A Mixed-Methods Study of Teaching Health Center Residents' Experiences of Mentorship, Career Planning, and Postresidency Practice Environments.

PURPOSE: The Teaching Health Center (THC) Graduate Medical Education program enables primary care physicians to train in community-based, underserved settings by shifting the payment structure and training environment for graduate medical education. To understand how THCs have successfully trained primary care physicians who practice in community-based settings, the authors conducted a mixed-methods exploratory study to examine THC residency graduates' experiences of mentorship and career planning during their residencies, perceptions of preparation for postresidency practice, and how these experiences were related to postresidency practice environments. METHOD: Surveys were conducted for all 804 graduating THC residents nationally, 2014-2017 (533 respondents, 66% response rate). Three quantitative outcomes were measured: graduates' perceptions of preparation for practice after residency (Likert scale), satisfaction with mentorship and career planning (Likert scale), and characteristics of postresidency practice environment (open-ended). A qualitative analysis of open-text survey answers, using thematic content analysis, was also conducted. RESULTS: Most THC graduates (68%) were satisfied with their mentorship and career planning experience and generally felt prepared for postresidency practice in multiple settings (78%-93%). Of the 533 THC graduates who provided information about their practice environment, 445 (84%) were practicing in primary care; nationally, 64% of physicians who completed primary care residencies practiced in primary care. Of the 445 THC graduates practicing in primary care, 12% practiced in rural areas, compared with 7% of all physicians. Just over half of THC graduates (51%) practiced in medically underserved areas, compared with 39% of all physicians. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers early evidence that the THC model produces and retains primary care physicians who are well prepared to practice in underserved areas. Given these promising findings, there appears to be a substantial benefit to growing the THC program. However, the program continues to face uncertainty around ongoing, stable funding.

Primary Care Residents in Teaching Health Centers: Their Intentions to Practice in Underserved Settings After Residency Training.

PURPOSE: To describe the residents who chose to train in teaching health centers (THCs), which are community-based ambulatory patient care sites that sponsor primary care residencies, and their intentions to practice in underserved settings. METHOD: The authors surveyed all THC residents training in academic years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016, comparing their demographic characteristics with data for residents nationally, and examined THC residents' intentions to practice in underserved settings using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 89% (1,031/1,153). THC resident respondents were similar to residents nationally in family medicine, geriatrics, internal medicine, obstetrics-gynecology, pediatrics, and psychiatry in terms of gender, age, race, and ethnicity. Twenty-nine percent (283) of respondents came from a rural background, and 46% (454) had an educationally and/or economically disadvantaged background. More than half (524; 55%) intended to practice in an underserved setting on completion of their training. Respondents were more likely to intend to practice in an underserved area if they came from a rural background (odds ratio 1.58; 95% confidence interval 1.08, 2.32) or disadvantaged background (odds ratio 2.81; 95% confidence interval 1.91, 4.13). CONCLUSIONS: THCs attract residents from rural and/or disadvantaged backgrounds who seem to be more inclined to practice in underserved areas than those from urban and economically advantaged roots. THC residents' intentions to practice in underserved areas indicate that primary care training programs sponsored by community-based ambulatory patient care sites represent a promising strategy to improve the U.S. health care workforce distribution.

A comparison of alternative methods for measuring cigarette prices.

BACKGROUND: Government agencies, public health organisations and tobacco control researchers rely on accurate estimates of cigarette prices for a variety of purposes. Since the 1950s, the Tax Burden on Tobacco (TBOT) has served as the most widely used source of this price data despite its limitations. PURPOSE: This paper compares the prices and collection methods of the TBOT retail-based data and the 2003 and 2006/2007 waves of the population-based Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey (TUS-CPS). METHODS: From the TUS-CPS, we constructed multiple state-level measures of cigarette prices, including weighted average prices per pack (based on average prices for single-pack purchases and average prices for carton purchases) and compared these with the weighted average price data reported in the TBOT. We also constructed several measures of tax avoidance from the TUS-CPS self-reported data. RESULTS: For the 2003 wave, the average TUS-CPS price was 71 cents per pack less than the average TBOT price; for the 2006/2007 wave, the difference was 47 cents. TUS-CPS and TBOT prices were also significantly different at the state level. However, these differences varied widely by state due to tax avoidance opportunities, such as cross-border purchasing. CONCLUSIONS: The TUS-CPS can be used to construct valid measures of cigarette prices. Unlike the TBOT, the TUS-CPS captures the effect of price-reducing marketing strategies, as well as tax avoidance practices and non-traditional types of purchasing. Thus, self-reported data like TUS-CPS appear to have advantages over TBOT in estimating the 'real' price that smokers face.