Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis

From: Medical students attitudes toward and intention to work with the underserved: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Source

Country

Design

Sample

Response rate

Outcome

Qualitya

Maisiak et al. 1980 [31]

US

Non-controlled trial

145

88%

Effectiveness of an educational intervention

2

Dornbush et al. 1985 [16]

US

Cross-sectional

144

72%

Change in MS-ATU

4

Ewan et al. 1987 [32]

AU

Cross-sectional

156

71.2%

Change in MS-ATU

4

Ewan et al. 1988 [33]

AU

Cohort

63

68%

Change in MS-ATU

2

Dornbush et al. 1991 [34]

US

Cross-sectional

71

38%

Change in MS-ATU

4

Crandall et al. 1993 [12]

US

Cross-sectional

220

80.9%

Change in MS-ATU

4

Tippets & Westphelling, 1993 [35]

US

Cross-sectional

560

NA

Mediating factors

4

Campos-Outcalt et al. 1997 [36]

US

Case-control

193

68.4%

Effectiveness of an educational intervention

3

Crandall et al. 1997 [13]

US

Cohort

495

80%

Change in MS-ATU

2

O’Toole et al. 1999 [37]

US

Cohort

160

68.5%

Effectiveness of an educational intervention

2

Weitzmann et al. 2000 [38]

US

Cross-sectional

141

71%

Change in MS-IWU

4

Markham et al. 2001 [39]

US

Non-controlled trial

90

90.9%

Effectiveness of an educational intervention

3

Weissman et al. 2001 [40]

US

Cross-sectional

2626

65.3%

Mediating factors

4

Godkin et al. 2003 [41]

US

Non-controlled trial

146

83.4%

Effectiveness of an educational intervention

3

Tavernier et al. 2003 [42]

US

Cross-sectional

775

26.3%

Mediating factors

4

Schwartz & Loten, 2004 [43]

NZ, US

Cross-sectional

1015

NA

Change in MS-ATU

4

Wilson et al. 2004 [44]

US

Cross-sectional

784

57%

Change in MS-ATU

4

Woloschuk et al. 2004 [45]

CA

Cohort

198

52.5%

Change in MS-ATU

2

Ko et al. 2005 [20]

US

Controlled trial

1088

93.6%

Effectiveness of an educational intervention

2

Cox et al. 2006 [46]

US

Randomized trial

100

93%

Effectiveness of an educational intervention

1

Godkin et al. 2006 [47]

US

Controlled trial

196

98.0%

Change in MS-ATU + Effectiveness of an educational intervention

2

Buchanan et al. 2007 [48]

US

Non-controlled trial

25

100%

Effectiveness of an educational intervention

3

Crandall et al. 2007 [49]

US

Cohort

110

71%

Change in MS-ATU + Effectiveness of an educational intervention

2

Ko et al. 2007 [50]

US

Case-control

1071

100%

Effectiveness of an educational intervention + Mediating factors

3

Crandall et al. 2008 [51]

US

Cohort

110

100%

Change in MS-ATU

2

Dyrbye et al. 2010 [52]

US

Cross-sectional

2682

61%

Mediating factors

4

Huang & Malinow, 2010 [53]

US

Non-controlled trial

46

100%

Effectiveness of an educational intervention

3

Wayne et al. 2011 [54]

US

Cohort

313

59%

Change in MS-ATU

2

Scheu et al. 2012 [55]

US

Non-controlled trial

274

75%

Effectiveness of an educational intervention

3

Boscardin et al. 2014 [56]

US

Cohort

7631

58.8%

Mediating factors

2

Caulfield et al. 2014 [57]

US

Cross-sectional

13,867

74.2%

Mediating factors

4

Smith et al. 2014 [58]

US

Non-controlled trial

914

97.9%

Effectiveness of an educational intervention

3

Borracci et al. 2015 [59]

AR

Cross-sectional

354

88.5%

Mediating factors

4

Cox et al. 2015 [60]

US

Randomized controlled trial

137

88%

Effectiveness of an educational intervention

1

Jilani et al. 2015 [18]

US

Cross-sectional

297

67%

Change in MS-ATU

4

Girotti et al. 2015 [61]

US

Case-control

297

36%

Effectiveness of an educational intervention

3

Larkins et al. 2015 [62]

AU, BE, CA, PH, ZA, SD

Case-control

944

88.9%

Effectiveness of selection strategies

3

Stephens et al. 2015 [63]

US

Cross-sectional

170

35%

Change in MS-ATU

4

Laraque Arena et al. 2016 [64]

US

Cross-sectional

1223

57%

Mediating factors

4

Leung et al. 2016 [65]

US

Non-controlled trial

48

72%

Effectiveness of an educational intervention

3

Gatell et al. 2017 [66]

US

Cross-sectional

393

66%

Mediating factors

4

Griffin et al. 2017 [14]

AU

Cohort

351

94.6%

Mediating factors

2

O’Connell et al. 2017 [67]

US

Cohort

564

70.4%

Change in MS-IWU + mediating factors

2

Puddey et al. 2017 [68]

AU

Cross-sectional

2829

89.8%

Mediating factors

4

Tran et al. 2017 [69]

US

Controlled trial

128

NA

Effectiveness of an educational intervention

2

Briggs et al. 2018 [70]

US

Controlled trial

42

88%

Effectiveness of an educational intervention

2

Garcia et al. 2018 [71]

US

Cross-sectional

40,846

100%

Change in MS-IWU + Mediating factors

4

Kost et al. 2018 [72]

US

Case-control

158

77%

Effectiveness of an educational intervention

3

Larkins et al. 2018 [21]

AU, BE, CA, PH, ZA, SD

Controlled trial

3346

76.2%

Effectiveness of an educational intervention

2

Wolley et al. 2018 [73]

PH

Case-control

492

45.5%

Effectiveness of selection strategies

3

Burkhardt et al. 2019 [74]

US

Cross-sectional

17,067

91%

Mediating factors

4

Godfrey et al. 2019 [75]

US

Non-controlled trial

59

84%

Effectiveness of an educational intervention

3

Heller et al. 2019 [76]

ZA

Non-controlled trial

52

NA

Effectiveness of an educational intervention

3

Jacobs et al. 2019 [77]

US

Non-controlled trial

11

50%

Effectiveness of an educational intervention

3

Phelan et al. 2019 [78]

US

Cohort

3756

64.5%

Change in MS-IWU

2

  1. a The quality of included studies was measured using the rating scheme modified from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine23: the score is based on the design of the study (1 = randomized trial; 2 = controlled trial without randomization; 3 = case-control study or retrospective cohort study; 4 = cross-sectional study or case series)
  2. Abbreviations: MS-ATU Medical students attitudes toward the underserved; MS-IWU Medical students intention to work with the underserved; AR Argentina; AU Australia; BE Belgium; CA Canada; NZ New Zealand; PH Philippines; ZA South Africa; SD = Sudan; US United States of America