ArticleMedical education2026
Widening access to medical school in Australia: A realist evaluation.
Article in Medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWhile medical school selection research has largely focused on the validity of tools and processes, less attention has been paid to the quality and impact of widening access (WA) pathways. Existing studies are often limited in scope, focusing on single institutions or interventions. This study aimed to develop transferable insights into WA selection practices through a realist evaluation across four Australian medical schools.
methodsBuilding on a prior realist review, we employed the RAMESES II protocol to explore how contextual factors and mechanisms interact to influence WA outcomes through four case studies. Data collection included institutional document and website reviews, semistructured interviews and focus groups (41 staff and 17 students). The evaluation framework examined context (diversity within sociocultural settings), interventions (targeted pathways and adjusted selection scores), mechanisms (institutional, dispositional and situational) and outcomes (applicant diversity, selection success). Retroductive context-intervention-mechanism-outcome (CIMO) analysis clarified WA programme theory.
resultsTwo key interventions were successful across all sites: (1) targeted pathways with selection score adjustments for under-represented groups (e.g., Indigenous, rural and low socio-economic backgrounds) and (2) sustained partnerships with these communities to raise awareness of medicine as a viable career. These partnerships aimed to enhance applicants' dispositions and readiness for selection. However, structural changes within institutions posed significant risks to the sustainability of WA. The resulting programme theory identified five mechanisms underpinning effective WA: visionary leadership, Indigenous cultural safety, longitudinal relational engagement, tailored applicant support and preparation for selection processes. DISCUSSION: This realist evaluation highlights how institutional commitment, shaped by federal policy and accreditation standards, has driven demographic shifts, particularly in rural and Indigenous representation, over a 10- to12-year period; however, the scope of WA remains narrow. We argue for a national, coordinated approach to WA in medical education, underpinned by long-term investment, robust evaluation and a broader conceptualisation of equity in access. WA must be embedded as a core institutional commitment rather than a peripheral initiative.
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.