longitudinal census data from allopathic and osteopathic schools were combined to examine trends over time. ANOVA analyses were conducted to compare schools by percent of graduates entering FM, public/private ownership, allopathic/osteopathic, size, and presence of FM department. Medical school length of operation was correlated with percentage of students entering FM.
Results:
The overall proportion of US students entering ACGME-accredited FM programs has increased modestly over the past decade. Currently, only 12.6% of US allopathic and osteopathic seniors enter ACGME-accredited FM programs. Individual medical schools' contributions to the FM workforce are described.
Conclusions:
The proportion of US medical students beginning ACGME-accredited FM residency programs has increased slightly over the last decade. However, significant changes to undergraduate medical education are needed to meet the nation's primary care needs.
The basic purpose of medical schools is to educate physicians to care for the national population. Fulfilling this goal requires an adequate number of primary care physicians, adequate distribution of physicians to underserved areas, and a sufficient number of minority physicians in the workforce.
To develop a metric called the social mission score to evaluate medical school output in these 3 dimensions.
Secondary analysis of data from the American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile and of data on race and ethnicity in medical schools from the Association of American Medical Colleges and the Association of American Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.
U.S. medical schools.
60 043 physicians in active practice who graduated from medical school between 1999 and 2001.
The percentage of graduates who practice primary care, work in health professional shortage areas, and are underrepresented minorities, combined into a composite social mission score.
The contribution of medical schools to the social mission of medical education varied substantially. Three historically black colleges had the highest social mission rankings. Public and community-based medical schools had higher social mission scores than private and non-community-based schools. National Institutes of Health funding was inversely associated with social mission scores. Medical schools in the northeastern United States and in more urban areas were less likely to produce primary care physicians and physicians who practice in underserved areas.
The AMA Physician Masterfile has limitations, including specialty self-designation by physicians, inconsistencies in reporting work addresses, and delays in information updates. The public good provided by medical schools may include contributions not reflected in the social mission score. The study was not designed to evaluate quality of care provided by medical school graduates.
Medical schools vary substantially in their contribution to the social mission of medical education. School rankings based on the social mission score differ from those that use research funding and subjective assessments of school reputation. These findings suggest that initiatives at the medical school level could increase the proportion of physicians who practice primary care, work in underserved areas, and are underrepresented minorities.
Background and objectives:
There is an ongoing shortage of primary care physicians in the United States. Medical schools are under pressure to address this threat to the nation's health by producing more primary care graduates, including family physicians. Our objective was to identify institutional characteristics associated with more medical students choosing primary care.
Methods:
We conducted a systematic literature review with narrative synthesis to identify medical school characteristics associated with increased numbers or proportions of primary care graduates. We included peer-reviewed, published research from the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The existing literature on characteristics, including institutional geography, funding and governance, mission, and research emphasis, was analyzed and synthesized into summary statements.
Results:
Ensuring a strong standing of the specialty of family medicine and creating an atmosphere of acceptance of the pursuit of primary care as a career are likely to increase an institution's percentage of medical students entering primary care. Training on regional campuses or providing primary care experiences in rural settings also correlates with a larger percentage of graduates entering primary care. A research-intensive culture is inversely correlated with primary care physician production among private, but not public, institutions. The literature on institutional financial incentives is not of high enough quality to make a firm statement about influence on specialty choice.
Conclusions:
To produce more primary care providers, medical schools must create an environment where primary care is supported as a career choice. Medical schools should also consider educational models that incorporate regional campuses or rural educational settings.
Background:
Prior studies have reported that greater numbers of primary care physicians (PCPs) per population are associated with reduced population mortality, but the effect of increasing PCP density in areas of low density is poorly understood.
Objective:
To estimate how alleviating PCP shortages might change life expectancy and mortality.
Design:
Generalized additive models, mixed-effects models, and generalized estimating equations.
Setting:
3104 U.S. counties from 2010 to 2017.
Participants:
Children and adults.
Measurements:
Age-adjusted life expectancy; all-cause mortality; and mortality due to cardiovascular disease, cancer, infectious disease, respiratory disease, and substance use or injury.
Results:
Persons living in counties with less than 1 physician per 3500 persons in 2017 had a mean life expectancy that was 310.9 days shorter than for persons living in counties above that threshold. In the low-density counties (n = 1218), increasing the density of PCPs above the 1:3500 threshold would be expected to increase mean life expectancy by 22.4 days (median, 19.4 days [95% CI, 0.9 to 45.6 days]), and all such counties would require 17 651 more physicians, or about 14.5 more physicians per shortage county. If counties with less than 1 physician per 1500 persons (n = 2636) were to reach the 1:1500 threshold, life expectancy would be expected to increase by 56.3 days (median, 55.6 days [CI, 4.2 to 105.6 days]), and all such counties would require 95 754 more physicians, or about 36.3 more physicians per shortage county.
