Abstract
-
Purpose
This study examined the current status, perceptions, and educational needs of primary care education in medical and nursing schools to provide foundational data that can inform effective curriculum development.
-
Methods
In total, 40 medical and 64 nursing schools were eligible for this study. Data were collected through an online survey using Google Forms, developed by the research team, from November 2024 to January 2025. Frequency analysis and independent t-tests were performed to compare perceptions on primary care education between the two schools types. Borich Needs Assessment and Locus-for-Focus model were used to identify and prioritize educational needs.
-
Results
Responses from 21 medical and 24 nursing schools were analyzed. All medical schools primarily offered education in primary care clinics (100%), whereas most nursing schools offered it in community healthcare institutions (87.5%). Visits and observations were the most common educational methods (>80%). Reports, presentations, and discussions were the most used assessment methods (>60%). Multidisciplinary team-based practicums were limited in both medical (9.5%) and nursing (25.0%) schools. Both groups rated the need to expand primary care education and multidisciplinary team approach highly (>4.4/5). “Longitudinality” and “generalism” were educational priority needs across both groups, whereas other elements showed variations.
-
Conclusion
This study identified the shared and distinct aspects of primary care education across schools. The findings highlight the importance of enhancing and tailoring primary care education to each school’s specific context and needs, while fostering interprofessional collaboration to strengthen community-based healthcare.
-
Key Words: Medical education, Needs assessment, Nursing, Primary care
Introduction
As of 2025, South Korea has become a super-aged society, and individuals aged 65 years or older accounted for 20.3% of the total population [
1]. This rapid demographic transition is accompanied by an increased prevalence of multiple chronic conditions, contributing to the national disease burden and escalating healthcare expenditures [
2,
3].
Primary care, recognized as essential for addressing these challenges, is defined by the Institute of Medicine as comprehensive and accessible healthcare services delivered to meet most patients’ health needs by clinicians who build sustained partnerships with patients, providing care within family and community context [
4]. The core attributes of primary care include first contact, comprehensiveness, coordination, and longitudinality, complemented by accessibility, accountability, and gatekeeping functions [
5]. The World Health Organization has consistently highlighted primary health care as the cornerstone of “Health for All,” first in the 1978 Declaration of Alma-Ata [
6] and reaffirmed 4 decades later in the 2018 Declaration of Astana [
7]. Systematic reviews and multi-country studies confirm that strong primary-care systems improve care quality, enhance resource efficiency, reduce health inequities and yield better chronic-disease outcomes [
8,
9]. Physicians and nurses are two core professional groups with complementary roles. Physicians are responsible for diagnosis, treatment, and care coordination, whereas nurses contribute to patient education, chronic disease management, and continuity of care. Effective, equitable, and sustainable primary care requires close collaboration among these professionals within multidisciplinary teams. Interprofessional education (IPE) is a key strategy for fostering such collaborations, particularly when introduced during undergraduate training [
6,
7,
10]. By engaging in shared learning about the principles, attributes, and operational realities of primary care, medical and nursing students can develop mutual understanding and complementary competencies towards future collaborative practice.
Despite their shared relevance to primary care, medical and nursing education in South Korea have developed along various trajectories. Medical curricula remain largely oriented toward tertiary hospitals and specialty disciplines, providing limited opportunities for experiencing core primary care attributes including comprehensiveness and longitudinality [
5,
11,
12]. Nursing curricula, while increasingly emphasizing community health, often focus on practicum experiences in public health institutions, with limited clinical exposure in primary care clinics [
13,
14]. These structural and experiential differences raise important questions about the extent and nature of primary care training in each discipline, areas of convergence and divergence, and opportunities for integration, to strengthen the workforce.
Previous research mostly examined primary care education within single disciplines or at individual institutional levels [
5,
15-
18]. To our knowledge, no nationwide study has applied a unified analytical framework to both medical and nursing programs, to enable direct status, perceptions, and educational need comparisons. Generating such comparative data is critical for improving discipline-specific training and informing integrated curricular strategies and IPE models, to prepare graduates for collaborative, community-based practice.
This study aimed to analyze the current primary care education status in Korean medical and nursing schools at undergraduate level, examine institutional perceptions of such training, and identify educational priorities through a comparative needs assessment. Thereby, this study seeks to provide evidence for curriculum development that strengthens each profession’s readiness for collaborative practices.
Methods
1. Study design
This study was designed as a cross-sectional survey to assess the current status of primary care education and to analyze perceptions and educational needs in undergraduate medical and nursing programs in Korea.
