Skip to main content

Table 4 Interns’ matched preferences and characteristics relative to internship location

From: Exploring preference for, and uptake of, rural medical internships, a key issue for supporting rural training pathways

 

Accepted metropolitan (MMM-1) positions (n = 2474)

Accepted rural (MMM 2–5) position (n = 656)

Accepted large regional (MMM-2) position (n = 306)a

Accepted non- RCIT smaller regional or rural town (MMM 3–5) position (n = 222)a

Accepted RCIT position (n = 128)a

Preference that was matched

 Match 1st preference

51.0% (1262)

24.5% (161)

29.7% (91)

11.7% (26)

34.4% (44)

 Match: 2nd-3rd preference

25.9% (641)

10.7% (70)

14.7% (45)

4.5% (10)

11.7% (15)

 Match: 4th – 5th preference

14.2% (350)

8.8% (58)

11.1% (34)

8.6% (19)

3.9% (5)

 Match: outside top five preferences

7.4% (184)

36.1% (237)

30.7% (94)

49.6% (110)

25.8% (33)

 Non-algorithm match/NA

1.5% (37)

19.8% (130)

13.7% (42)

25.7% (57)

24.2% (31)

Age

 24+ years

77.3% (1912)

85.8% (563)

83.3% (255)

86.0% (191)

91.4% (117)

 < 24 years

22.7% (562)

14.2% (93)

16.7% (51)

14.0% (31)

8.6% (11)

Gender

 Female

53.6% (1325)

50.2% (329)

54.9% (168)

42.3% (94)

52.3% (67)

 Male

46.4% (1149)

49.9% (327)

45.1% (138)

57.7% (128)

47.7% (61)

Eligibility (priority) group

 Group 1

92.2% (2280)

69.7% (457)

75.5% (231)

64.9% (144)

64.1% (82)

 Group 2

5.4% (134)

19.5% (128)

14.7% (45)

23.4% (52)

24.2% (31)

 Group 3

2.4% (60)

10.8% (71)

9.8% (30)

11.7% (26)

11.7% (15)

  1. MMM Modified Monash Model (rurality scale); RCIT Rural community internship training; Priority Group = 3 levels as per definitions in Table 2
  2. a Any rural (MMM2–5) = Large regional + smaller regional / rural town + RCIT (smaller rural)