Background and Objectives: Primary care is associated with improved patient health and reductions in health disparities. Consequently, the demand for primary care physicians is increasing. To meet this demand, medical schools have employed strategies to graduate students interested in primary care careers, including medical education pathways—structured, longitudinal experiences that are explicitly separate from the main curricular scope of the undergraduate medical education experience. Our goal was to explore and identify common characteristics of medical education pathways that influence primary care specialty choice. Methods: Using research articles identified through a scoping review, we performed a qualitative content analysis of studies that evaluated the impact of medical education pathways on medical students’ choices of primary care careers. Results: Sixty-three papers described 43 medical education pathways; most studies used quantitative methods to describe outcomes. Program characteristics mapped onto five levels of an emerging socioecological model: state or national, community, institutional, relational, and individual. Conclusions: Successful medical education pathway programs complement a medical school curriculum that supports a common goal, and demonstrate multiple levels of structural and institutional factors that develop community connectedness, relatedness, and longitudinal community engagement in students. Further work is needed to better understand how each of these levels influence career choice and to reassess how to measure and report medical education outcomes that will more accurately predict the student choice of primary care careers.

Background and Objectives: The United States, like many other nations, faces a chronic shortage of primary care physicians. The purpose of this scoping review was to synthesize literature describing evidence-based institutional practices and interventions that support medical students’ choices of primary care specialties, published in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Methods: We surveyed peer-reviewed, published research. An experienced medical librarian conducted searches of multiple databases. Articles were selected for inclusion based on explicit criteria. We charted articles by topic, methodology, year of publication, journal, country of origin, and presence or absence of funding. We then scored included articles for quality. Finally, we defined and described six common stages of development of institutional interventions. Results: We reviewed 8,083 articles and identified 199 articles meeting inclusion criteria and 41 related articles. As a group, studies were of low quality, but improved over time. Most were quantitative studies conducted in the United States. Many studies utilized one of four common methodologic approaches: retrospective surveys, studies of programs or curricula, large-scale multi-institution comparisons, and single-institution exemplars. Most studies developed groundwork or examined effectiveness or impact, with few studies of planning or piloting. Few studies examined state or regional workforce outcomes. Conclusions: Research examining medical school interventions and institutional practices to support primary care specialty choice would benefit from stronger theoretical grounding, greater investment in planning and piloting, consistent use of language, more qualitative methods, and innovative approaches. Robust funding mechanisms are needed to advance these goals.