Medical education for African American communities in the rural South: A focus group approach to identify fundamental considerations.

PURPOSE: We sought to understand concerns fundamental to planning medical education specific to rural southern African Americans who are virtually nonexistent in American medical schools. METHODS: A diverse multidisciplinary research team conducted this qualitative study with 3 focus groups, including 17 rural medical educators recruited nationwide, 10 African American alumni of a rural medical education pipeline in Alabama, and 5 community and institutional associates of this pipeline. Analysis of recorded transcripts generated themes fitting an ecological model suggesting concerns and intervention foci at individual, community, and institutional levels. FINDINGS: Three major themes operating at all ecological levels were: (1) How "rural minority student" is defined, with "rural" often supplanting race to indicate minority status; (2) Multiple factors relate to rural racial minority student recruitment and success, including personal relationships with peers, mentors, and role models and supportive institutional policies and culturally competent faculty; and (3) Challenges to recruitment and retention of rural minority students, especially financial concerns and preparation for medical education. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that individuals, communities, and institutions provide intervention points for planning medical education specific to southern rural African Americans. These spheres of influence project a need for partnership among communities and rural medical educators to affect broad programmatic and policy changes that address the dire shortage of rural African American health professionals to help ameliorate health inequities experienced in their home communities. It is likely that linear thinking and programming will be replaced by integrated, intertwined conceptualizations to reach this goal.

Educating Physicians for Rural America: Validating Successes and Identifying Remaining Challenges With the Rural Medical Scholars Program.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the Rural Medical Scholars (RMS) Program's effectiveness to produce rural physicians for Alabama. METHODS: A nonrandomized intervention study compared RMS (1997-2002) with control groups in usual medical education (1991-2002) at the University of Alabama School of Medicine's main and regional campuses. Participants were RMS and others admitted to regular medical education, and the intervention was the RMS Program. Measures assessed the percentage of graduates practicing in rural areas. Odds ratios compared effectiveness of producing rural Alabama physicians. FINDINGS: The RMS Program (N = 54), regional campuses (N = 182), and main campus (N = 649) produced 48.1% (odds ratio 6.4, P < .001), 23.8% (odds ratio 2.5, P < .001), and 11.2% (odds ratio 1.0) rural physicians, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The RMS Program, contrasted to other local programs of medical education, was effective in producing rural physicians. These results were comparable to benchmark programs in the Northeast and Midwest USA on which the RMS Program was modeled, justifying the assumption that model programs can be replicated in different regions. However, this positive effect was not shared by a disparate rural minority population, suggesting that models for rural medical education must be adjusted to meet the challenge of such communities for physicians.

The rural medical scholars program study: data to inform rural health policy.

INTRODUCTION: medical education to produce rural physicians hinges on the characteristics of students, educational programs, and rural experiences. Family physicians are key components of rural medicine. This study tested the effectiveness of multiple, combined strategies of the Rural Medical Scholars Program to produce family medicine residents. METHODS: we compared the relative effectiveness of the Rural Medical Scholars Program, family medicine-oriented branch campuses, and a traditional urban campus to produce family medicine residents using a prospective quasi-experimental design. Logistic regression was used to account for covariates. RESULTS: the relative effectiveness of 3 educational modalities to produce family medicine residents was examined: Rural Medical Scholars Program (44.0%; odds ratio [OR], 15.6), family medicine-oriented branch campuses (18.9%; OR, 5.8), and a traditional urban campus (3.9%; OR, 1). These differences were significant (P < .05) after controlling for sex, race, Medical College Admission Test scores, and graduation rate. CONCLUSIONS: the findings are consistent with the literature, which recommends multiple strategy interventions to produce rural physicians (e.g., admit rural students who have an interest in family medicine, use family medicine faculty, and provide rural experiences). Further study will determine whether rural practice follows training in family medicine among Rural Medical Scholars.

Rural health leaders pipeline, 1990-2005: case study of a second-generation rural medical education program.

A pipeline model has been suggested to increase the rural physician supply. This study is an institutional case report used to describe the context, development, and in-house evaluation of the University of Alabama Rural Health Leaders Pipeline, 1990-2005. This program was developed at a University of Alabama School of Medicine branch campus to target rural students at multiple levels, elementary schools through residency, and includes a minority focus. Requirements to enter the medical program include living 8 years in rural Alabama, meeting admission requirements, and affinity for rural lifestyles. Twenty-six percent of 316 high school participants, all 40 students in the minority-focused college program, and 3% of 90 medical program students were African American. The program includes (1) puppet shows in elementary schools depicting different health professions, (2) Rural Health Scholars Program for 11th-grade students, (3) Minority Rural Health Pipeline Program for college students, (4) Rural Medical Scholars Program, a 5-year track of study in rural community health and medicine, and (5) assured admission to family medicine residency. Outcomes studied in this case report included medical school performance, graduation rate, selection of family medicine specialty, and rural practice location. Medical scholars were anticipated to experience academic difficulty, select family medicine specialty, and locate in rural practice more often than peers. Compared to peers, medical scholars showed lower scores on preclinical courses and USMLE steps 1 and 2, reflective of their lower MCAT and GPA scores, but had (1) similar graduation rates (95% vs peers 84%), (2) higher family medicine selection rate (47% vs Huntsville 27% vs Tuscaloosa 12% vs Birmingham 4% [OR compared to Birmingham 22.7, 95% CI 10.5-49.4]), and (3) higher rural practice rate (67% vs peers 14% vs national group 9%) in the first RMSP classes. Based on these important outcomes being better than or equal to the traditional student cohorts, the institution concluded that the Rural Health Leaders Pipeline demonstrates successful use of the rural pipeline model.

Premedical education: the contribution of small local colleges.

CONTEXT: Small local colleges may be sources of medical students with the gender, ethnicity, and background that promote identity with and empathy for underserved populations. PURPOSE: This study examined the impact of attendance at these premedical colleges on outcomes of medical education. METHODS: Data for 2508 matriculates to the University of Alabama School of Medicine, a state-supported medical school, were examined according to premedical colleges attended. FINDINGS: Medical students who had graduated from small local colleges were more diverse in gender, race, and rural background than other students. They had slightly lower academic performance in medical school, were more likely to drop out (10.6% versus 5.3% overall), and were more likely to locate in rural areas of the host state. CONCLUSIONS: Small local colleges may be rich sources of student diversity and medical students who choose rural practice, outcomes that are gained at a cost in terms of drop-out rate. Compared with other students, minor differences in performance and larger differences in the drop-out rate raise the question of cultural context and social support during medical school as points for intervention.