ArticleThe Australian journal of rural health2026
Rural Clinical Training for Australian Medical Students: A Scoping Review of Rural Workforce Outcomes.
Article in The Australian journal of rural health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionFollowing evidence that participation in rural clinical training during medical school is associated with later rural work, there is a growing literature comparing the effectiveness of different approaches to training.
objectiveTo map literature examining the effectiveness of rural clinical training for graduates of Australian medical schools, accounting for differences in training design.
designA scoping review was conducted using literature searches performed across five academic databases from January 1, 2000 to January 12, 2026, selecting literature reporting on outcomes related to rural practice intent, internship preferencing or acceptance, and practice location at any point following participation in rural training during medical school.
findingsA total of 413 unique records were screened, with 43 satisfying the inclusion criteria. Most studies examined outcomes of practice location spanning postgraduate years 1-17 (n = 33), with a smaller number examining internship preferencing and/or location (n = 10), rural practice intent (n = 6) and choice of rural vocational training (n = 1). Studies examined the effects of training duration, remoteness of placements, timing and use of longitudinal integrated clerkships (LICs) or other pedagogical approaches. DISCUSSION: Existing literature has focused on duration-related effects, consistently identifying that rural training of ≥ 1 year duration is associated with positive rural workforce outcomes in a dose-dependent manner, and established evidence for the effectiveness of rural LICs, particularly when combined with additional rural training.
conclusionThere are opportunities to extend from existing literature to establish the effectiveness of core design elements within longer-duration rural training and LICs within more remote contexts, accounting for interaction with contextual variables.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.