Army family practice: Does our training meet our needs?

Bruce M. LeClair, B. Wayne Blount, William F. Miser, David L. Maness, Wayne A. Schirner, George F. Weightman, Ronald Jones

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations


Objectives: (1) To determine the perceived adequacy of residency training for current practice by Army family physicians; (2) to ascertain if differences exist by residency setting: medical center, medical activity, or civilian. Methods: Surveys were mailed to the 334 family physicians in the Army in 1993. Training in various subject areas was rated as inadequate, adequate, or overly prepared. Results: More than 75% of respondents felt prepared in 76% of general medical subjects (GM) but in only 39% of family medicine subjects (FM). There were no practice management subjects in which more than 75% felt adequately prepared. There were no differences in perceptions of GM or FM training between military- and civilian-trained respondents. Conclusions: Army and civilian residencies prepare family physicians for the medical aspects of practice. Early training in management subjects could be enhanced. Civilian and Army programs could improve training in family medicine subjects.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)601-604
Number of pages4
JournalMilitary medicine
Issue number9
StatePublished - Sep 1997

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health


Dive into the research topics of 'Army family practice: Does our training meet our needs?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this