PURPOSE: The authors conducted a systematic review of the medical literature to determine the factors most strongly associated with localizing primary care physicians (PCPs) in underserved urban or rural areas of the United States.
METHOD: In November 2015, the authors searched databases (MEDLINE, ERIC, SCOPUS) and Google Scholar to identify published peer-reviewed studies that focused on PCPs and reported practice location outcomes that included U.S. underserved urban or rural areas. Studies focusing on practice intentions, nonphysicians, patient panel composition, or retention/turnover were excluded. They screened 4,130 titles and reviewed 284 full-text articles.
RESULTS: Seventy-two observational or case-control studies met inclusion criteria. These were categorized into four broad themes aligned with prior literature: 19 studies focused on physician characteristics, 13 on financial factors, 20 on medical school curricula/programs, and 20 on graduate medical education (GME) programs. Studies found significant relationships between physician race/ethnicity and language and practice in underserved areas. Multiple studies demonstrated significant associations between financial factors (e.g., debt or incentives) and underserved or rural practice, independent of preexisting trainee characteristics. There was also evidence that medical school and GME programs were effective in training PCPs who locate in underserved areas.
CONCLUSIONS: Both financial incentives and special training programs could be used to support trainees with the personal characteristics associated with practicing in underserved or rural areas. Expanding and replicating medical school curricula and programs proven to produce clinicians who practice in underserved urban or rural areas should be a strategic investment for medical education and future research.
BACKGROUND: There is a workforce crisis in primary care. Previous research has looked at the reasons underlying recruitment and retention problems, but little research has looked at what works to improve recruitment and retention. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate interventions and strategies used to recruit and retain primary care doctors internationally.
METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and grey literature were searched from inception to January 2015. Articles assessing interventions aimed at recruiting or retaining doctors in high income countries, applicable to primary care doctors were included. No restrictions on language or year of publication. The first author screened all titles and abstracts and a second author screened 20 %. Data extraction was carried out by one author and checked by a second. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity.
RESULTS: Fifty-one studies assessing 42 interventions were retrieved. Interventions were categorised into thirteen groups: financial incentives (n = 11), recruiting rural students (n = 6), international recruitment (n = 4), rural or primary care focused undergraduate placements (n = 3), rural or underserved postgraduate training (n = 3), well-being or peer support initiatives (n = 3), marketing (n = 2), mixed interventions (n = 5), support for professional development or research (n = 5), retainer schemes (n = 4), re-entry schemes (n = 1), specialised recruiters or case managers (n = 2) and delayed partnerships (n = 2). Studies were of low methodological quality with no RCTs and only 15 studies with a comparison group. Weak evidence supported the use of postgraduate placements in underserved areas, undergraduate rural placements and recruiting students to medical school from rural areas. There was mixed evidence about financial incentives. A marketing campaign was associated with lower recruitment.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review of interventions to improve recruitment and retention of primary care doctors. Although the evidence base for recruiting and care doctors is weak and more high quality research is needed, this review found evidence to support undergraduate and postgraduate placements in underserved areas, and selective recruitment of medical students. Other initiatives covered may have potential to improve recruitment and retention of primary care practitioners, but their effectiveness has not been established.
The lack of health workers in remote and rural areas is a worldwide concern. Many countries have proposed and implemented interventions to address this issue, but very little is known about the effectiveness of such interventions and their sustainability in the long run. This paper provides an analysis of the effectiveness of interventions to attract and retain health workers in remote and rural areas from an impact evaluation perspective. It reports on a literature review of studies that have conducted evaluations of such interventions. It presents a synthesis of the indicators and methods used to measure the effects of rural retention interventions against several policy dimensions such as: attractiveness of rural or remote areas, deployment/recruitment, retention, and health workforce and health systems performance. It also discusses the quality of the current evidence on evaluation studies and emphasizes the need for more thorough evaluations to support policy-makers in developing, implementing and evaluating effective interventions to increase availability of health workers in underserved areas and ultimately contribute to reaching the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals.
The authors conducted a systematic review of the medical literature to determine the factors most strongly associated with localizing primary care physicians (PCPs) in underserved urban or rural areas of the United States.
METHOD:
In November 2015, the authors searched databases (MEDLINE, ERIC, SCOPUS) and Google Scholar to identify published peer-reviewed studies that focused on PCPs and reported practice location outcomes that included U.S. underserved urban or rural areas. Studies focusing on practice intentions, nonphysicians, patient panel composition, or retention/turnover were excluded. They screened 4,130 titles and reviewed 284 full-text articles.
RESULTS:
Seventy-two observational or case-control studies met inclusion criteria. These were categorized into four broad themes aligned with prior literature: 19 studies focused on physician characteristics, 13 on financial factors, 20 on medical school curricula/programs, and 20 on graduate medical education (GME) programs. Studies found significant relationships between physician race/ethnicity and language and practice in underserved areas. Multiple studies demonstrated significant associations between financial factors (e.g., debt or incentives) and underserved or rural practice, independent of preexisting trainee characteristics. There was also evidence that medical school and GME programs were effective in training PCPs who locate in underserved areas.
CONCLUSIONS:
Both financial incentives and special training programs could be used to support trainees with the personal characteristics associated with practicing in underserved or rural areas. Expanding and replicating medical school curricula and programs proven to produce clinicians who practice in underserved urban or rural areas should be a strategic investment for medical education and future research.