Limitation:
Some projections are based on extrapolations of the actual data.
Conclusion:
In counties with fewer PCPs per population, increases in PCP density would be expected to substantially improve life expectancy.
Primary funding source:
None.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to characterize graduates of family medicine (FM) residencies from 1994 to 2017 and determine whether they continue to practice family medicine after residency.
Method:
We sampled physicians who completed FM residency training from 1994-2017 using 2017 American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile linked with administrative files of the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM). The main outcomes measured were characteristics of FM residency graduates, including medical degree type (Doctor of Medicine, MD vs Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, DO), international medical school graduates (IMGs) vs US graduates, sex, ABFM certification status, and self-designated primary specialty. Family medicine residency graduates were grouped into 4-year cohorts by year of residency completion.
Results:
From 1994 to 2017, 66,778 residents completed training in an ACGME accredited FM residency, averaging 2,782 graduates per year. The number of FM residency graduates peaked in 1998-2001, averaging 3,053 each year. The composition of FM residents diversified with large increases in DOs, IMGs, and female graduates over the past 24 years. Of all the FM residency graduates, 91.9% claimed FM as their primary specialty and 81% were certified with ABFM in 2017. FM/sport medicine (2.1%), FM/geriatric medicine (0.9%), internal medicine/geriatrics (0.8%), and emergency medicine (0.7%) were the most common non-FM primary specialties reported.
Conclusions:
DOs, IMGs, and female family medicine residency graduates increased from 1994 to 2017. With 9 in 10 graduates of family medicine residencies designating FM as their primary specialty, FM residency programs not only train but supply family physicians who are likely to remain in the primary care workforce.
Education, research, and service are well-established missions of health professions schools and teaching hospitals in the United States. The role of social mission in these institutions is vitally important but less clear. Broadly defined, the social mission of a health professions school is the contribution of the school in its mission, programs, and the performance of its graduates, faculty, and leadership to enhancing health equity and to addressing the health disparities of the society in which it exists.¹ School characteristics that are associated with commitment to social mission, include community engagement, promotion of diversity, reduction in health disparities, the responsible use of health resources, and a focus on the social determinants of health.
Approach:
We combined data from a survey of 123 departments of family medicine with graduate placement rates reported to the American Academy of Family Physicians over a 2-year period. Chi-square/Fisher's Exact texts, t tests, and linear regression analyses were used to identify factors significantly associated with average match rate percentages.
Findings:
The resulting data set included 85% of the U.S. medical schools with Departments of Family Medicine that reported 2011 and 2012 residency match rates in family medicine. Match rates in family medicine were higher among graduates of public than private medical schools-11% versus 7%, respectively, t(92) = 4.00, p < .001. Using a linear regression model and controlling for institutional type, the results indicated 2% higher match rates among schools with smaller annual clerkship enrollments (p = .03), 3% higher match rates among schools with clerkships lasting more than 3 to 4 weeks (p = .003), 3% higher match rates at schools with at least 1 family medicine faculty member in a senior leadership role (p = .04), and 8% lower match rates at private medical schools offering community medicine electives (p < .001, R(2) = .48), F(6, 64) = 9.95, p < .001. Three additional factors were less strongly related and varied by institutional type-informal mentoring, ambulatory primary care learning experiences, and institutional research focus. Insights: Educational opportunities associated with higher match rates in family medicine differ across private and public medical schools. Future research is needed to identify the qualitative aspects of educational programming that contribute to differences in match rates across institutional contexts. Results of this study should prove useful in mitigating physician shortages, particularly in primary care fields such as family medicine.
Objective:
To contrast prevailing behaviors and attitudes relative to prJgiary care education and practice in osteopathic and allopathic medical schools.
Design:
Descriptive study using confidential telephone interviews conducted in 1993-94. Analyses compared responses of osteopaths and allopaths, controlling for prJgiary care orientation.
Setting:
United States academic health centers.
Participants:
National stratified probability samples of first-year and fourth-year medical students, postgraduate year 2 residents, and clinical faculty in osteopathic and allopathic medical schools, a sample of allopathic deans, and a census of deans of osteopathic schools (n = 457 osteopaths; n = 2,045 allopaths).
Measurements:
Survey items assessed personal characteristics, students' reasons for entering medicine, learners' prJgiary care educational experiences, community support for prJgiary care, and attitudes toward the clinical and academic competence of prJgiary care physicians.
