Abstract
Background
Social accountability aligns the health demands and priorities of the community and the commitment of medical schools. Existing literature has proposed contextually distinctive interventions encompassing geographical initiatives, institutions and communities, and systematic categorizations for the implementation of social accountability in a rural setting. Research concerning social accountability implementation strategies has been insufficient. This study provides an overview of the existing literature surrounding the social accountability practice of physicians and medical schools, in rural settings, through evidence of the barriers and facilitators inherent to these communities.
Methods
This scoping review of 53 studies was conducted to determine challenges and facilitators associated with promoting social accountability in rural settings that are faced by physicians and medical schools. The review was consistent with the Arksey and O’Malley framework and included a search of Web of Science, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Embase to identify peer-reviewed articles on the topic from inception until April 1, 2024. Articles were screened against eligibility criteria, and important study characteristics and findings were extracted. A thematic analysis and narrative synthesis approach was used to analyze the data and report the results.
Results
A total of 2698 abstracts were identified, 180 full-text articles were reviewed, and 53 articles were identified as eligible for inclusion in the review. Strategies used and problems inherent in promoting social accountability across physician practice and medical education are reported.
Conclusions
This scoping review synthesizes existing evidence on the barriers and facilitators of social accountability practices in rural settings globally. The identified literature captures recurring themes of medical infrastructure inadequacy, community immersion curriculum design, targeted admission, geographical isolation, and institutional or peer support.
Introduction
About 45% of the world's population, amounting to over 3 billion people, live in rural and remote areas where they experience a number of challenges in accessing quality healthcare.1–4 These include a lack of proper healthcare facilities, geographical inaccessibility of clinics and hospitals, poor infrastructure, transportation difficulties, and financial constraints.5–8 In addition, most of the people residing in these areas belong to vulnerable and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. 9 Rural communities generally have poorer health compared to urban communities.9,10 Individuals are more likely to experience chronic diseases and are less likely to have medical insurance.11–13 Similarly, rural populations have high rates of smoking, heavy drinking and obesity.14–16 Moreover, rurality has been found to be associated with shorter life expectancy. 17 For years, rural and remote populations have also struggled to recruit and retain physicians, leading to a shortage of healthcare professionals from primary care physicians to specialists and in turn exacerbating existing disparities in health status and access.11,18
In recent years, there has been an emphasis on addressing the lack of physicians in rural and remote areas through promoting social accountability in medical education. Social accountability is the “obligation [of medical schools] to direct their education, research and service activities towards addressing the priority health concerns of the community, the region, and/or nation they have a mandate to serve.” 19 It is a paradigm shift that requires stakeholders such as physicians and medical educators to reassess their personal and collective responsibilities in addition to implementing interventions to reduce the maldistribution of physicians across rural and urban areas and meet the needs of rural populations. 20 Efforts to incorporate social accountability into medical education have focused on recruiting students who are representative of the local population, teaching social accountability-related material in lectures, increasing community engagement, offering service-learning placements within rural settings, and providing opportunities for international electives. 21 In contrast, physicians seeking to promote social accountability on a personal level often turn to medical ethics commitments and professional values.
The importance of social accountability in facilitating equitable access to medical care, empowering marginalized communities and vulnerable groups, and improving public health and quality of care is beginning to receive recognition. Although several studies have examined initiatives to promote social accountability in physicians and medical schools, there have been no attempts to scope and synthesize the literature, recognizing factors that might ease or hinder their implementation. This scoping review was conducted with the aim of providing an overview of the literature on the promotion of social accountability in rural and remote areas, specifically identifying challenges and facilitators encountered by physicians and medical schools in the process.
Methods
Framework
This scoping review was conducted to identify barriers and facilitators faced by physicians and medical schools while attempting to promote social accountability within rural communities. An initial review of gaps in the literature surrounding the factors influencing social accountability efforts in rural communities informed the objectives of this review. Drawing on these findings, the research questions were generated and refined through preliminary team meetings. Scoping reviews are a type of evidence synthesis that provides a comprehensive landscape of the body of literature on a particular topic. 22 The aim was to provide a broad overview and identify any knowledge gaps, pertaining well to this specific methodology. This review was conducted using the Arksey and O’Malley framework 23 which consists of six steps: (1) identifying the research question; (2) searching the literature for relevant studies; (3) screening studies for eligibility; (4) data extraction; (5) data analysis; and (6) an optional stakeholder consultation. A stakeholder consultation was not performed. This scoping review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), 24 which can be located in the Supplementary Appendix.
