Rural generalist medicine: a developing approach to health care in rural and island Japan.

INTRODUCTION: Despite universal health coverage and high life expectancy, Japan faces challenges in health care that include providing care for the world's oldest population, increasing healthcare costs, physician maldistribution and an entrenched medical workforce and training system. Primary health care has typically been practised by specialists in other fields, and general medicine has only been certified as an accredited specialty since 2018. There are continued challenges to develop an awareness and acceptance of the primary health medical workforce in Japan. The impact of these challenges is highest in rural and island areas of Japan, with nearly 50% of rural and remote populations considered 'elderly'. Concurrently, these areas are experiencing physician shortages as medical graduates gravitate to urban areas and choose medical specialties more commonly practised in cities. This study aimed to understand the views on the role of rural generalist medicine (RGM) in contributing to solutions for rural and island health care in Japan. METHODS: This was a descriptive qualitative study. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews with 16 participants, including Rural Generalist Program Japan (RGPJ) registrars and supervisors, the RGPJ director, government officials, rural health experts and academics. Interviews were of 35-50 minutes duration and conducted between May and July 2019. Some interviews were conducted in person at the WONCA Asia-Pacific Conference in Kyoto, some onsite in hospital settings and some were videoconferenced. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. All transcripts were analysed through an inductive thematic process based on the grouping of codes. RESULTS: From the interview analysis, six main themes were identified: (1) key issues facing rural and island health in Japan; (2) participant background; (3) local demography and population; (4) identity, perception and role of RGM; (5) RGPJ experience; and (6) suggested reforms and recommendations. DISCUSSION: The RGPJ was generally considered to be a positive step toward reshaping the medical workforce to address the geographic inequities in Japan. While improvements to the program were suggested by participants, it was also generally agreed that a more systematic, national approach to RGM was needed in Japan. Key findings from this study are relevant to this goal. This includes considering the drivers to participating in the RGPJ for future recruitment strategies and the need for an idiosyncratic Japanese model of RGM, with agreed advanced skills and supervision models. Also important are the issues raised by participants on the need to improve community acceptance and branding of rural generalist doctors to support primary care in rural and island areas. CONCLUSION: The RGPJ represents an effort to bolster the national rural medical workforce in Japan. Discussions from participants in this study indicate strong support to continue research, exploration and expansion of a national RGM model that is contextualised for Japanese conditions and that is branded and promoted to build community support for the role of the rural generalist.

Evaluation of postgraduate rural medical training programs and implications for rural workforce development: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Providing postgraduate rural training programs has been recognised as central for successful recruitment and retention of medical workforce. While there have been many documented cases of rural training program development, documented program outcome evaluations are few. This review investigated how postgraduate training and educational programs for rural and remote medicine are evaluated worldwide. Through the use of a systematic review, the study explored three questions: 'What are the outcomes of postgraduate rural and remote training programs worldwide?', 'How are the program evaluations conducted?' and 'What evaluation models and approaches are used in evaluating the effectiveness of these training programs?' METHODS: A qualitative synthesis was undertaken of evaluations of postgraduate rural training programs published in the English language in medical education journals. The study involved pooling quantitative and mixed-methods research data and findings from qualitative studies, which were aggregated, integrated and interpreted. PubMed, PsycINFO, ERIC and Web of Science databases were searched to identify studies that satisfy the search criteria. RESULTS: Of the 1297 articles identified through the database search, 26 studies were included in the analysis. Most of the evidence from the studies consists of descriptive studies with some longitudinal tracking programs and cohort studies. Nine themes were identified: practice location after training completion; training location and decentralised model; educational aspects; incentives, political contexts and regulations; personal, social and cultural issues; professional development; rural orientation and community engagement; support system; and gender and racial issues. Key outcomes were analysed and cross-validated against the 2020 WHO guideline on health workforce development, attraction, recruitment and retention in rural and remote areas. These studies' most frequent evaluation methods were surveys, followed by interviews, questionnaires and secondary data from existing databases. Methodological characteristics, the relationship between rural background and program outcomes, and implications for decentralised training, telehealth and tele-assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic are discussed. Analysis from the key outcomes suggests evaluation as a strategy to uncover outcomes in postgraduate rural and remote training and medical education. CONCLUSION: Regardless of the similar outcomes, the program evaluations implemented and the robustness of evidence vary across programs and medical schools. The absence of solid evaluation designs and their alignment to the program objectives will lessen the strengths of evidence. Better quality research and evaluation design, objective settings, qualitative inquiry to uncover the contexts, and developing appropriate indicators and benchmarks for monitoring and evaluating strategies must be considered during program development and implementation.

Development of the Rural Generalist Program Japan: meeting the needs of Japanese rural communities.

CONTEXT: There is a worldwide shortage of physicians, which is worse in rural areas, with a large underserved rural and remote population. Most jurisdictions in countries of all income levels report shortages of rural doctors, often exacerbated where primary care is not strong. Japan is not an exception: Japanese specialist-driven approaches in medical education and public health have resulted in disproportionate distribution of medical services in the country. ISSUE: Rural generalism, or rural generalist medicine, is emerging in many jurisdictions as one approach to training and provision of care for rural communities. While there is considerable variation in titles, the format of the training and models of care, the emphasis is on training a generalist doctor capable of meeting community needs. This usually includes development of appropriate skills in primary care, inpatient care, emergency medicine, public health and one or more extended skills. These models are well established in Australia, particularly in Queensland, which has offered a rural generalist program for over a decade. The Rural Generalist Program Japan (RGPJ) has been developed to meet the needs of Japanese rural communities. LESSONS LEARNED: This article outlines development of the RGPJ using the World Federation for Medical Education standards. While early evaluations are positive, there is much more to do to develop a mature program capable of meeting the needs of Japan's rural and remote communities.