Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41531852›Full record

ArticlePRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)2025

Outcomes of Student Evaluations of Rural and Nonrural Medical Student Preceptors.

Elle Larson, Lars Ponsness, John McCarthy, Toby Keys

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Elle LarsonUniversity of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA.
Lars PonsnessUniversity of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA.
John McCarthyDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA.
Toby KeysDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The University of Washington School of Medicine (UWSOM) and other medical schools utilize a distributed medical education (DME) model to train medical students in real-world community settings. An inherent challenge in this model is maintaining high-quality teaching across large geographic areas and clinical settings. This study compares student perceptions of rural and nonrural preceptor teaching in the UWSOM-required clerkships. Methods: Our study analyzed 41,684 medical student evaluations of preceptors from six required clerkships and over 4 clerkship school years. Using the Rural-Urban Commuting Area definitions, we categorized individual evaluations as either "rural" or "nonrural". We used Welch's unpaired Results: The evaluation data showed high ratings of preceptor teaching across all nine teaching evaluation categories for both rural and nonrural preceptors, with mean scores of 5.5 or higher on a 6-point Likert scale. Rural preceptors slightly outperformed their nonrural counterparts in seven out of nine teaching categories, including three categories reaching statistical significance. Conclusions: Results suggest that Liaison Committee on Medical Education standards for comparable educational experiences are being met across distributed sites. We recommend a thematic analysis of student evaluation comments to contextualize the findings reported in our study.

Identifiers

PMID41531852
PMCPMC12795576

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.