2. Participants and data collection
All 40 medical and 64 nursing schools in South Korea were invited; 21 medical (52.5%) and 24 nursing schools (37.5%) completed the anonymous online survey (Google Forms, November 2024–January 2025; Google LLC, Mountain View, USA) after obtaining approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Gachon University (IRB No. 1044396-202410-HR-170-01). Medical schools were invited to participate via a notice to the faculty responsible for primary care teaching in each institution’s Department of Medical Education. For nursing schools’ recruitment, a faculty member teaching community health was identified through university website searches within each regional district, and one was randomly selected to receive an email invitation to participate. Overall, 45 institutions, including 21 medical schools and 24 nursing schools, responded and were all included in the final analysis.
3. Instruments
In this study, primary care education was defined as educational activities in which students participate during their curriculum at primary care clinics and community health care institutions. The questionnaire was developed in accordance with this study’s objectives to investigate the status, perceptions, and educational needs of primary care education in medical and nursing schools. The research team first drafted the questionnaire by integrating evidence from previous studies [
5,
19,
20] and then secured its content validity through expert review before finalizing the instrument. The questionnaire was structured into three sections (17 items): (1) current status of primary care education (eight items), (2) perceptions and opinions on education (eight items), and (3) educational needs based on primary care curriculum content (one item).
Detailed survey items for the current status included university characteristics, including type (public vs. private) and geographical location, as well as education indicators (whether the institution’s mission or educational goals included primary care physicians or nurses’ training, whether primary care content was integrated into the curriculum, and education settings). In the second (perceptions) section, respondents evaluated on a 5‑point Likert scale, statements addressing the need to expand practicum education, importance of multidisciplinary team-based training, and perceived usefulness of existing practicum education approach. They also provided opinions on appropriate practicum formats, priority training areas, and implementation obstacles.
Finally, the third (educational needs) section was based on the 11 elements of the primary care curriculum, identified by Fazio et al. [
20]. Using a 5‑point Likert scale, the respondents rated each element based on its importance and extent to which their institution currently provided education on each.
Descriptive statistics using numbers and frequency were used to report respondent characteristics, primary care education status, and opinions on primary care training. Independent t-test was used to compare between medical and nursing schools in perceptions on primary care education. Both the Borich Needs Assessment and Locus-for-Focus (LF) models were used to analyze the educational needs and determine priorities. The survey responses were compiled using Microsoft Office Excel 2016 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, USA), and statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS ver. 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, USA).
Results
1. Current status of primary care education
To assess the current status of primary care education, institutional responses were analyzed for the 2023 academic year regarding educational goals, curriculum content, and practicum types (
Table 1). Two-thirds of medical schools (66.7%) and one-fifth of nursing schools (20.8%) included primary care in their mission or educational objectives. Both medical and nursing schools frequently addressed the concept and roles of primary care (85.7% vs. 95.8%) and core attributes of primary care (85.7% vs. 87.5%), while domestic policies and programs were more commonly covered in nursing curricula (91.7% vs. 66.7%). The multidisciplinary team approach in primary care was emphasized in most nursing schools (83.3%) but in only a minority of medical schools (23.8%).
All medical schools (100%) and a smaller proportion of nursing schools (20.8%) offered primary care clinic-based practicums, most often as dispatched practicums during clerkship (95.2% vs. 100%). Medical schools also provided standalone practicums (61.9%) and electives (38.1%). Community healthcare institution-based practicums were reported by 61.9% of medical and 87.5% of nursing schools, most commonly in the 4th year (76.9% vs. 66.7%) and largely as required courses (84.6% vs. 95.2%). The most frequent practicum sites were public health centers (61.5% vs. 100%) and community health support centers (46.2% vs. 90.5%). The predominant educational methods were observation/visiting practicums (84.6% vs. 95.2%) and home medical care practicums (15.4% vs. 71.4%). Other methods, such as participation, research, and group activities, were less frequently used. Regarding assessment methods, reports (76.9% vs. 95.2%) and presentations/discussions (61.5% vs. 81.0%) were most common. Reflective journals were more frequently employed in nursing schools (61.9%) compared to medical schools (23.1%). Multiple responses were allowed for each item.
Finally, multidisciplinary team-based practicums in primary care were limited, offered by only 9.5% of medical and 25.0% of nursing schools, and participation was restricted to students within each program, with no joint practicums reported.
