Factors in recruiting and retaining health professionals for rural practice.

CONTEXT: Rural communities, often with complex health care issues, have difficulty creating and sustaining an adequate health professional workforce. PURPOSE: To identify factors associated with rural recruitment and retention of graduates from a variety of health professional programs in the southwestern United States. METHODS: A survey collecting longitudinal data was mailed to graduates from 12 health professional programs in New Mexico. First rural and any rural employment since graduation were outcomes for univariate analyses. Multivariate analysis that controlled for extraneous variables explored factors important to those who took a first rural position, stayed rural, or changed practice locations. FINDINGS: Of 1,396 surveys delivered, response rate was 59%. Size of childhood town, rural practicum completion, discipline, and age at graduation were associated with rural practice choice (P < .05). Those who first practiced in rural versus urban areas were more likely to view the following factors as important to their practice decision: community need, financial aid, community size, return to hometown, and rural training program participation (P < .05). Those remaining rural versus moving away were more likely to consider community size and return to hometown as important (P < .05). Having enough work available, income potential, professional opportunity, and serving community health needs were important to all groups. CONCLUSION: Rural background and preference for smaller sized communities are associated with both recruitment and retention. Loan forgiveness and rural training programs appear to support recruitment. Retention efforts must focus on financial incentives, professional opportunity, and desirability of rural locations.

Interdisciplinary health education and career choice in rural and underserved areas.

PURPOSE: To assess the association between an educational rural health interdisciplinary programme (RHIP) and subsequent practice in US rural and underserved locations. METHODS: We carried out a longitudinal cohort study of RHIP students and randomly selected classmate controls for the years 1990-2001, using a mailed survey. OUTCOMES: Main outcome measures were first rural, any rural, first underserved and any underserved practice locations. Multivariate statistical methods were used to calculate prevalence ratios (PRs) by discipline while controlling for possible extraneous variables. RESULTS: Of 1396 surveys delivered, 820 were returned, giving a response rate of 59%. After exclusions, results from 255 RHIP and 534 control students were analysed for outcomes. Pharmacy students on the RHIP chose first and any rural practice locations more often than reference controls (PRs = 2.59 and 1.97, respectively; P < 0.05). Therapies (occupational, physical and speech therapy) RHIP students were associated with all 4 practice outcomes more often (PRs = 2.07, 1.85, 1.68 and 1.65, respectively; P < 0.05). Pharmacy and Therapies control students with rural training chose first rural and any rural practices more often (PRs = 2.58 and 1.62, respectively; P < 0.05 for both). Medicine and Nursing students did not choose outcome practice locations more often, but had small sample sizes and large numbers of controls with rural training. Rural health interdisciplinary students rated participation in rural training more highly as a factor in choosing first rural practices than did the controls who chose similar practices. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in RHIP and other rural training experiences may stimulate subsequent career choices in rural and underserved locations for Pharmacy and Therapies students. Other studies are needed to confirm these findings and answer questions raised by these data.