Search Strategy and Study Selection
A comprehensive search was conducted on April 1, 2024 using keywords related to all concepts examined in this review such as “social accountability”, “physicians,” and “medical school” and tailored to each database including Web of Science, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Embase (Supplemental File 1). Title and abstract and full-text screening were conducted on Covidence. 25 For both stages of screening, each record was independently assessed for eligibility using the predetermined inclusion criteria by at least two reviewers and any conflicts were resolved by consensus. Primary articles of any study design that addressed social accountability among physicians and medical schools in the context of rural and remote communities were included. Articles were only included if they were written in English. On the other hand, articles that did not discuss social accountability from the perspective of physicians or medical schools were excluded. Studies were also removed if they were based in non-rural settings. Moreover, non-research articles (eg, errata, commentaries, book chapters, letters to the editor, protocols, editorials, perspectives, and opinion pieces), thesis dissertations, conference proceedings, and reviews were excluded.
Data Extraction and Analysis
A standardized data extraction template was created on Covidence. The extraction form for each study was independently populated by two reviewers with information on the methodological and participant characteristics along with the main findings. A third reviewer collated the abstracted data through consensus. Study characteristics extracted included (1) the title of the article; (2) name of the lead author; (3) the country in which the study was conducted; (4) date of print publication; (5) study design (eg, cross-sectional, qualitative, mixed-methods, case report etc.); (6) setting (eg, rural village, medical institution); (7) participant population (eg, medical educators, physicians, medical students); (8) population size; (9) participant demographics and age; and (10) study objectives. Furthermore, the following information pertaining to social accountability was abstracted from each study: (1) its definition; (2) importance (eg, impact on patient outcomes or community wellbeing); (3) measures (eg, interviews, perspectives, surveys etc); (4) social accountability challenges experienced by physicians and medical schools; (5) the impact of these barriers on social accountability; (6) proposed solutions; (7) key roles to be taken up by physicians, medical schools and educators; (8) facilitators of social accountability for physicians and medical schools; (9) impact of the intervention; and (10) translation of social accountability in other communities (eg, similar medical education, training frameworks, physician workshops). Information regarding the article's conclusion, authors’ suggestions, directions for future research and study limitations were also reported in the extraction form. The data was subsequently reviewed to identify salient concepts and overarching patterns pertaining to the implementation of social accountability. Data was categorized on the basis of whether it pertained to physician practices or medical education. A thematic analysis approach was used to further analyze the data and identify relationships between the findings of included studies. This involved reviewing the key challenges and facilitators reported, and generating overarching themes that encompass the factors that influence social accountability practices in rural settings. The final themes presented in this review were refined through regular discussion among the review authors. A descriptive, narrative synthesis approach was used to report the results of this review. An a priori protocol was not registered as the objective of this scoping review is to be explorative and descriptive rather than evaluative or definitive. Scoping reviews are inherently flexible in methodology, thus, in the absence of a universally required registry for this type of evidence synthesis, protocol registration was not pursued. We do not assess the risk of bias or produce pooled effect estimates.
Results
Search Results
The database search yielded 2698 hits from which 692 records were removed due to duplication. The remaining 2006 records were screened for eligibility based on their title and abstracts and another 1826 articles were excluded. 180 full-text records were assessed against the inclusion criteria and a total of 53 articles were deemed eligible for inclusion in the final scoping review (Figure 1).

Scoping review study selection flow diagram.
Descriptive Summary
All articles were published after 2005 with six (11.3%) articles being published between 2005 and 2010, 35 (66.0%) articles between 2011 and 2020 and 12 (22.7%) articles between 2021 and 2024 (Table 1). A majority (45.3%) of the included articles were qualitative studies. 13 (24.6%) studies followed a cross-sectional design, eight (15.1%) articles used prospective cohorts while four (7.5%) studies employed a mixed-methods approach. Descriptive analysis was used in two (3.7%) studies while retrospective cohort and retrospective case study approaches were taken in one (1.9%) study each (Table 2).
Original articles (n = 53) included in the scoping review.
Characteristics of original articles included in the study.
