Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26173529›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2015

Impact of Interventions to Increase the Proportion of Medical Students Choosing a Primary Care Career: A Systematic Review.

Eva Pfarrwaller, Johanna Sommer, Christopher Chung, Hubert Maisonneuve, Mathieu Nendaz, Noëlle Junod Perron, Dagmar M Haller

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

84 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Career coaching to support medical student career decision-making: a randomized controlled trial.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2025
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Eva PfarrwallerPrimary Care Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Centre Médical Universitaire, University of Geneva, Av. de Champel 9, 1211, Genève 4, Switzerland, eva.pfarrwaller@unige.ch.
Johanna Sommer
Christopher Chung
Hubert Maisonneuve
Mathieu Nendaz
Noëlle Junod Perron
Dagmar M Haller

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasing the attractiveness of primary care careers is a key step in addressing the growing shortage of primary care physicians. The purpose of this review was to (1) identify interventions aimed at increasing the proportion of undergraduate medical students choosing a primary care specialty, (2) describe the characteristics of these interventions, (3) assess the quality of the studies, and (4) compare the findings to those of a previous literature review within a global context.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, CINAHL, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, and Dissertations & Theses A&I for articles published between 1993 and February 20, 2015. We included quantitative and qualitative studies reporting on primary care specialty choice outcomes of interventions in the undergraduate medical curriculum, without geographic restrictions. Data extracted included study characteristics, intervention details, and relevant outcomes. Studies were assessed for quality and strength of findings using a five-point scale.

resultsThe review included 72 articles reporting on 66 different interventions. Longitudinal programs were the only intervention consistently associated with an increased proportion of students choosing primary care. Successful interventions were characterized by diverse teaching formats, student selection, and good-quality teaching. Study quality had not improved since recommendations were published in 1995. Many studies used cross-sectional designs and non-validated surveys, did not include control groups, and were not based on a theory or conceptual framework. DISCUSSION: Our review supports the value of longitudinal, multifaceted, primary care programs to increase the proportion of students choosing primary care specialties. Isolated modules or clerkships did not appear to be effective. Our results are in line with the conclusions from previous reviews and add an international perspective, but the evidence is limited by the overall low methodological quality of the included studies. Future research should use more rigorous evaluation methods and include long-term outcomes.

Indexed as

Career ChoicePrimary Health CareHumansStudents, MedicalWorkforce

Identifiers

PMID26173529
PMCPMC4539313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.