Competence revisited in a rural context

Randall L. Longenecker, Andrea Wendling, Joyce Hollander-Rodriguez, John Bowling, David Schmitz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: General competencies developed in undergraduate and graduate medical education are sometimes promoted as applicable in any practice context. However, rural practice presents challenges and opportunities that may require unique training. The objectives of this national survey of both undergraduate and graduate medical educators and practicing physicians were to further develop a previously published list of competency domains for working in rural communities and to assess their relative importance in education and practice. METHODS: Using six rural competency domains first refined with a national group at the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Annual Meeting in Baltimore in 2008, the authors employed a snowball strategy to survey medical educators and physicians regarding the importance and relevance of this list and to solicit additional domains and competencies. RESULTS: All six domains were considered important, with average responses for each domain ranging from 4.16 to 4.78 on a 5-point Likert scale (1-not important; 5-extremely important). Unique relevance to rural practice was more varied, with average responses for domains ranging from 2.36 to 3.6 (1-not at all unique; 5-extremely unique). Analysis of free text responses identified two important new domains—Comprehensiveness and Agency/Courage—and provided clarification of some competencies within existing domains. CONCLUSIONS: This study validates and further elaborates dimensions of competence believed to be important in rural practice. The authors propose these domains as a common language and framework for addressing the unique challenges and opportunities that training and practicing in a rural setting present.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)28-35
Number of pages8
JournalFamily Medicine
Volume50
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Mental Competency
Undergraduate Medical Education
Physicians
Graduate Medical Education
Baltimore
Rural Population
Language
Medicine
Education
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Family Practice

Cite this

Longenecker, R. L., Wendling, A., Hollander-Rodriguez, J., Bowling, J., & Schmitz, D. (2018). Competence revisited in a rural context. Family Medicine, 50(1), 28-35. https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2018.712527

Competence revisited in a rural context. / Longenecker, Randall L.; Wendling, Andrea; Hollander-Rodriguez, Joyce; Bowling, John; Schmitz, David.

In: Family Medicine, Vol. 50, No. 1, 01.01.2018, p. 28-35.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Longenecker, RL, Wendling, A, Hollander-Rodriguez, J, Bowling, J & Schmitz, D 2018, 'Competence revisited in a rural context', Family Medicine, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 28-35. https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2018.712527
Longenecker, Randall L. ; Wendling, Andrea ; Hollander-Rodriguez, Joyce ; Bowling, John ; Schmitz, David. / Competence revisited in a rural context. In: Family Medicine. 2018 ; Vol. 50, No. 1. pp. 28-35.
@article{40a15c9278c74ccb949fb08628929d64,
title = "Competence revisited in a rural context",
abstract = "BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: General competencies developed in undergraduate and graduate medical education are sometimes promoted as applicable in any practice context. However, rural practice presents challenges and opportunities that may require unique training. The objectives of this national survey of both undergraduate and graduate medical educators and practicing physicians were to further develop a previously published list of competency domains for working in rural communities and to assess their relative importance in education and practice. METHODS: Using six rural competency domains first refined with a national group at the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Annual Meeting in Baltimore in 2008, the authors employed a snowball strategy to survey medical educators and physicians regarding the importance and relevance of this list and to solicit additional domains and competencies. RESULTS: All six domains were considered important, with average responses for each domain ranging from 4.16 to 4.78 on a 5-point Likert scale (1-not important; 5-extremely important). Unique relevance to rural practice was more varied, with average responses for domains ranging from 2.36 to 3.6 (1-not at all unique; 5-extremely unique). Analysis of free text responses identified two important new domains—Comprehensiveness and Agency/Courage—and provided clarification of some competencies within existing domains. CONCLUSIONS: This study validates and further elaborates dimensions of competence believed to be important in rural practice. The authors propose these domains as a common language and framework for addressing the unique challenges and opportunities that training and practicing in a rural setting present.",
author = "Longenecker, {Randall L.} and Andrea Wendling and Joyce Hollander-Rodriguez and John Bowling and David Schmitz",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.22454/FamMed.2018.712527",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "50",
pages = "28--35",
journal = "Family Medicine",
issn = "0742-3225",
publisher = "Society of Teachers of Family Medicine",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Competence revisited in a rural context

AU - Longenecker, Randall L.

AU - Wendling, Andrea

AU - Hollander-Rodriguez, Joyce

AU - Bowling, John

AU - Schmitz, David

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: General competencies developed in undergraduate and graduate medical education are sometimes promoted as applicable in any practice context. However, rural practice presents challenges and opportunities that may require unique training. The objectives of this national survey of both undergraduate and graduate medical educators and practicing physicians were to further develop a previously published list of competency domains for working in rural communities and to assess their relative importance in education and practice. METHODS: Using six rural competency domains first refined with a national group at the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Annual Meeting in Baltimore in 2008, the authors employed a snowball strategy to survey medical educators and physicians regarding the importance and relevance of this list and to solicit additional domains and competencies. RESULTS: All six domains were considered important, with average responses for each domain ranging from 4.16 to 4.78 on a 5-point Likert scale (1-not important; 5-extremely important). Unique relevance to rural practice was more varied, with average responses for domains ranging from 2.36 to 3.6 (1-not at all unique; 5-extremely unique). Analysis of free text responses identified two important new domains—Comprehensiveness and Agency/Courage—and provided clarification of some competencies within existing domains. CONCLUSIONS: This study validates and further elaborates dimensions of competence believed to be important in rural practice. The authors propose these domains as a common language and framework for addressing the unique challenges and opportunities that training and practicing in a rural setting present.

AB - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: General competencies developed in undergraduate and graduate medical education are sometimes promoted as applicable in any practice context. However, rural practice presents challenges and opportunities that may require unique training. The objectives of this national survey of both undergraduate and graduate medical educators and practicing physicians were to further develop a previously published list of competency domains for working in rural communities and to assess their relative importance in education and practice. METHODS: Using six rural competency domains first refined with a national group at the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Annual Meeting in Baltimore in 2008, the authors employed a snowball strategy to survey medical educators and physicians regarding the importance and relevance of this list and to solicit additional domains and competencies. RESULTS: All six domains were considered important, with average responses for each domain ranging from 4.16 to 4.78 on a 5-point Likert scale (1-not important; 5-extremely important). Unique relevance to rural practice was more varied, with average responses for domains ranging from 2.36 to 3.6 (1-not at all unique; 5-extremely unique). Analysis of free text responses identified two important new domains—Comprehensiveness and Agency/Courage—and provided clarification of some competencies within existing domains. CONCLUSIONS: This study validates and further elaborates dimensions of competence believed to be important in rural practice. The authors propose these domains as a common language and framework for addressing the unique challenges and opportunities that training and practicing in a rural setting present.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85040458968&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85040458968&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.22454/FamMed.2018.712527

DO - 10.22454/FamMed.2018.712527

M3 - Article

C2 - 29346700

AN - SCOPUS:85040458968

VL - 50

SP - 28

EP - 35

JO - Family Medicine

JF - Family Medicine

SN - 0742-3225

IS - 1

ER -