Warning: fopen(/home/virtual/kjme/journal/upload/ip_log/ip_log_2026-01.txt): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 97 Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 98
1Department of Medical Education, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
2Public Health Medical Service, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
3JW Lee Center for Global Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
© The Korean Society of Medical Education. All rights reserved.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Funding
This work was supported by a project fund from the Presidential Committee on Regional Development.
Conflicts of interest
None.
| Program objectives | Types of activities | Theme of the activities |
|---|---|---|
| Obj. 1. Providing general concepts of RPH | Lecture | L1. Doctor’s role as a rural physiciana) |
| L2. Basic understanding of RPHb) | ||
| Panel discussion (with five experts, no pre-established agenda)a) | P1. Current state of rural medicine in Korea | |
| P2. The role of public health service | ||
| P3. How to develop career as a rural physician | ||
| Obj. 2. Assessing the educational needs of students in RPH | Consensus workshop methodb) | W1. What competencies are required for a rural physician? |
| Group discussionb) | W2. How should medical school faculties educate future rural physicians? | |
| Obj. 3. Examining the students’ change in perception on RPH | Evaluation (pre- and post-program survey)a,b) | S1. Perception of the importance of RPH |
| S2. Perception of clinical clerkship in different settings | ||
| S3. Perception of educational policy related to RPH | ||
| S4. Satisfaction with the program |
| Item | Pre-program score | Post-program score | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1. Satisfaction with the program | |||
| Q1. Overall satisfaction with the programa) | N/A | 5.35±0.68 | N/A |
| S2. Perception of the importance of RPH | |||
| Q2-1. Importance of rural medicine in South Koreab) | 5.04±0.66 | 5.29±0.64 | 0.048 |
| Q2-2. Importance of public health in South Koreab) | 4.92±0.68 | 5.43±0.57 | <0.001 |
| S3. Perception of clinical clerkship in different settings | |||
| Q3-1. Intention to do a clinical clerkship in metropolitan areasc) | 4.06±1.74 | 4.24±1.52 | 0.583 |
| Q3-2. Intention to do a clinical clerkship in major citiesc) | 3.56±1.67 | 3.73±1.43 | 0.586 |
| Q3-3. Intention to do a clinical clerkship in a county (gun in Korean)c) | 2.43±1.04 | 2.98±1.24 | 0.018 |
| Q3-4. Intention to do a clinical clerkship in a town (eup or myeon in Korean)c) | 2.28±1.10 | 2.76±1.25 | 0.041 |
| Q4-1. Intention to do a clinical clerkship in a tertiary hospitalc) | 4.65±1.61 | 4.67±1.42 | 0.966 |
| Q4-2. Intention to do a clinical clerkship in a secondary hospitalc) | 3.24±1.53 | 3.76±1.41 | 0.076 |
| Q4-3. Intention to do a clinical clerkship in a primary care clinicc) | 2.41±1.22 | 3.20±1.43 | 0.004 |
| S4. Perception of related educational policy | |||
| Q5. Inclination to participate in a RPH-related extracurricular program during the vacation periodd) | 2.83±1.12 | 3.10±1.27 | 0.252 |
| Q6. Effectiveness of the Regional Talents Admissionse) | 3.21±1.18 | 3.94±1.07 | 0.001 |
| Q7. Inclination to apply for a compulsory service bonded scholarshipf) | 2.40±1.12 | 2.47±0.92 | 0.743 |
| Q8. Inclination to apply to a RPH specified medical schoolg) | 3.67±1.18 | 3.65±1.29 | 0.915 |
N/A: Not available, RPH: Rural and public health.
a)1: Very unsatisfied–6: Very satisfied,
b)1: Not important at all–6: Absolutely important,
c)1: No intention to participate in, 2: Affirmative for 1–3 months in total, 3: Affirmative for 4–6 months in total, 4: Affirmative for 7–9 months in total, 5: Affirmative for 10–12 months in total, 6: Affirmative for more than 13 months in total,
d)1: No intention to participate in, 2: Affirmative for spending 1 week every vacation, 3: Affirmative for spending 2 weeks every vacation, 4: Affirmative for spending 3 weeks every vacation, 5: Affirmative for spending 4 weeks every vacation, 6: Affirmative for spending more than 5 weeks every vacation,
e)1: Will have no impact at all–6: Will have a strong impact,
f)1: No intention to apply, 2: Will apply if the compulsory service is less than 2 years, 3: Will apply if the compulsory service is less than 4 years, 4: Will apply if the compulsory service is less than 6 years, 5: Will apply if the compulsory service is less than 8 years, 6: Will apply if the compulsory service is less than 10 years,
g)1: No intention to apply at all–6: Will certainly apply.