Studies included in this review were conducted across 15 countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, India, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Philippines, Scotland, South Africa, Sudan, Thailand, and the United States. A majority of the studies were from Canada (24.5%), followed by Australia (22.6%), Philippines (11.3%), and the United States (9.4%) with multi-national studies (including Belgium, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Sudan) accounting for 13.2% of the included articles. Three (5.7%) studies were conducted in South Africa (2.8%), two (3.8%) in Scotland, and one each (1.9%) in India, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, New Zealand, and Thailand (Table 2).
Thematic Analysis
Challenges for Physicians to Promote Social Accountability
A total of 21 (39.6%) studies reported on the challenges faced by physicians promoting social accountability.29,32,34,37,39,43,44,46,47,49–51,53,55,58,62,63,69,72,75,76 Professional limitations and poor working conditions were identified as a barrier in nine of these 21 studies, emerging as the most prevalent challenge.29,43,44,51,53,55,63,75,76 These included long working hours; 29 higher workloads; 76 low remuneration;43,44,51,63 absence of appropriate medical equipment and facilities to support the community and physicians’ career aspirations;43,44 unstructured learning environment; 75 inadequate supervision; 75 and a lack of opportunities for professional development.32,44,53,76 Physicians who did not have a rural background were also faced with mismatches between their skills and the needs of the population they were serving, contributing to further issues within an already challenging work environment. 55
Negative, progressively worsening attitudes among medical students and physicians were listed as a challenge in seven studies32,34,37,44,46,63,69 These were characterized by a declining sense of idealism,32,69 a lack of understanding and consideration for Indigenous communities,34,37 and diminished interest in working with underserved populations. 69 Family medicine and primary care were poorly understood and viewed as unattractive fields that were perceived as neither valued by the public or other physicians.44,72 Furthermore, physicians were reluctant to face stigma if they chose to live and work within rural communities. 46
In addition, medical students and physicians had their own preferences of where they would like to practice as mentioned in four studies.39,47,49,62 The intention to emigrate was noted among individuals belonging to international, urban, and high-income backgrounds.47,49,62 Higher pay, better working conditions, and the desire to gain experience in a foreign country were reported as the main reasons for wanting to leave.47,62 One finding that particularly stood out was the lack of willingness among students from very low socioeconomic backgrounds to work in underserved communities, potentially attributed to aspirations of being upwardly mobile in society. 39
Deterrents of serving in rural and remote communities also included familial concerns, such as the scarcity of employment opportunities for partners and barriers hindering the success of their children, which were brought up in four articles.43,51,58,63 Moreover, geographical isolation29,58,63 and language barriers29,44,58 were cited as challenges in three studies each. A lack of amenities in rural areas, such as poor accommodation, few restaurants, and limited social activities, were mentioned in two studies,29,43 while one study reported on the reluctance of Indigenous people to engage in projects due to prior negative experiences with medical researchers. 50
Challenges for Medical Schools to Promote Social Accountability
Barriers to promote social accountability for medical schools and educational institutes were mentioned in 23 (43.4%) studies.26,27,30,33,35,36,40–42,44,49,50,55–58,62–65,68,69,72 Curriculum incompetency was the most frequently reported challenge and was listed in 14 articles.35,40,44,50,56–58,62–65,68,69,72 The curricula used within medical schools and clinical training were largely conventional with little focus on primary care.62,72 Components incorporating rural immersion were often short and lacked appropriate support mechanisms for students and physicians.50,63 In addition, options for medical school electives and residency track that incorporated community health were typically limited to individuals who were at least in their final year of medical school at which point they did not hold much utility in drawing physicians towards serving rural communities. 69 Demands such as the need for community collaboration, tailoring the program to local needs, and the absence of an appropriate evaluation tool made it difficult to establish effective, socially accountable curricula.50,56,65,68 Furthermore, attempts at shifting towards a community-based approach to medical education were met with resistance from conventional medical institutions and government bodies, contributing to the current inadequacy of curricula. 40
Financial and resource constraints to establish socially accountable medical education and training programs were discussed in eight studies.33,36,40,44,49,50,56,69 A lack of diversity and inclusivity in admission and recruitment policies was referred to in four studies as a barrier that limited the selection of students from rural backgrounds and those that might be more inclined to practice in these communities.26,42,49,56 Three studies each recognized poorly developed infrastructure30,41,56 and training and availability of teaching staff44,50,56 as a challenge for medical schools. Moreover, one study criticized the redistribution of graduate training positions for directing future primary care physicians to other specialties due to a relatively larger increase in non-primary versus primary care training. 27
Facilitators of Social Accountability for Physicians
Facilitators for physicians to promote social accountability were listed in 17 (32.1%) studies.30,31,38,42–47,49–53,55,58,75 Community immersion, the most discussed facilitator, was recognized in 16 studies.30,31,38,42–45,47,49–53,55,58,75 Exposure to rural communities during their medical education (eg, rotations) and through their own rural background and upbringing were both found to increase the willingness of physicians to serve these communities.30,31,38,42–45,47,49–53,55,58,75
Positive attitudes towards rural health and primary care were identified as facilitators in four studies.31,43,44,47 These included a sense of responsibility towards serving the needs of their country,31,43,44,47 desire to stay close to their family,31,43,47 attachment to their home community,31,47 and finding the remoteness of rural areas to be appealing. 43
The importance of peer support and establishing meaningful relationships with colleagues was highlighted in four studies.31,46,51,75 Similarly, the positive experience of their family members in rural areas encouraged physicians to remain and continue practicing in those communities. 51
Facilitators of Social Accountability for Medical Schools and Medical Educators
Forty-five of the included articles (84.9%) discussed facilitators for medical schools and educators to promote social accountability.26,28,29,31,33–36,39–48,50–71,73,74,76–78 Using a community-centered curriculum was reported in 39 studies as an effective intervention.28,29,31,33–36,39,40,42–47,50–54,56–59,61–64,66–71,73,74,76–78 Such curricula were designed in collaboration with community members and local physicians and were specifically tailored to the needs of the area and its population.33,61,68,77,78 They typically entailed experiential or service-learning opportunities in a rural context, including clinical rotations and research projects.28,29,31,33,34,36,40,42,43,45–47,50–52,54,56–59,62–64,66,67,70,71,73,74,76–78 Service-learning activities were also offered with underserved, low-income, and international communities.57,69,78 Other components of community-centered curricula included health equity, 78 family medicine, 44 primary care,47,62 public health, 62 and interprofessional education.35,73
Targeted admission policies emerged as a facilitator in 11 studies.26,31,33,41,44,45,48,55,56,76,77 These were aimed at recruiting students that were regionally, ethnically, and socio-demographically diverse; and representative of the communities that the medical schools were serving.45,48,77 Strategies focused on increasing recruitment from local, rural areas; non-traditional and indigenous backgrounds; and lower socioeconomic groups, considering non-academic abilities in their admissions criteria to select students with a higher likelihood of working in primary care, remote regions, and with underserved populations.26,31,33,41,45,48,55,56,76
The role of medical educators, acting as good role models, in supporting medical school's social accountability mission was acknowledged in nine studies.40,43,44,47,60–63,70 These instructors encouraged students to consider rural practice by sharing their own passion for the field, relaying their experiences, and promoting family medicine.43,44,60,61,70 Government support for socially accountable programs was also reported to facilitate medical schools in their implementation of these initiatives in a single study. 62 In addition, according to the findings in one study, having an evaluative tool helped medical schools gauge their progression towards attaining social accountability, allowing them to critically analyze enabling and impeding factors and thus, work towards their goal more effectively. 65
Discussion
This scoping review is the first to identify social accountability practices in a rural context on a global scale. Fifty-three publications from 15 countries documented the prevalence of rural social accountability practice, highlighting the integral significance of addressing this inequality. More understanding is needed regarding implementing social accountability in rural communities across other regions. Approximately 91% of the articles were published after the 2010 Delphi study toward a global consensus on the social accountability of medical schools (GCSA), 79 demonstrating a rising interest in the topic and increasing recognition of its importance.
Canadian medical schools demonstrated a heavy emphasis on social accountability practice, encompassing 24.5% of the overall literature, followed by Australia (22.6%), the Philippines (11.3%), the United States (9.4%), South Africa (5.7%), the UK (3.8%), India (1.9%), Japan (1.9%), Kyrgyzstan (1.9%), New Zealand (1.9%), and Thailand (1.9%), with multi-national studies comprising 13.2% of the included articles. Despite the inclusion of studies coming from diverse countries, this distribution demonstrated a lack of literature from regions of Latin America, the Middle East, and Northern and Central Africa.
