Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40329283›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2025

Medical school admission processes to target rural applicants: an international scoping review and mapping of Australian practices.

Jordan Fox, Jessica Beattie, Janelle McGrail, Diann Eley, Lara Fuller, Wendy Hu, Catherine Keniry, Srinivas Kondalsamy Chennakesavan, Lyndal Parker-Newlyn, Katharine Reid and 2 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

12 authors.

Jordan FoxThe University of South Australia, PO Box 4143, Rockhampton, QLD, 4700, Australia. jordan.fox@uq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8367-5297
Jessica BeattieRural General Practice (Program Development and Support), Deakin University, Warrnambool, Vic, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3339-1418
Janelle McGrailThe University of Queensland Rural Clinical School, Rockhampton, QLD, Australia.
Diann EleyThe University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7256-9325
Lara FullerRural Community Clinical School, Deakin University, Geelong, Vic, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1678-0916
Wendy HuWestern Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1711-3808
Catherine KeniryCharles Sturt University School of Rural Medicine, Orange, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-6015-048X
Srinivas Kondalsamy ChennakesavanThe University of Queensland Rural Clinical School, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1333-374X
Lyndal Parker-NewlynUniversity of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6644-3515
Katharine ReidUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Lucie WaltersThe University of Adelaide, Mount Gambier, SA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1322-1895
Matthew McGrailThe University of Queensland Rural Clinical School, Rockhampton, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6901-8845

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecruiting more rural origin applicants to medical school is a high priority for addressing rural workforce shortages, given evidence demonstrating they are more likely to practice rurally. Whether strategies used to select rural applicants for Australian medical schools are evidence-based is yet to be evaluated in depth. The primary aim of this study was to identify admission and selection processes utilised by Australian medical schools to target rural applicants and evaluate whether they are evidence-based against international literature. A secondary aim was to document the volume and type of publicly available information regarding admission and selection processes in Australian medical schools.

methodsThe study comprised two stages: (1) identified and summarised admission elements used in each Australian medical school (all pathways), how they are weighted and used to select applicants, and what strategies are used to specifically target rural origin applicants, as determined by publicly available information; and (2) conducted a scoping review of international literature to document the evidence relating to medical school admissions processes which target rural applicants and how they impact the selection of students.

resultsAustralian medical schools employ a combination of academic performance and standardised tests to rank applicants for interview and admission; however, there was extensive variation in the specific admission elements assessed and how they were weighted and used to rank applicants. All except one medical school tailored entry requirements for rural applicants. Scoping review data revealed that on average, rural applicants achieve lower scores on academic performance metrics, although this difference was less pronounced in graduate entry compared to school leaver pathways. Overall, rural applicants achieved lower scores on standardised tests and results relating to interview performance were inconsistent across studies.

conclusionsIn addressing the lower mean scores from rural applicants across commonly used admission tests, our evidence confirms that modified admission processes for this applicant group are needed and are being implemented across Australian medical programs. Medical schools should continue to implement rurally-targeted admissions strategies such as adjusted entry requirements, quotas, and alternative entry pathways while setting clearly defined selection targets and evaluating the effectiveness of any strategies.

Indexed as

Rural Health ServicesRural PopulationSchool Admission CriteriaSchools, MedicalAustraliaHumansStudents, MedicalAdmission and selectionMedical educationMedical workforceSocial accountabilitySocial missions

Identifiers

PMID40329283
PMCPMC12057111

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.