"Community" has featured in the discourse about medical education for over half a century. This discourse has explored relationships between medical education programs and communities in community-oriented medical education and community-based medical education and, in recent years, has extended to community-engaged medical education (CEME). This Perspective explores the developing focus on "community" in medical education, describes CEME as a concept, and presents examples of CEME in action at Flinders University School of Medicine (Australia), the Northern Ontario School of Medicine (Canada), and Ateneo de Zamboanga University School of Medicine (Philippines).The authors describe the ways in which CEME, which features active community participation, can improve medical education while meeting community needs and advancing national and international health equity agendas. They suggest that CEME can redefine student learning as taking place at the center of the partnership between communities and medical schools. They also consider the challenges of CEME and caution that criteria for community engagement must be sensitive to cultural variations and to the nature of the social contract in different sociocultural settings.The authors argue that CEME is effective in producing physicians who choose to practice in rural and underserved areas. Further research is required to demonstrate that CEME contributes to improved health, and ultimately health equity, for the populations served by the medical school.

Transformation of a "block rotation" to "LIC" medical student education in a tertiary academic teaching hospital has many challenges, many of which can be anticipated, but some are unexpected.

Background: There is an urgent need to scale up global action on rural workforce development. This World Health Organization-sponsored research aimed to develop a Rural Pathways Checklist. Its purpose was to guide the practical implementation of rural workforce training, development, and support strategies in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). It was intended for any LMICs, stakeholder, health worker, context, or health problem.Method: Multi-methods involved: (1) focus group concept testing; (2) a policy analysis; (3) a scoping review of LMIC literature; (4) consultation with a global Expert Reference Group and; (5) field-testing over an 18-month period.Results: The Checklist included eight actions for implementing rural pathways in LMICs: establishing community needs; policies and partners; exploring existing workers and scope; selecting health workers; education and training; working conditions for recruitment and retention; accreditation and recognition of workers; professional support/up-skilling and; monitoring and evaluation. For each action, a summary of LMICs-specific evidence and prompts was developed to stimulate reflection and learning. To support implementation, rural pathways exemplars from different WHO regions were also compiled. Field-testing showed the Checklist is fit for purpose to guide holistic planning and benchmarking of rural pathways, irrespective of LMICs, stakeholder, or health worker type.Conclusion: The Rural Pathways Checklist provides an agreed global conceptual framework for the practical implementation of “grow your own” strategies in LMICs. It can be applied to scale-up activity for rural workforce training and development in LMICs, where health workers are most limited and health needs are greatest.