The practice patterns of social accountability are regionally diversified. The Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India (CMCV), has a well-documented history of practicing social accountability for over 100 years, originally started as a not-for-profit entity for services across all socioeconomic backgrounds. 52 Of the included studies, 12 pertained to NOSM University.45,47,49,50,58,64,65,70,71,73,76 NOSM University was established with an explicit social accountability mandate, which prioritizes the health needs of the local population and values community engagement. This mandate is guided by the belief that medical institutions bear an obligation to address the immediate health needs of the communities they serve. Key aspects of NOSM's model include community-based learning, rural placements, Indigenous health partnerships, and a tailored student recruitment strategy. 17
Challenges for Physicians and Medical Schools to Promote Social Accountability
Thematic analysis indicated that barriers for physicians and medical school students to contribute towards rural social accountability practice include (a) inadequate working infrastructure as the most prevalent challenge, (b) a mismatch between physician skills and the population's needs, (c) unfavorable attitudes of medical students and physicians, (d) personal preferences attributed to socioeconomic backgrounds, (e) familial considerations for the development of subsequent generations due to geographical isolation, (f) cultural contrasts with the local population, and (g) negative inclination of Indigenous population towards medical researchers.
Barriers decelerating the spread of medical school rural practice of social accountability comprise of (a) inadequacies in curriculum design with insufficient consideration for the needs of rural settings and a focus on alleviating institutional or governmental objections, (b) monetary and resource constraints, (c) absence of admission diversity and equality considerations, (d) inadequate or nascent infrastructure development, and (e) human resource redistribution after graduation.
Facilitators of Social Accountability for Physicians and Medical Schools
Facilitators of physician efforts to promote social accountability were summarized as (a) exposure to rural communities, (b) rural familial background, (c) favorable attitudes towards rural regions during medical school studies, and (d) underpinning peer-to-peer mitigation.
Moreover, facilitators for mitigating social accountability challenges faced by medical schools encompass the following: (a) curriculum design centering on the community and assessing the demands of the population, (b) targeted admission policies emphasizing the recruitment of students who are inherently representative of the community or region they have the mandate to serve, (c) the provision of peer, mentor, and institutional support through establishing role models, and (d) evaluation of social accountability engagement using external tools.
Evaluating the barriers and facilitators of social accountability practice has demonstrated intrinsic challenges due to the multipolar nature of the construct on a global scale. This accentuates the need for a unified, region-dependent, and flexible framework, extending beyond the challenges of infrastructure, retention, socioeconomic status, and recruitment, encompassing the philosophical landscape and cultural differences inherent to the region. Overall, this scoping review serves to highlight the admission policies and educational responsibilities of medical schools, along with the individual ethical and community responsibilities of physicians.
Limitations
Limitations of this scoping review have been identified. The findings of this review were limited to published peer-reviewed primary studies and all gray literature was excluded, indicating a potential overrepresentation of significant results. The primary research studies that were included utilized small sample sizes. In addition, there was heterogeneity in the definitions of social accountability between included studies. This was considered when developing the inclusion criteria, which specified the definition of social accountability in accordance with the WHO guidelines. 19
Conclusion
This scoping review synthesizes existing evidence from 53 articles on the barriers and facilitators of social accountability practices in rural settings across 15 countries. The identified literature captures recurring themes of medical infrastructure inadequacy, community immersion curriculum design, targeted admission, geographical isolation, and institutional or peer support. Prospective research could focus on expanding and refining current guidelines and frameworks to improve socially accountable benchmarks in rural areas.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-mde-10.1177_23821205251348015 - Supplemental material for Challenges and Facilitators for Physicians and Medical Schools to Promote Social Accountability in Rural Communities: A Scoping Review and Thematic Analysis
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-mde-10.1177_23821205251348015 for Challenges and Facilitators for Physicians and Medical Schools to Promote Social Accountability in Rural Communities: A Scoping Review and Thematic Analysis by Aghna Wasim, Ali Abud, Yihan Wang, Ehsan Tavakoli, Athena Moreno-Gris, Samar Joshi, Arthur Wang, Angela Neasadurai and Nikki Shaw in Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development
Footnotes
Acknowledgement
We acknowledge all Evidentia Institute of Knowledge Synthesis volunteers and staff members for their support.
Ethical Considerations
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal participants. There are no human participants in this article and informed consent is not required.
Author Contributions
AW, AA, and YW contributed to conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, visualization, writing (original draft), and writing (review & editing); ET, AMG, SJ, ALW, and AN contributed to data curation, formal analysis, writing (original draft), and writing (review & editing); NS contributed to conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, supervision, visualization, writing (original draft), and writing (review & editing).
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the Supplement Material.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