Main results:
PrJgiary care physicians composed a larger fraction of the faculty in osteopathic schools than in allopathic schools. Members of the osteopathic community were significantly more likely than their allopathic peers to describe themselves as socioemotionally oriented rather than technoscientifically oriented. Osteopathic learners were more likely than allopathic learners to have educational experiences in prJgiary care venues and with prJgiary care faculty, and to receive encouragement from faculty, including specialists, to enter prJgiary care. Attitudes toward the clinical and academic competence of prJgiary care physicians were consistently negative in both communities. Differences between communities were sustained after controlling for prJgiary care orientation.
Conclusions:
In comparison with allopathic schools, the cultural practices and educational structures in osteopathic medical schools better support the production of prJgiary care physicians. However, there is a lack of alignment between attitudes and practices in the osteopathic community.
Evidence of the health-promoting influence of primary care has been accumulating ever since researchers have been able to distinguish primary care from other aspects of the health services delivery system. This evidence shows that primary care helps prevent illness and death, regardless of whether the care is characterized by supply of primary care physicians, a relationship with a source of primary care, or the receipt of important features of primary care. The evidence also shows that primary care (in contrast to specialty care) is associated with a more equitable distribution of health in populations, a finding that holds in both cross-national and within-national studies. The means by which primary care improves health have been identified, thus suggesting ways to improve overall health and reduce differences in health across major population subgroups.
The State of Primary Care in the United States: A Chartbook of Facts and Statistics
- J Willis
- B Antono
- A Bazemore
Willis J, Antono B, Bazemore A. The State of Primary Care in the
United States: A Chartbook of Facts and Statistics. Robert Graham
Harvard has one of the best medical schools. Why does it ignore family medicine
- M Bailey
Bailey M. Harvard has one of the best medical schools. Why
does it ignore family medicine?. STAT News. 2016.
https://www.statnews.com/2016/04/05/harvard-medicalschool-family-medicine.
Going in blind: how family medicine students make meaning of their experiences at an 'orphan' school, Poster presented at Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Annual Spring Meeting
- A Anderson
Anderson A. Going in blind: how family medicine students
make meaning of their experiences at an 'orphan' school,
Poster presented at Society of Teachers of Family Medicine
Annual Spring Meeting, Washington, DC. 2018.
Bullseye: students pursuing family medicine from a "target school
- E Demarchis
- S Lin
- G C Yu
Demarchis E, Lin S, Yu GC. Bullseye: students pursuing family
medicine from a "target school", Presented at UCSF
Department of Family & Community Medicine Jonathan
Rodnick Family & Community Medicine Colloquium, San
Francisco, CA. 2014.
Resident helped open her school's family medicine pipeline
- D Mitchell
Mitchell D. Resident helped open her school's family medicine
pipeline. American Academy of Family Physicians. 2021. https://
www.aafp.org/news/family-doc-focus/20210412fdf-ha.html.
A rich history of family medicine at Harvard
- K Miller
Miller K. A rich history of family medicine at Harvard. 2023.
https://2153197.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/
2153197/History%20of%20FM%20at%20HMS.pdf.
Medical schools with the most graduates practicing primary care
Medical schools with the most graduates practicing primary
care. U.S. News & World Report. 2022. https:
//www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-medicalschools/graduates-practicing-primary-care-rankings.
best medical schools rankings-diversity and practice areas
- R Morse
- E Brooks
- K Hines
- D Lara-Agudelo
Morse R, Brooks E, Hines K, Lara-Agudelo D, Methodology.
best medical schools rankings-diversity and practice areas.
U.S. News & World. 2023:2023-2024.
A needed role model and advocate for family medicine
- D Mitchell
Mitchell D. A needed role model and advocate for family
medicine. American Academy of Family Physicians. 2020.
https://www.aafp.org/news/family-doc-focus/20200511fdf-anderson.html.
Student interest success. STFM Resource Library
- A Mcgaha
- A Devilbiss
- S Moser
- D Clements
- C Stine
- A Dimitrov
Mcgaha A, Devilbiss A, Moser S, Clements D, Stine C, Dimitrov
A. Student interest success. STFM Resource Library. 2009.
https://resourcelibrary.stfm.org/resourcelibrary/
viewdocument/student-interest-success.
National Academies Press
- L Mccauley
- R L Phillips
- M Meisnere
- R Sk
Mccauley L, Phillips RL, Meisnere M, Sk R.. National
Academies Press;. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/
25983/implementing-high-quality-primary-carerebuilding-the-foundation-of-health.