2. Perceptions and opinions on primary care education
One medical school was excluded from the perception analysis due to missing responses (
Table 2). Medical and nursing schools both gave high mean ratings to expanding primary-care education (medical: mean±standard deviation=4.65±0.59; nursing: 4.42±0.72) and to the need for a multidisciplinary team approach (medical: 4.60±0.60; nursing: 4.54±0.59). Perceptions of the current situation were also positive and comparable. Items such as understanding the importance and role of community primary care, training for patient-centered primary care, and influencing career choices toward primary care received moderately high ratings (mean: around 3.9–4.1). However, there were no significant differences between the groups in any items.
In the opinion survey (
Table 3), regarding the appropriate practicum format, half of both medical and nursing schools selected required courses (50.0% vs. 50.0%), followed by elective courses (30.0% vs. 29.2%), while only a minority chose dispatched practicums during clerkship (10.0% vs. 8.3%).
For core areas of primary care education, both groups most frequently selected understanding the community health care system (80.0% vs. 70.8%). Medical schools prioritized understanding the characteristics of primary care (75.0%), whereas nursing schools emphasized the role in the primary care team (87.5%) and understanding community-tailored services and resources (87.5%).
The most commonly reported barriers were difficulty finding practicum sites (70.0% vs. 83.3%) and cooperation with medical staff (65.0% vs. 79.2%). Medical schools more often cited faculty-related issues, including faculty development (90.0%) and compensation for participating staff (80.0%), whereas nursing schools more frequently emphasized logistical challenges, such as site availability and collaboration with clinical staff.
3. Analysis of primary care educational needs in medical and nursing schools
The need for undergraduate primary-care education was assessed with 11 content elements (
Table 4). Across all items, medical schools (n=21) recorded a mean perceived importance of 4.31±0.67 and a mean current level of 3.33±0.86, giving an overall mean discrepancy of 0.98. Item-level data show that the highest importance rating was for “wellness and prevention” (4.57±0.51), while the lowest was for “systems improvement” (3.90±0.77). The highest current level achieved was “therapeutic alliance/communication” (3.90±0.70), and the lowest was “systems improvement” (2.81±0.93). In the Borich needs analysis, “longitudinality” ranked first with a score of 5.71 (mean discrepancy=1.33±1.35), followed by “wellness and prevention” (score=5.66, mean discrepancy=1.24±0.77), “generalism” (score=5.17, mean discrepancy=1.14±0.79), and “central responsibility for managing care” (score=4.99, mean discrepancy=1.19±0.81).
In nursing schools (n=23), the mean perceived importance was 4.55±0.64 and the current level was 3.62±0.99, with a discrepancy of 0.93. The highest importance rating was “approach to chronic care” (4.96) and the lowest “approach to acute care” (3.78). The highest current level was “wellness and prevention” (4.17) and the lowest “systems improvement” (2.91). The Borich analysis ranked “interprofessional training” (5.76) and “central responsibility for managing care” (5.73) highest, followed by “generalism” (5.26) and “longitudinality” (5.06).
LF analysis classified “generalism” and “wellness and prevention” as HH in medical schools, with “longitudinality” also included. In nursing schools, five elements (“longitudinality,” “generalism,” “approach to chronic care,” “interprofessional training,” “population health”) were categorized as HH (
Fig. 1).
Discussion
This study examined the current status of primary care education in Korean medical and nursing schools, explored perceptions and suggestions for improvement, and identified educational priorities. Our findings show a divergence in practicum settings. All medical schools offered practicum in primary care clinics, whereas nursing schools predominantly offered in community healthcare institutions. These differences align with the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation (KIMEE)’s standards for medical schools [
21] and Korean Accreditation Board of Nursing Education standards [
22]. Comparing the two disciplines highlights how accreditation frameworks shape exposure to primary care, and underscores the need for a coordinated policy to ensure that all students, regardless of discipline, gain meaningful longitudinal experience in community-based primary care settings.
Educational methods and assessment approaches also differed. Both groups relied heavily on “visiting and observation,” but nursing schools more frequently engaged students in home medical care, suggesting greater patient contact. Reflective journals, which are common in nursing schools, promote professional identity formation and self-directed learning in primary care contexts [
17]. Incorporating such reflective practices into medical education could strengthen students’ abilities to engage critically in community health experiences.
Low implementation of multidisciplinary team activities was found in both groups despite high recognition of their importance. While IPE has long been recognized as essential for team-based care—repeatedly affirmed in global position statements up to the 2024 update [
23]—its integration into Korean medical and nursing curricula remains limited [
24], suggesting that the foundational policy calls for IPE have yet to be fully translated into local program design. This suggests that primary care education development should address shared learning needs, such as understanding the primary care delivery systems, and discipline-specific competencies, such as chronic disease coordination in nursing and preventive care in medicine. Both groups identified “Understanding the community healthcare system” as a priority content element, but medical schools emphasized “understanding the characteristics of primary care,” while nursing schools prioritized “role in the primary care team” and “understanding community-tailored services and resources.” These differences align with each profession’s competency framework and accreditation requirements, underscoring the importance of designing curricula that address shared and discipline-specific learning outcomes.
The perceived importance of primary care education was high across both groups, but its actual implementation was limited, revealing a persistent awareness–practice gap. The reported barriers, including difficulty in securing practicum sites, limited cooperation from field instructors, and lack of faculty development and compensation, mirror those identified in previous Korean studies on community-based education [
18,
25]. These findings indicate that institutional efforts alone are insufficient, and that national-level strategies are needed. Such strategies should include establishing a centralized practicum site network to improve access to diverse community-based placements, formally recognizing and compensating clinical educators, providing faculty development, and integrating interprofessional and primary care competencies into the curricula of both professions.
The needs assessment revealed “longitudinality” and “generalism” as shared priorities for both professions, reaffirming that establishing long-term patient relationships and addressing a broad spectrum of health issues is central to primary care. This aligns with our findings in which both groups had community-based experiences, which were mostly short-term and observation-oriented, underscoring the need for educational models that offer more sustained and multidimensional patient engagement.
Clear differences emerged in the secondary priorities. Medical schools emphasized “wellness and prevention,” which is consistent with the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s policy to strengthen preventive and integrated care [
26], reflecting that most medical school practicum sites were primary care clinics. Nursing schools, on the other hand, prioritized “central responsibility for managing care,” “approach to chronic care,” and “systems improvement.” These aligns with the expanding role of nurses as care coordinators in chronic disease management programs [
27,
28] and corresponds with the predominance of public health centers and community health support centers as practicum sites.
These results reinforce the importance, as highlighted in the framework by Fazio et al. [
20], of embedding attributes such as continuity of care, comprehensive management, coordinated care planning, preventive and systems-based approaches, and interprofessional collaboration into curriculum design. An effective IPE curriculum could combine common modules, such as patient-centered continuity, therapeutic alliance and communication, and interprofessional teamwork, for all students, while offering discipline-specific tracks strengthening preventive care and early intervention skills for medical students and chronic disease coordination and system optimization competencies for nursing students. This approach preserves professional identity, while systematically fostering collaborative practice readiness.
Based on the LF analysis and perception survey results, the differences between medical and nursing schools can be integrated into future curriculum design and IPE institutionalization as follows. Medical schools, considering their preference for “understanding the characteristics of primary care” as a core educational area and the identification of “wellness and prevention” as an HH element, should develop integrated educational modules centered on the four core attributes of primary care (continuity, comprehensiveness, coordination, and prevention-centeredness), expand opportunities for participation in community-based prevention programs, and strengthen education on chronic disease risk assessment and health behavior change interventions. Nursing schools, reflecting their prioritization of “role in the primary care team” and “understanding community-tailored services and resources” and the identification of “interprofessional training” as an HH element, should enhance community health needs assessment and resource mapping skills training, clearly define the unique role and contributions of nurses within interprofessional teams, and strengthen care coordination abilities in chronic disease management. The identification of “interprofessional training” as an HH element in nursing schools clearly demonstrates the urgency of IPE institutionalization, which requires practical approaches including developing common core competency-based IPE modules, implementing phased integration strategies, establishing institutional support systems, and securing policy and financial support.
From a policy and educational perspective, this study suggests the need to explicitly incorporate both common primary care competencies and discipline-specific outcomes into the national accreditation standards of the two professions. This requires establishing regionally-based industry–academic–healthcare collaboration networks and a centralized support system to address practicum site shortages, and providing compensation, workload recognition, and structured faculty development for educators participating in community-based education. Incorporating the attributes identified by Fazio et al. [
20] related to mental and behavioral health, population health, and interprofessional training could further expand the scope and quality of primary care education. In addition, piloting early clinical exposure and Longitudinal Integrated Clerkship models adapted to the Korean context may strengthen continuity and community engagement [
20,
29].
A major strength of this study is its national scope and novel comparative approach, which provides actionable insights for developing primary care curricula to enhance each profession’s readiness for collaborative practices. One limitation of this study is that it reflects only the responses of institutions that participated voluntarily, which may not represent all schools nationwide; moreover, the sample was not stratified by ownership, region, or institutional size, potentially obscuring important subgroup differences. Future research should therefore recruit a broader, systematically selected sample and incorporate these institutional variables to refine comparative analyses while also examining longitudinal outcomes of curricular interventions. However, despite these limitations, this study provides foundational evidence for designing integrated, contextually relevant primary care education that respects the distinct professional identities of medical and nursing education, while fostering effective interprofessional collaboration.
Acknowledgements
None.
Funding
This study was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and National Research Foundation of Korea (grant number: NRF-2024S1A5C3A01043098).
Conflicts of interest
YHM, SJY and KHP serve as an Editorial Board members of the Korean Journal of Medical Education but have no role in the decision to publish this article. Except for that, no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Author contributions
Conceptualization: SRK, YHM, JY, SJY, KHP. Formal analysis: SRK, SJY, KHP. Data curation: SRK, SJY. Funding acquisition: KHP. Methodology: YHM, JY, SJY. Writing–original draft: SRK. Writing–review & editing: YHM, JY, SJY, KHP. Final approval of the manuscript: all authors.
Fig. 1.
Level of educational needs on primary care contents for medical and nursing schools.
See Table 4 to identify primary care attributes that match each item. (A) Medical schools (n=21). (B) Nursing schools (n=23). HH: High perceived importance and high discrepancy between importance level and present level (high education priority), HL: High perceived importance and low discrepancy between importance level and present level, LH: Low perceived importance and high discrepancy between importance level and present level, LL: Low perceived importance and low discrepancy between importance level and present level.
Table 1.The Status of Primary Care Education in Medical and Nursing School
Table 1.
|
Items |
Medical (n=21) |
Nursing (n=24) |
|
Inclusion of primary care in mission or educational objectives |
|
|
|
Included |
14 (66.7) |
5 (20.8) |
|
Not included |
7 (33.3) |
19 (79.2) |
|
Educational contents on primary care |
|
|
|
Concept and roles of primary care |
18 (85.7) |
23 (95.8) |
|
Core attributes of primary care |
18 (85.7) |
21 (87.5) |
|
Primary care delivery system (institutions, workforce, and so forth) |
11 (52.4) |
21 (87.5) |
|
Domestic primary care policy and programs |
14 (66.7) |
22 (91.7) |
|
International primary care policies |
9 (42.9) |
11 (45.8) |
|
Need and role of a multidisciplinary team approach in primary care |
5 (23.8) |
20 (83.3) |
|
Practicum in primary care clinicsa)
|
21 (100.0) |
5 (20.8) |
|
Dispatch practicum during clerkship |
20 (95.2) |
5 (100.0) |
|
Standalone primary care practicum |
13 (61.9) |
0 (0.0) |
|
Elective practicum |
8 (38.1) |
0 (0.0) |
|
Dispatch practicum as part of the coursework (not clerkship) |
1 (4.8) |
0 (0.0) |
|
Practicum in community healthcare institutionsa)
|
13 (61.9) |
21 (87.5) |
|
Year of study |
|
|
|
1st |
3 (23.1) |
0 (0.0) |
|
2nd |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
|
3rd |
3 (23.1) |
11 (52.4) |
|
4th |
10 (76.9) |
14 (66.7) |
|
Course type |
|
|
|
Required |
11 (84.6) |
20 (95.2) |
|
Elective |
4 (30.8) |
1 (4.8) |
|
Practicum sites |
|
|
|
Public health centersb)
|
8 (61.5) |
21 (100.0) |
|
Community health support centersc)
|
6 (46.2) |
19 (90.5) |
|
Social welfare center |
1 (7.7) |
1 (4.8) |
|
National Medical Center |
1 (7.7) |
0 (0.0) |
|
Educational methods |
|
|
|
Visiting & observation |
11 (84.6) |
20 (95.2) |
|
Home medical care |
2 (15.4) |
15 (71.4) |
|
Participation (project, clerkship, education) |
4 (30.8) |
8 (38.1) |
|
Research |
3 (23.1) |
2 (9.5) |
|
Group activities |
2 (15.4) |
0 (0.0) |
|
Assessment methods |
|
|
|
Report |
10 (76.9) |
20 (95.2) |
|
Presentation & discussion |
8 (61.5) |
17 (81.0) |
|
Reflective journal |
3 (23.1) |
13 (61.9) |
|
Attendance & attitude |
6 (46.2) |
4 (19.0) |
|
Test & quiz |
2 (15.4) |
4 (19.0) |
|
Portfolio |
2 (15.4) |
0 (0.0) |
|
Multidisciplinary team-based practicum in primary care |
2 (9.5) |
6 (25.0) |
|
Medical students only |
2 (100.0) |
0 (0.0) |
|
Nursing students only |
0 (0.0) |
6 (100.0) |
|
Both medical and nursing students |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Table 2.Perceptions of Primary Care Education in Medical and Nursing Schools
Table 2.
