Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 787–792 | Cite as

Primary Care Careers Among Recent Graduates of Research-Intensive Private and Public Medical Schools

Original Research

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

Despite a growing need for primary care physicians in the United States, the proportion of medical school graduates pursuing primary care careers has declined over the past decade.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association of medical school research funding with graduates matching in family medicine residencies and practicing primary care.

DESIGN

Observational study of United States medical schools.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred twenty-one allopathic medical schools.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcomes included the proportion of each school’s graduates from 1999 to 2001 who were primary care physicians in 2008, and the proportion of each school’s graduates who entered family medicine residencies during 2007 through 2009. The 25 medical schools with the highest levels of research funding from the National Institutes of Health in 2010 were designated as “research-intensive.”

KEY RESULTS

Among research-intensive medical schools, the 16 private medical schools produced significantly fewer practicing primary care physicians (median 24.1 % vs. 33.4 %, p < 0.001) and fewer recent graduates matching in family medicine residencies (median 2.4 % vs. 6.2 %, p < 0.001) than the other 30 private schools. In contrast, the nine research-intensive public medical schools produced comparable proportions of graduates pursuing primary care careers (median 36.1 % vs. 36.3 %, p = 0.87) and matching in family medicine residencies (median 7.4 % vs. 10.0 %, p = 0.37) relative to the other 66 public medical schools.

CONCLUSIONS

To meet the health care needs of the US population, research-intensive private medical schools should play a more active role in promoting primary care careers for their students and graduates.

KEY WORDS

primary care medical education research funding 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Contributors

The authors are grateful to Lin Ding, PhD for assistance with statistical analyses, and to Debby Collins for assistance with manuscript preparation.

Funders

No grants or other internal or external financial support were received for the work presented in this manuscript.

Prior presentations

The content of this manuscript has not been presented at any conferences.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11606_2012_2286_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (54 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 54 kb)

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Garibaldi RA, Popkave C, Bylsma W. Career plans for trainees in internal medicine residency programs. Acad Med. 2005;80:507–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hauer KE, Durning SJ, Kernan WN, et al. Factors associated with medical students' career choices regarding internal medicine. JAMA. 2008;300:1154–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McGaha AL, Schmittling GT, DeVilbiss BAD, Crosley PW, Pugno PA. Entry of US medical school graduates into family medicine residencies: 2009–2010 and 3-year summary. Fam Med. 2010;42:540–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Patel MS, Katz JT, Volpp KG. Match rates Into higher-income, controllable lifestyle specialties for students from highly ranked, research-based medical schools compared with other applicants. J Grad Med Educ. 2010;2:360–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools: Aggregate Data 2010. National Institutes of Health, 2010. Available at: http://report.nih.gov/. Accessed August 19, 2011.
  6. 6.
    Mullan F, Chen C, Petterson S, Kolsky G, Spagnola M. The social mission of medical education: ranking the schools. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:804–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Residency Matching Program. Program Results 2008-2012 Main Residency Match. 2012. Available at: http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddatasms2012.pdf. Accessed November 9, 2012.
  8. 8.
    Bennett KL, Phillips JP. Finding, recruiting, and sustaining the future primary care physician workforce: a new theoretical bodel of specialty choice process. Acad Med. 2010;85:S81–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Senf JH, Campos-Outcalt D, Kutob R. Factors related to the choice of family medicine: a reassessment and literature review. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2003;16:502–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Compton MT, Frank E, Elon L, Carrera J. Changes in US medical students’ specialty interests over the course of medical school. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:1095–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bodenheimer T. Primary care — will It survive? New Engl J Med. 2006;355:861–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Phillips RL, Dodoo JS, Petterson S, et al. Specialty and geographic distribution of the physician workforce--What influences medical student and resident choices? Washington, DC: The Robert Graham Center; 2009. Available at: http://www.graham-center.org/online/etc/medialib/graham/documents/publications/mongraphs-books/2009/rgcmo-specialty-geographic.Par.0001.File.tmp/Specialty-geography-compressed.pdf. Accessed November 9, 2012.
  13. 13.
    Goodson JD. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: promise and peril for primary care. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:742–4.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kocher R, Emanuel EJ, DeParle N-AM. The Affordable Care Act and the future of clinical medicine: the opportunities and challenges. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153:536–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Norris TE, Coombs JB, House P, Moore S, Wenrich MD, Ramsey PG. Regional solutions to the physician workforce shortage: the WWAMI experience. Acad Med. 2006;81:857–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schwarz MR. The WAMI Program: 25 years later. Med Teach. 2004;26:211–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    WWAMI Program. 2012. Available at: http://www.uwmedicine.org/education/wwami/pages/default.aspx. Accessed November 9, 2012.
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Targeted Rural and Underserved Track (TRUST). 2012. Available at: http://depts.washington.edu/fammed/education/programs/trust. Accessed November 9, 2012
  20. 20.
    Rural/Underserved Opportunities Program (R/UOP. 2012. Available at http://depts.washington.edu/fammed/education/programs/trust. Accessed November 9, 2012
  21. 21.
    Loan Repayment Assistance Program (LRAP). 2012. Available at: http://hms.harvard.edu/content/loan-repayment-assistance-program-lrap. Accessed November 9, 2012.
  22. 22.
    A new Center for Primary Care. 2010. Available at: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/10/hms-launches-center-for-primary-care/. Accessed November 9, 2012.
  23. 23.
    Baldwin LM, Adamache W, Klabunde CN, Kenward K, Dahlman CL, Warren J. Linking physician characteristics and Medicare claims data: issues in data availability, quality, and measurement. Med Care. 2002;40:IV-82–95.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shea JA, Kletke PR, Wozniak GD, Polsky D, Escarce JJ. Self-reported physician specialties and the primary care content of medical practice: a study of the AMA physician masterfile. American Medical Association. Med Care. 1999;37:333–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Phillip A. Choi
    • 1
  • Shuai Xu
    • 2
  • John Z. Ayanian
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.University of Pittsburgh School of MedicinePittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Health Care PolicyHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  4. 4.Division of General Medicine and Primary CareBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  5. 5.Institute for Healthcare Policy and InnovationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations