Skip to main content

Table 2 Factors associated with social isolation during rural clinical training

From: Self-efficacy reduces the impact of social isolation on medical student’s rural career intent

 

Social Isolation

  

N (%)

OR (95% CI)

p value

Gender

Male

90 (34.0%)

1.0

 
 

Female

103 (29.4%)

0.8 (0.6–1.1)

0.25

Rural background

No

105 (31.8)

1.0

 

Yes

86 (30.4)

0.9 (0.6–1.3)

0.72

Type of location living longest in Australia

Capital city/Major city

106 (31.2)

1.0

 

Regional

30 (34.1)

0.8 (0.4–1.4)

0.48

Rural/Remote

53 (29.0)

1.0 (0.6–1.7)

0.79

Preference for RCS for Clinical training

Others

83 (42.8)

1.0

 

First choice

108 (25.7)

0.5 (0.3–0.6)

< 0.001

RCS Support

Supported academically by RCS

Strongly disagree/Disagree/Neutral

43 (44.3)

1.0

 

Strongly agree/Agree

151 (28.9)

0.5 (0.3–0.8)

0.004

Supported financially by RCS

Strongly disagree/Disagree/Neutral

79 (35.3)

1.0

 

Strongly agree/Agree

115 (29.0)

0.7 (0.5–1.0)

0.12

Overall well-supported by RCS

Strongly disagree/Disagree/Neutral

48 (46.6)

1.0

 

Strongly agree/Agree

145 (28.1)

0.4 (0.3–0.7)

< 0.001

Rating of Clinical Supervisors

Lower tertile

77 (36.0)

1.0

 

Middle tertile

63 (31.0)

0.8 (0.5–1.2)

0.28

 

Upper tertile

50 (26.6)

0.6 (0.4–0.9)

0.04

Rural Self-efficacy

Lower tertile

95 (40.9)

1.0

 

Middle tertile

62 (29.2)

0.5 (0.4–0.8)

0.01

Upper tertile

33 (20.0)

0.4 (0.2–0.6)

< 0.001

RCS Positively impact on well-being

Strongly disagree/Disagree/Neutral

70 (53.4)

1.0

 

Strongly agree/Agree

124 (25.5)

0.3 (0.2–0.4)

< 0.001