|
Items |
Medical (n=20)a)
|
Nursing (n=24) |
t-value |
p-value |
|
Primary care education should be expanded in medical/nursing school curricula. |
4.65±0.59 |
4.42±0.72 |
1.165 |
0.136 |
|
Multidisciplinary team approach education for primary care is needed in medical/nursing school curricula. |
4.60±0.60 |
4.54±0.59 |
0.325 |
0.843 |
|
Considering the current educational situation of your school, it helps students understand the importance and role of community primary care and primary care physicians/nurses. |
3.95±1.15 |
4.00±0.93 |
–0.160 |
0.114 |
|
Considering the current educational situation of your school, it helps students train as doctors/nurses practicing patient-centered primary care in the community |
4.05±1.10 |
3.92±0.97 |
0.426 |
0.465 |
|
Considering the current educational situation of your school, it may influence students to decide their career toward primary care. |
3.95±1.10 |
3.92±0.97 |
0.107 |
0.414 |
Table 3.Opinions Relating to Primary Care Education in Medical and Nursing Schools
Table 3.
|
Items |
Medical (n=20)a)
|
Nursing (n=24) |
|
Appropriate types of primary care educationa)
|
|
|
|
Required courses |
10 (50.0) |
12 (50.0) |
|
Elective courses |
6 (30.0) |
7 (29.2) |
|
Dispatch course within clerkship |
2 (10.0) |
2 (8.3) |
|
Core areas of primary care educationb)
|
|
|
|
Understanding the characteristics of primary care |
15 (75.0) |
11 (45.8) |
|
Exploring the career path in primary care |
8 (40.0) |
14 (58.3) |
|
Role in the primary care team |
11 (55.0) |
21 (87.5) |
|
Understanding the community health care system |
16 (80.0) |
17 (70.8) |
|
Understanding health care services, resources, and programs tailored to the characteristics of the community |
11 (55.0) |
21 (87.5) |
|
Barriers to primary care educationb)
|
|
|
|
Faculty perceptions of primary care education |
5 (25.0) |
5 (20.8) |
|
Medical/nursing students’ perceptions of primary care education |
3 (15.0) |
6 (25.0) |
|
University physical support for primary care education (transportation, meal expenses, and so forth) |
10 (50.0) |
14 (58.3) |
|
Difficulty finding primary care institutions for education |
14 (70.0) |
20 (83.3) |
|
Cooperation with medical staff in primary care institutions for education |
13 (65.0) |
19 (79.2) |
|
Compensation method for education participation of medical staff in primary care institutions |
16 (80.0) |
10 (41.7) |
|
Faculty development of medical staff in primary care institutions |
18 (90.0) |
10 (41.7) |
Table 4.Needs Analysis on Primary Care Contents for Medical and Nursing Students
Table 4.
