Rural doctors and rural backgrounds: how strong is the evidence? A systematic review

We sought to summarise the evidence for an association between rural background and rural practice by systematically reviewing the national and international published reports.

A systematic review.

A search of the national and international published reports from 1973 to October 2001.

The search criteria included observational studies of a case-control or cohort design making a clear and quantitative comparison between current rural and urban doctors, this resulted in the identification of 141 studies for potential inclusion.

We systematically reviewed 12 studies. Rural background was associated with rural practice in 10 of the 12 studies, in which it was reported, with most odds ratios (OR) approximately 2-2.5. Rural schooling was associated with rural practice in all 5 studies that reported on it, with most OR approximately 2.0. Having a rural partner was associated with rural practice in 3 of the 4 studies reporting on it, with OR approximately 3.0. Rural undergraduate training was associated with rural practice in 4 of 5 studies, with most OR approximately 2.0. Rural postgraduate training was associated with rural practice in 1 of 2 studies, with rural doctors reporting rural training about 2.5 times more often.

There is consistent evidence that the likelihood of working in rural practice is approximately twice greater among doctors with a rural background. There is a smaller body of evidence in support of the other rural factors studied, and the strength of association is similar to that for rural background.