Exploration of Remote Didactics at Rural Family Medicine Training Programs

0Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Distance learning is a feasible and effective method of delivering education, especially in rural settings. Few studies focus on remote learning in graduate medical education. This study explores remote didactic practices of rural family medicine programs in the United States. METHODS: We conducted an electronic survey of rural family medicine residency site directors across the United States. We completed sample analyses through descriptive statistics with an emphasis on descriptions of current didactic practices, facilitators, and challenges to implementation. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 38% (47/124) for all participants from rural residency programs, representing 28 states. About 24% of rural training track (RTT) participants reported no shared remote didactics between urban and rural sites. More than half of RTT participants (52%) reported remote virtual didactics were either not shared between urban and rural site or were shared less than 50% of the time. Top challenges to implementing remote shared didactics were lack of appropriate technology (31%) and lack of training for faculty and residents in delivery of remote didactics (31%). Top facilitators included having technology for the remote connection (54%), a faculty cham-pion (42%), and designated time to develop the curriculum (38%). CONCLUSIONS: There is potential for improving shared remote didactic ses-sions between rural and urban sites for family medicine RTTs, which may enhance efficiency of curriculum development across sites and maximize op-portunities for bidirectional learning between urban and rural sites.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Zhang, Y., Moore, T. E., Weidner, A., Nguyen, V., Longnecker, R., Schmitz, D., … Evans, D. V. (2022). Exploration of Remote Didactics at Rural Family Medicine Training Programs. Family Medicine, 54(5), 362–368. https://doi.org/10.22454/FAMMED.2022.657132

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free