At what stage in the undergraduate curriculum is it best to train in family medicine? A study from two medical schools in Spain

• Main Authors: Mónica López-García, María Candelaria Ayuso-Raya, Jesús López-Torres-Hidalgo, Julio Montoya-Fernández, Francisco Campa-Valera, Francisco Escobar-Rabadán
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Taylor & Francis Group 2019-04-01
• Series: European Journal of General Practice
• Subjects: Family practice; internship and residency; medical education; medical schools; medical undergraduate; students
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2019.1580264

Background: A course in family medicine (FM) could dispel the possibility of negative stereotyping about this speciality, and instil in students a greater interest. However, when is it preferable: at the beginning or at the end of undergraduate training? Objectives: To determine changes in knowledge and attitudes towards FM by medical students completing a course in primary care at the beginning or the end of the undergraduate training and whether those changes anticipate the choice of speciality. Methods: Students from Albacete and Seville medical schools (primary care course in second and sixth years, respectively) were asked to respond to the ‘valuation of attitudes towards and knowledge of family medicine questionnaire’ (CAMF). Students from Albacete answered before and after the course, and in Seville second-year students answered at the end of the first trimester. All students were invited to respond again at the end of their undergraduate training. Afterwards, we investigated the score on the speciality exam (order for the election from highest to lowest score) and their choice of speciality. The outcome measures were the MIR exam score, the number in the ranking, the chosen speciality and the result of the CAMF. Results: In Albacete 88 and 64 and in Seville 50 and 98 students responded in their second and sixth years, respectively. In Albacete, mean CAMF scores were 15.4, 22.7 before and after the course, and 21.8 at the end while in Seville, 13.9 in the second year, and 23.5 in the sixth year. Logistic regression analysis showed an association of the choice of FM only with the score on the speciality exam (OR: 0.667; 95%CI: 0.553–0.806). Conclusion: There were no significant differences between CAMF scores at the end of undergraduate training. Only the score on the speciality exam predicts FM choice: the higher the score, the lower the probability of choosing FM.