ReviewBMC primary care2025
To stay or leave: an integrative review of factors, personas, and recommendations for retaining family physicians in Canada.
Review in BMC primary care, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFamily physicians are the cornerstone of primary health care in Canada. Yet, retention remains a growing concern. Challenges in retaining family physicians poses serious implications for healthcare accessibility, continuity, and equity across all practice contexts in Canada, including (but not limited to) rural, remote, urban, and underserved communities. Currently, 25% of Canadians do not have a primary care provider. While much attention has been given to recruitment, less is known about the multifaceted and intersecting factors that influence whether practicing family physicians and family medicine trainees (including Canadian Medical Graduates (CMGs) and International Medical Graduates (IMGs)), remain in sustained comprehensive practice in Canada. This review synthesizes the literature to identify key drivers of family physician retention and offers evidence-based recommendations.
methodsWe conducted an integrative review of peer-reviewed literature published between January 1, 2000, and March 30, 2025, following Whittemore and Knafl’s five-stage methodology. A systematic search was carried out across five electronic databases. Included studies were assessed for quality and thematically analyzed using a five-domain coding framework: personal, family, community, professional, and structural/systemic. Composite personas were developed to illustrate recurring physician retention trajectories and evidence-based recommendations were thematized across our five-domain coding framework.
resultsOf the 1,613 records screened, 23 studies met inclusion criteria. Factors influencing retention were identified across all five domains. Structural and professional barriers, including licensure restrictions, administrative burden, and limited autonomy, emerged as the most consistent deterrents. Facilitators included strong community ties, spousal support, team-based practice environments, and access to continuing professional development. We identified and developed seven physician personas to create a portrait of the diverse experiences of family physicians in Canada. Key recommendations included reforming licensure and payment models, enhancing mentorship and CME access, supporting spousal integration, and fostering culturally safe, community-rooted team-based practice models.
conclusionRetaining family physicians in Canada is a relational challenge that requires collaborative, multi-level change. Tailored, context-specific retention strategies co-designed with physicians and communities can enhance sustainability and health equity especially in rural, remote and underserved communities.
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.