ArticleFamily medicine2024
Effect of Student-Run Free Clinics on Family Medicine Match Rates: A Multisite, Regression Discontinuity Study.
Article in Family medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Science and Art of Mixed Methods in Medical Education Research.Family medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesStudent-run free clinics (SRFCs) have been proposed as one educational strategy to increase medical students' interest in primary care careers. We sought to overcome gaps in the literature by investigating the effect of opening an SRFC at different institutions on institution-level match rates into family medicine, the largest source of primary care physicians in the United States.
methodsWe connected a list of SRFCs from primary care clerkship directors and the Society of Student-Run Free Clinics with a database of institution-level match rates into family medicine from 2000 to 2018. Using regression discontinuity analysis, we assessed whether opening an SRFC would increase family medicine match rates.
resultsAcross a sample of 58 medical schools in the United States, we found that SRFCs did not significantly change the number (P=.44) or percentage of medical graduates (P=.42) entering family medicine residency. We also found no significant effects of SRFCs on the number of students entering family medicine in different contexts, including public/private institutions (P=.47), geographic areas (P=.26), departmental administrative structures (P=.69), and institutions with higher historical rates of producing graduates entering family medicine (P=.22).
conclusionsThough SRFCs may potentially support other aspects of undergraduate medical training, they should not be used as a singular strategy for addressing shortages in the primary care workforce in the United States. Further educational research should examine multipronged strategies to increase the supply of early-career primary care physicians in the United States.
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.