BackgroundNon-malignant chronic pain (NMCP) is one of the most common reasons for primary care visits. Pain management health care disparities have been documented in relation to patient gender, race, and socioeconomic status. Although not studied in relation to chronic pain management, studies have found that living in a rural community in the US is associated with health care disparities. Rurality as a social determinant of health may influence opioid prescribing. We examined rural and non-rural differences in opioid prescribing patterns for NMCP management, hypothesizing that distinct from education, income, racial or gender differences, rural residency is a significant and independent factor in opioid prescribing patterns.Methods2010 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) data were examined using bivariate and multivariate techniques. NAMCS data were collected using a multi-stage sampling strategy. For the multivariate analysis performed the SPSS complex samples algorithm for logistic regression was used.ResultsIn 2010 an estimated 9,325,603 US adults (weighted from a sample of 2745) seen in primary care clinics had a diagnosis of NMCP; 36.4% were prescribed an opioid. For US adults with a NMCP diagnosis bivariate analysis revealed rural residents had higher odds of having an opioid prescription than similar non-rural adults (OR = 1.515, 95% CI 1.513-1.518). Complex samples logistic regression analysis confirmed the importance of rurality and yielded that US adults with NMCP who were prescribed an opioid had higher odds of: being non-Caucasian (AOR =2.459, 95% CI 1.194-5.066), and living in a rural area (AOR =2.935, 95% CI 1.416-6.083).ConclusionsOur results clearly indicated that rurality is an important factor in opioid prescribing patterns that cannot be ignored and bears further investigation. Further research on the growing concern about the over-prescribing of opioids in the US should now include rurality as a variable in data generation and analysis. Future research should also attempt to document the ecological, sociological and political factors impacting opioid prescribing and care in rural communities. Prescribers and health care policy makers need to critically evaluate the implications of our findings and their relationship to patient needs, best practices in a rural setting, and the overall consequences of increased opioid prescribing on rural communities.

Background and Objectives: Medical schools are increasingly challenged to recruit and retain community-based preceptors. Physicians experience various incentives and deterrents to teaching medical students while providing patient care. Self-determination theory (SDT) posits people act in response to internal and external motivations and suggests autonomy, competence, and relatedness are basic psychological needs for well-being and integrity. The applicability of SDT to explain why physicians become or remain a preceptor is uncertain. This study explores physicians’ motivations for precepting medical students within the framework of SDT. Methods: Focus groups were conducted at seven institutions chosen to represent national diversity using a semistructured interview guide based on SDT. Community-based family physicians discussed benefits and barriers to precepting. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using open codes. Thematic analysis was performed utilizing the conceptual framework of SDT emphasizing the domains of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Results: Feeling competent about their medical practice and teaching skills, reporting connectedness to the institution and students, and having autonomy over their teaching increased preceptor motivation to teach. Concerns about clinical workload demands, negative teaching experiences, and institutional bureaucracy decreased motivation. Conclusions: Preceptors choose to become and remain preceptors based on a combination of intrinsic motivating factors and effective external motivators. SDT appears to be a useful framework for assessing and responding to the needs of community-based family medicine preceptors and may be a useful guide for medical educators and policy makers seeking to identify and implement effective strategies to recruit and retain community preceptors to work with medical students.

Background and Objectives: Fewer than 10% of US medical school graduates enter family medicine residencies each year. Little is known about the perceptions and attitudes of senior medical students as they make final decisions about specialty choice, especially those that support a decision to pursue family medicine. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) administered a national survey to US seniors in 2015 to explore these factors. Methods: US seniors who were AAFP members (N=11,998) were invited to complete a survey exploring attitudes toward family medicine and experiences that influenced interest and choice of family medicine (FM) or other specialties. This was offered after students submitted their National Residency Matching Program rank list but before match. For those matching in family medicine, additional questions explored mentorship experience. Factors significantly predicting intent to match in family medicine, mentor attributes significantly influencing student attitudes, and family medicine interest group (FMIG) participation were identified via regression. Results: The survey response rate was 15.1%. Student perceptions of the respect of FM (OR=0.82), the future of FM (OR=2.04), and FMIG involvement (OR=1.75) predicted choosing FM, as did AAFP student membership (OR=2.13-2.44) and AAFP National Conference of Family Medicine Residents and Students attendance (OR=9.77). For students entering FM, having supportive mentors outside of FM and being dedicated to FM positively influenced their attitudes toward FM and their FMIG participation. Conclusion: National programs, FMIGs, mentorship, and medical school support of family medicine play a role in student selection of family medicine.

No abstract

Curriculum models and training activities in medical education have been markedly enhanced to prepare physicians to address the health needs of diverse populations and to advance health equity. While different teaching and experiential learning activities in the public health and population health sciences have been implemented, there is no existing framework to measure the effectiveness of public and population health (PPH) education in medical education programs. In 2015, the Association of American Medical Colleges established the Expert Panel on Public and Population Health in Medical Education, which convened 20 U.S. medical faculty members whose goal was to develop an evaluation framework adapted from the New World Kirkpatrick Model. Institutional leaders can use this framework to assess the effectiveness of PPH curricula for learners, faculty, and community partners. It may also assist institutions with identifying opportunities to improve the integration of PPH content into medical education programs. In this article, the authors present outcomes metrics and practical curricular or institutional illustrations at each Kirkpatrick training evaluation level to assist institutions with the measurement of (1) reaction to the PPH education content, (2) learning accomplished, (3) application of knowledge and skills to practice, and (4) outcomes achieved as a result of PPH education and practice. A fifth level was added to measure the benefit of PPH curricula on the health system and population health. The framework may assist with developing a locally relevant evaluation to further integrate and support PPH education at U.S. medical schools and teaching hospitals.