Print this page Email this page Users Online: 3603 | Click here to view old website
Home About us Editorial Board Search Current Issue Archives Submit Article Author Instructions Contact Us Login 
Year : 2005  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 405-415

Advances in Rural Medical Education in Three Countries: Canada, the United States and Australia

1 Centre for Rural and Northern Health Research, Laurentian University, Ontario, Canada
2 Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
3 Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Laurentian University, Lakehead University, Canada

Correspondence Address:
Geoffrey Tesson
Centre for Rural and Northern Health Research, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 2C6
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

Introduction: This article documents a number of rural medical education initiatives in Australia, Canada and the United States. A typology is created reflecting the centrality the rural mandate and characterizing different features of each school's program. Interviews with school officials are drawn on to reflect the challenges these schools face. Method: Seven schools noted for their rural programs were selected from the three countries and interviews were conducted with senior officials. The interview data was supplemented by published material on the schools. Results: The Typology: Three kinds of school are distinguished: Mixed Urban/Rural Schools (University of Washington, US, the University of British Columbia, Canada and Flinders University, Australia); DeFacto Rural Schools (University of New Mexico, US and Memorial University, Canada) and Stand Alone Rural Schools (James Cook University, Australia and the Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Canada). The Pipeline Approach: All of the schools adopted in varying degrees a pipeline approach to meeting the need for rural doctors focusing on: (a) early recruitment; (b) admissions; (c) locating clinical education in rural settings; (d) rural health focus to curriculum; and (e) support for rural practice. Conclusion: The analysis does not strongly favor one model over others, although the Stand-Alone Rural schools had more opportunities to adopt innovative curricula reflecting rural health issues and to foster positive views of rural practice. Government funding targeting rural health needs will remain critical in the development of all these programs.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded162    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal