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