All primary care trainees are not the same: The role of economic factors and career choice

Gary L. Freed, Kelly M. Dunham, William F. Balistreri, Thomas F. Boat, George Lister, Julia A. McMillan, Joseph W. St Geme, Linda A. Althouse, M. Douglas Jones, Gail A. McGuinness, James A. Stockman

Research output: Contribution to journalShort surveypeer-review

8 Scopus citations


Historically, the specialties classified as "primary care" have been pediatrics, internal medicine, and family medicine. Often, primary care disciplines are aggregated in workforce or career-preference studies, and any differences among them are not assessed or reported. However, such aggregation is likely unwarranted and may actually lead to false or misguided policy direction in the name of "primary care disciplines" when, in fact, there may be substantive differences among these specialties. We examine here the data available to assess whether the physicians who make up 2 of the primary care specialties are necessarily the same with regard to their perspectives on the economic aspects of medicine in general, or their own personal economic preferences regarding career choice in particular. Recent research has demonstrated that there are substantive differences among internal medicine trainees and pediatric trainees. As such, we must be cautious when using data from 1 primary care specialty to suggest structural and/or policy changes regarding the economic structure of training for the others.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)574-577
Number of pages4
Issue number3
StatePublished - Mar 2010


  • Career
  • Economics
  • Primary care
  • Workforce

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health


Dive into the research topics of 'All primary care trainees are not the same: The role of economic factors and career choice'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this