This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (10)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Robert H. Friedman, MD

JAMA. 1986;255(19):2644-2646.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Experimentation in medical education has a strong history in this country. It has been the rule in the development of primary care training programs during the past two decades and should be encouraged for the future. The suggestions of Christiansen et al¹ and Geyman² presented in this issue of THE JOURNAL fit into this tradition. Integration of primary care training into a single unified program, combining the best elements of current approaches, is logically appealing. We would then follow the example of other countries, like Britain and Canada, where there is one type of primary care physician and one model of primary care education.

The call for dramatic changes in primary care training rests primarily on the assumption that current programs will not meet the primary care medical manpower needs of the future. However, some current data support the conclusion that primary care physician manpower for the 1990s . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Boston University School of Medicine

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?