Rural Clinical Training for Australian Medical Students: A Scoping Review of Rural Workforce Outcomes

Résumé fourni par la source

INTRODUCTION: Following evidence that participation in rural clinical training during medical school is associated with later rural work, there is a growing literature comparing the effectiveness of different approaches to training. OBJECTIVE: To map literature examining the effectiveness of rural clinical training for graduates of Australian medical schools, accounting for differences in training design. DESIGN: A scoping review was conducted using literature searches performed across five academic databases from January 1, 2000 to January 12, 2026, selecting literature reporting on outcomes related to rural practice intent, internship preferencing or acceptance, and practice location at any point following participation in rural training during medical school. FINDINGS: A total of 413 unique records were screened, with 43 satisfying the inclusion criteria. Most studies examined outcomes of practice location spanning postgraduate years 1-17 (n = 33), with a smaller number examining internship preferencing and/or location (n = 10), rural practice intent (n = 6) and choice of rural vocational training (n = 1). Studies examined the effects of training duration, remoteness of placements, timing and use of longitudinal integrated clerkships (LICs) or other pedagogical approaches. DISCUSSION: Existing literature has focused on duration-related effects, consistently identifying that rural training of ≥ 1 year duration is associated with positive rural workforce outcomes in a dose-dependent manner, and established evidence for the effectiveness of rural LICs, particularly when combined with additional rural training. CONCLUSION: There are opportunities to extend from existing literature to establish the effectiveness of core design elements within longer-duration rural training and LICs within more remote contexts, accounting for interaction with contextual variables.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.