|
Primary care content elements |
Medical (n=21) |
Nursing (n=23)a)
|
|
Perceived importance level |
Perceived current level |
Discrepancy |
Borich Needs score |
Rank |
LF |
Perceived importance level |
Perceived current level |
Discrepancy |
Borich Needs score |
Rank |
LF |
|
Mean±SD |
Mean±SD |
Mean±SD |
t-test (df) |
p-value |
Mean±SD |
Mean±SD |
Mean±SD |
t-test (df) |
p-value |
|
A. Longitudinality |
4.29±0.85 |
2.95±1.40 |
1.33±1.35 |
4.51(20) |
0.000 |
5.71 |
1 |
LH |
4.65±0.57 |
3.57±1.16 |
1.09±1.31 |
3.98(22) |
0.001 |
5.06 |
4 |
HH |
|
B. Generalism |
4.52±0.51 |
3.38±0.74 |
1.14±0.79 |
6.61(20) |
0.000 |
5.17 |
3 |
HH |
4.65±0.57 |
3.52±1.04 |
1.13±0.97 |
5.60(22) |
0.000 |
5.26 |
3 |
HH |
|
C. Central responsibility for managing care |
4.19±0.75 |
3.00±0.71 |
1.19±0.81 |
6.71(20) |
0.000 |
4.99 |
4 |
LH |
4.39±0.66 |
3.09±1.12 |
1.30±1.02 |
6.14(22) |
0.000 |
5.73 |
2 |
LH |
|
D. Therapeutic alliance/communication |
4.52±0.51 |
3.90±0.70 |
0.62±0.59 |
4.81(20) |
0.000 |
2.80 |
10 |
HL |
4.70±0.63 |
4.04±0.82 |
0.65±0.78 |
4.04(22) |
0.001 |
3.06 |
9 |
HL |
|
E. Approach to acute care |
4.43±0.68 |
3.86±0.79 |
0.57±0.51 |
5.16(20) |
0.000 |
2.53 |
11 |
HL |
3.78±1.28 |
3.43±1.16 |
0.35±0.98 |
1.70(22) |
0.103 |
1.32 |
11 |
LL |
|
F. Approach to chronic care |
4.48±0.51 |
3.62±0.80 |
0.86±0.65 |
6.00(20) |
0.000 |
3.84 |
7 |
HL |
4.96±0.21 |
4.00±0.95 |
0.96±0.98 |
4.70(22) |
0.000 |
4.74 |
6 |
HH |
|
G. Wellness and prevention |
4.57±0.51 |
3.33±0.80 |
1.24±0.77 |
7.38(20) |
0.000 |
5.66 |
2 |
HH |
4.78±0.52 |
4.17±0.83 |
0.61±0.89 |
3.28(22) |
0.003 |
2.91 |
10 |
HL |
|
H. Mental and behavioral health |
4.19±0.81 |
3.38±0.92 |
0.81±0.60 |
6.17(20) |
0.000 |
3.39 |
8 |
LL |
4.65±0.65 |
3.96±0.82 |
0.70±0.82 |
4.06(22) |
0.001 |
1.1 |
8 |
HL |
|
I. Systems improvement |
3.90±0.77 |
2.81±0.93 |
1.10±0.94 |
5.32(20) |
0.000 |
4.28 |
6 |
LH |
4.13±0.87 |
2.91±1.00 |
1.22±0.95 |
6.14(22) |
0.000 |
5.03 |
5 |
LH |
|
J. Interprofessional training |
4.14±0.73 |
3.05±0.80 |
1.10±0.62 |
8.03(20) |
0.000 |
4.54 |
5 |
LH |
4.57±0.59 |
3.30±1.02 |
1.26±1.21 |
4.98(22) |
0.000 |
5.76 |
1 |
HH |
|
K. Population health |
4.14±0.73 |
3.33±0.86 |
0.81±0.87 |
4.25(20) |
0.000 |
3.35 |
9 |
LL |
4.78±0.52 |
3.83±0.94 |
0.96±0.93 |
4.94(22) |
0.000 |
4.57 |
7 |
HH |
|
Total |
4.31±0.67 |
3.33±0.86 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.55±0.64 |
3.62±0.99 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
References
- 1. Korean Statistical Information Service. Key population indicators. https://kosis.kr/search/search.do?query=%EB%85%B8%EC%9D%B8%EC%9D%B8%EA%B5%AC. Published 2025. Accessed June 5, 2025.
- 2. Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency. 2024 chronic disease status and issues. Cheongju, Korea: Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency; 2024.
- 3. Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency. Trends in the prevalence and associated factors of hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia. Cheongju, Korea: Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency; 2023.
- 4. Donaldson MS, Yordy KD, Lohr KN, Vanselow NA; Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Future of Primary Care. Primary care: America’s health in a new era. Washington DC, USA: National Academies Press; 1996.
- 5. Kang SH. Medical education improvement plan for reinforcing primary care. Healthc Policy Forum. 2017;15(4):60-64. https://www.rihp.re.kr/publication_forum/2018/01/%EC%9D%B4%EC%8A%88_%EA%B0%95%EC%84%9D%ED%9B%88.pdf
- 6. World Health Organization. The declaration of Alma-Ata. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1978.
