ArticleAtencion primaria2014
[Important differences between faculties of medicine. Implications for family and community medicine].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Elements influencing the election of Family and Community Medicine].Atencion primaria · 2021Article
- [About the implications of medical schools in family medicine].Atencion primaria · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by[Not Available].2015
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine if there are significant differences between universities in the proclivity to choose Family and Community Medicine (FCM), given the constraints imposed by the number of choice. To test the hypothesis that the Schools of Medicine that have the FCM as a compulsory subject in the degree (3 of 27) had the highest preference for this specialty.
designObservational study on the data file of all the individuals taking the MIR examination between 2003 and 2011. LOCATION: Spain.
participantsAll those who sat the examinations called by MIR 2003-2011. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Position in the ranking of each candidate, elected position (specialty and center), post code of residence, sex, nationality and university in which they studied, and post code location for the residence chosen.
resultsThe percentage electing FCM is highly correlated with the position in the ranking: 8% of graduates for the 'best' college, 46% for the worst. Very noticeable and consistent differences in the preparation for the MIR among the 27 medical schools. Ranking in the exam, female and foreigner, help predict the choice of FCM. The FCM compulsory curriculum from three universities does not seem to exert any influence.
conclusionsThe convenient yardstick competition between the schools of medicine, FCM in their curriculum and the emphasis on the most attractive attributes of the specialty can contribute to the necessary renewal of FCM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.