Skip to main content

Table 5 Trends in preferences amongst those accepting internships for computer-matched interns, by calendar year 2013–16

From: Exploring preference for, and uptake of, rural medical internships, a key issue for supporting rural training pathways

Application year 2013 2014 2015 2016 Overall
Matched metropolitan interns
 Metropolitan locations filled by matching process % (n) (n = 565) (n = 583) (n = 590) (n = 593) (n = 2331)
  Match 1st preference 52.4% (296) 55.2% (322) 50.7% (299) 51.6% (306) 52.5% (1223)
  Match: 2nd-3rd preference 31.3% (177) 23.8% (139) 26.4% (156) 25.0% (148) 26.6% (620)
  Match: 4th – 5th preference 11.9% (67) 13.7% (80) 14.9% (88) 16.5% (98) 14.3% (333)
  Match: outside top five preferences 4.4% (25) 7.2% (42) 8.0% (47) 6.9% (41) 6.7% (155)
Matched regional/rural interns
 Regional/rural filled by matching % (n) (n = 106) (n = 102) (n = 95) (n = 137) (n = 440)
  Match 1st preference 32.1% (34) 18.6% (19) 48.4% (46) 38.0% (52) 34.3% (151)
  Match: 2nd-3rd preference 13.2% (14) 17.7% (18) 11.6% (11) 11.0% (15) 13.2% (58)
  Match: 4th – 5th preference 18.9% (20) 11.8% (12) 9.5% (9) 6.6% (9) 11.4% (50)
  Match: outside top five preferences 35.9% (38) 52.0% (53) 30.5% (29) 44.5% (61) 41.1% (181)
Matched (and accepted) preferences (n = 671) (n = 685) (n = 685) (n = 730) (n = 2771)
Mean # preferences: Total (SD) 8.0 (±3.2) 9.6 (±3.9) 9.3 (±2.6) 9.9 (±3.7) 9.2 (±3.5)
Mean # preferences: regional/ rural (SD) 1.4 (±2.2) 2.2 (±3.1) 1.7 (±1.8) 2.8 (±3.1) 2.0 (±2.7)
% with no regional/rural locations in preference list 44.4% (298) 30.2% (207) 25.6% (175) 18.8% (137) 29.5% (817)
% with any rural (MMM 2+) in top five 25.2% (169) 16.6% (114) 17.4% (119) 25.1% (183) 21.1% (585)
% with MMM 3–5 in top five 7.6% (51) 8.9% (61) 7.3% (50) 12.5% (91) 9.1% (253)
% matching RCIT position in top five 1.2% (8) 2.3% (16) 2.3% (16) 3.2% (23) 2.3% (63)
  1. SD Standard deviation; MMM Modified Monash Model (rurality scale); RCIT Rural community internship training