- 7. World Health Organization. Declaration of Astana. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2018.
- 8. Kringos DS, Boerma WG, Hutchinson A, van der Zee J, Groenewegen PP. The breadth of primary care: a systematic literature review of its core dimensions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:65. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-65
- 9. Moran V, Suhrcke M, Nolte E. Exploring the association between primary care efficiency and health system characteristics across European countries: a two-stage data envelopment analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):1348. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10369-y
- 10. Halcomb E, Stephens M, Bryce J, Foley E, Ashley C. The development of professional practice standards for Australian general practice nurses. J Adv Nurs. 2017;73(8):1958-1969. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13274
- 11. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD reviews of health care quality: Korea-raising standards. Paris, France: OECD Publishing; 2012.
- 12. Kim K, Lee S, Park H. Reforming medical education for strengthening primary care. J Korean Med Assoc. 2013;56(10):891-898. https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2013.56.10.891
- 13. Park HJ, Jang IS. Nursing students’ experience in community health center practice. J Korean Acad Community Health Nurs. 2010;21(2):188-199. https://doi.org/10.12799/jkachn.2010.21.2.188
- 14. Kwon IS, Seo YM. Nursing students’ needs for clinical nursing education. J Korean Acad Soc Nurs Educ. 2012;18(1):25-33. https://doi.org/10.5977/jkasne.2012.18.1.025
- 15. Park EW. Premedical students’ experiences in community-oriented primary care. Korean J Med Educ. 2013;25(3):229-237. https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2013.25.3.229
- 16. Ha JH, Park JH. Nursing students’ practice experience on community visiting nursing. J Korean Acad Community Health Nurs. 2020;31(1):43-53. https://doi.org/10.12799/jkachn.2020.31.1.43
- 17. Cho YH, Do EY, Kang KS, et al. Analysis of current status of the community health nursing practice education. J Korean Acad Community Health Nurs. 2017;28(3):347-356. https://doi.org/10.12799/jkachn.2017.28.3.347
- 18. Yang KH, Choi YA, Park SW, Boo YJ, Song MH. Community health nursing practice management plan for achievement of nursing students’ learning outcomes. J Korean Nurs Res. 2020;4(3):39-58. https://doi.org/10.34089/jknr.2020.4.3.39
- 19. Boon V, Ridd M, Blythe A. Medical undergraduate primary care teaching across the UK: what is being taught? Educ Prim Care. 2017;28(1):23-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/14739879.2016.1222887
- 20. Fazio SB, Demasi M, Farren E, et al. Blueprint for an undergraduate primary care curriculum. Acad Med. 2016;91(12):1628-1637. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001302
- 21. Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation. Accreditation Standards of KIMEE 2019. Seoul, Korea: Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation; 2024.
- 22. Korean Accreditation Board of Nursing Education. Accreditation Standards of Nursing Education. Seoul, Korea: Korean Accreditation Board of Nursing Education; 2021.
- 23. Yu JH, Park KH. Challenges for sustainable interprofessional education in South Korea: insights from key global countries. Korean Med Educ Rev. 2024;26(2):93-107. https://doi.org/10.17496/kmer.24.012
- 24. Park KH, Yu JH, Yoon BY, et al. The current status and needs analysis of interprofessional education in Korean medical colleges. Korean Med Educ Rev. 2022;24(2):141-155. https://doi.org/10.17496/kmer.2022.24.2.141
- 25. Kim S, Cha B, Kyung SY, Yune SJ, Park KH, Park KH. Status of and needs related to community-based practice in public healthcare institutions among Korean medical schools: a cross-sectional study. J Yeungnam Med Sci. 2025;42:21. https://doi.org/10.12701/jyms.2025.42.21
- 26. Ministry of Health and Welfare. Medical reform 2nd implementation plan. Sejong, Korea: Ministry of Health and Welfare; 2025.
- 27. Ministry of Health and Welfare; National Health Insurance Service. Guide to pilot project for primary care chronic disease management. Sejong, Korea: Ministry of Health and Welfare, National Health Insurance Service; 2023.
- 28. Han YR. Community care and nurse care coordinator. J Korean Public Health Nurs. 2019;33(3):311-325. https://doi.org/10.5932/JKPHN.2019.33.3.311
- 29. Henschen BL, Bierman JA, Wayne DB, et al. Four-year educational and patient care outcomes of a team-based primary care longitudinal clerkship. Acad Med. 2015;90(11 Suppl):S43-S49. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000897