| Program objectives | Types of activities | Theme of the activities |
|---|---|---|
| Obj. 1. Providing general concepts of RPH | Lecture | L1. Doctor’s role as a rural physiciana) |
| L2. Basic understanding of RPHb) | ||
| Panel discussion (with five experts, no pre-established agenda)a) | P1. Current state of rural medicine in Korea | |
| P2. The role of public health service | ||
| P3. How to develop career as a rural physician | ||
| Obj. 2. Assessing the educational needs of students in RPH | Consensus workshop methodb) | W1. What competencies are required for a rural physician? |
| Group discussionb) | W2. How should medical school faculties educate future rural physicians? | |
| Obj. 3. Examining the students’ change in perception on RPH | Evaluation (pre- and post-program survey)a,b) | S1. Perception of the importance of RPH |
| S2. Perception of clinical clerkship in different settings | ||
| S3. Perception of educational policy related to RPH | ||
| S4. Satisfaction with the program |
| Item | Pre-program score | Post-program score | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1. Satisfaction with the program | |||
| Q1. Overall satisfaction with the programa) | N/A | 5.35±0.68 | N/A |
| S2. Perception of the importance of RPH | |||
| Q2-1. Importance of rural medicine in South Koreab) | 5.04±0.66 | 5.29±0.64 | 0.048 |
| Q2-2. Importance of public health in South Koreab) | 4.92±0.68 | 5.43±0.57 | <0.001 |
| S3. Perception of clinical clerkship in different settings | |||
| Q3-1. Intention to do a clinical clerkship in metropolitan areasc) | 4.06±1.74 | 4.24±1.52 | 0.583 |
| Q3-2. Intention to do a clinical clerkship in major citiesc) | 3.56±1.67 | 3.73±1.43 | 0.586 |
| Q3-3. Intention to do a clinical clerkship in a county (gun in Korean)c) | 2.43±1.04 | 2.98±1.24 | 0.018 |
| Q3-4. Intention to do a clinical clerkship in a town (eup or myeon in Korean)c) | 2.28±1.10 | 2.76±1.25 | 0.041 |
| Q4-1. Intention to do a clinical clerkship in a tertiary hospitalc) | 4.65±1.61 | 4.67±1.42 | 0.966 |
| Q4-2. Intention to do a clinical clerkship in a secondary hospitalc) | 3.24±1.53 | 3.76±1.41 | 0.076 |
| Q4-3. Intention to do a clinical clerkship in a primary care clinicc) | 2.41±1.22 | 3.20±1.43 | 0.004 |
| S4. Perception of related educational policy | |||
| Q5. Inclination to participate in a RPH-related extracurricular program during the vacation periodd) | 2.83±1.12 | 3.10±1.27 | 0.252 |
| Q6. Effectiveness of the Regional Talents Admissionse) | 3.21±1.18 | 3.94±1.07 | 0.001 |
| Q7. Inclination to apply for a compulsory service bonded scholarshipf) | 2.40±1.12 | 2.47±0.92 | 0.743 |
| Q8. Inclination to apply to a RPH specified medical schoolg) | 3.67±1.18 | 3.65±1.29 | 0.915 |
Obj.: Object, RPH: Rural and public health, L: Lecture, P: Panel discussion, W: Workshop, S: Survey.
These activities were scheduled for day 1,
These activities were scheduled for day 2.
N/A: Not available, RPH: Rural and public health.
1: Very unsatisfied–6: Very satisfied,
1: Not important at all–6: Absolutely important,
1: No intention to participate in, 2: Affirmative for 1–3 months in total, 3: Affirmative for 4–6 months in total, 4: Affirmative for 7–9 months in total, 5: Affirmative for 10–12 months in total, 6: Affirmative for more than 13 months in total,
1: No intention to participate in, 2: Affirmative for spending 1 week every vacation, 3: Affirmative for spending 2 weeks every vacation, 4: Affirmative for spending 3 weeks every vacation, 5: Affirmative for spending 4 weeks every vacation, 6: Affirmative for spending more than 5 weeks every vacation,
1: Will have no impact at all–6: Will have a strong impact,
1: No intention to apply, 2: Will apply if the compulsory service is less than 2 years, 3: Will apply if the compulsory service is less than 4 years, 4: Will apply if the compulsory service is less than 6 years, 5: Will apply if the compulsory service is less than 8 years, 6: Will apply if the compulsory service is less than 10 years,
1: No intention to apply at all–6: Will certainly apply.