Project description:Rationale and objectivesVirtual residency interviews have become crucial in maintaining CDC-recommended precautionary measures throughout the ongoing COVID-era. However, scant literature exists regarding the direct impact the pandemic has had on the radiology program selection process, including preferred modalities of residency interviews and social media utilization. This survey aimed to understand how radiology programs adapted to changes in the 2020-2021 virtual application cycle.Materials and methodsA 32-question survey was distributed to 194 residency programs between July and August of 2021. Data were analyzed primarily by using descriptive statistics and Paired Student's T-testing.ResultsA total of 31 programs completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 16%. When queried about the perceived success of virtual interviews during the 2020-2021 application cycle, 21 programs (68%) said the new interview format was very successful. Twenty-seven of the programs (87%) believed they were able to adequately gauge applicants through virtual interviews. However, when surveyed about personal preferences for interviews, the responses were more evenly distributed between virtual (11/31, 35%) and in-person (14/31, 45%). Pre-COVID, the top three criteria programs used to rank candidates were USMLE Step 1 score (20/31, 65%), letters of recommendation (17/31, 55%), and MSPE (12/31, 39%). Within the virtual, COVID-19 era, these criteria remained statistically unchanged (p = 0.22): USMLE Step 1 score (21/31, 68%), letters of recommendation (17/31, 55%), and MSPE (14/31, 45%). About half of programs who had not previously utilized social media (12 of 23, 52%) created accounts, mostly via Twitter or Instagram.ConclusionThe primary findings indicate that programs perceived success with virtually interviewing and ranking applicants, the criteria to rank applicants remain unchanged despite the virtual environment, and programs' social media utilization increased.
Project description:BackgroundIn Kuwait, 21 residency training programs were offered in the year 2011; however, no data is available regarding the criteria of selecting residents for these programs. This study aims to provide information about the importance of these criteria.MethodsA self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data from members (e.g. chairmen, directors, assistants …etc.) of residency programs in Kuwait. A total of 108 members were invited to participate. They were asked to rate the importance level (scale from 1 to 5) of criteria that may affect the acceptance of an applicant to their residency programs. Average scores were calculated for each criterion.ResultsOf the 108 members invited to participate, only 12 (11.1%) declined to participate. Interview performance was ranked as the most important criteria for selecting residents (average score: 4.63/5.00), followed by grade point average (average score: 3.78/5.00) and honors during medical school (average score: 3.67/5.00). On the other hand, receiving disciplinary action during medical school and failure in a required clerkship were considered as the most concerning among other criteria used to reject applicants (average scores: 3.83/5.00 and 3.54/5.00 respectively). Minor differences regarding the importance level of each criterion were noted across different programs.ConclusionsThis study provided general information about the criteria that are used to accept/reject applicants to residency programs in Kuwait. Future studies should be conducted to investigate each criterion individually, and to assess if these criteria are related to residents' success during their training.
Project description:ImportanceDisparities in representation between sexes have been shown at multiple career stages in medicine despite increasing representation in the overall physician workforce.ObjectiveTo assess sex representation of applicants to the Canadian R-1 entry match for postgraduate training programs from 1995 to 2019, comparing distribution between different specialties as well as applied vs matched applicants.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional analysis of aggregate data provided by the Canadian Resident Matching Service between 1995 and 2019 analyzed aggregate data for the Canadian R-1 residency match from 1995 through 2019.ExposuresApplicant sex as reported in the Canadian Resident Matching Service database.Main outcomes and measuresThe sex representation of applicants was compared and the longitudinal trends in sex representation were analyzed by specialty between 1995 and 2019. The sex representation of overall applicants to the Canadian R-1 entry match were compared with matched applicants, and both were stratified by specialty.ResultsA total of 48 424 applicants were identified (26 407 [54.5%] female applicants), of which 41 037 were matched applicants. Using specialty groupings, female applicants were most highly represented in obstetrics and gynecology (1776 of 2090 [85.0%]) and least represented in radiology (658 of 2055 [32.0%]). Within individual subspecialties, female applicants had the lowest representation in neurosurgery (90 of 394 [22.8%]). While female applicants represented an increasing proportion of the overall applicant population between 1995 and 2019 (z = 2.71; P = .007), significant increases were seen in some, but not all, individual specialties. Differences by sex were found among Canadian medical graduate match rates to their top-ranked specialty: female applicants had a lower likelihood of being rejected for family medicine (rejection of male applicants: OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.39-0.54; P < .001) and psychiatry (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.46-0.76; P < .001) and were more likely to be rejected for all-encompassing surgery (acceptance of male applicants: OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.10-1.28; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIncreasing representation of female residency applicants over time was seen in some, but not all, medical specialties in Canada, and sex-based differences in successful match rates were observed in some specialties. The reasons for these disparities require further investigation for corrective strategies to be identified.
Project description:ImportancePreference signaling is a new initiative in the residency application process that has been adopted by 17 specialties that include more than 80% of applicants in the 2023 National Resident Matching cycle. The association of signals with interview selection rate across applicant demographics has not been fully examined.ObjectiveTo assess the validity of survey-based data on the association of preference signals with interview offers and describe the variation across demographic groups.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study examined the interview selection outcomes across demographic groups for applications with and without signals in the 2021 Otolaryngology National Resident Matching cycle. Data were obtained from a post-hoc collaboration between the Association of American Medical Colleges and the Otolaryngology Program Directors Organization evaluating the first preference signaling program used in residency application. Participants included otolaryngology residency applicants in the 2021 application cycle. Data were analyzed from June to July 2022.ExposuresApplicants were provided the option of submitting 5 signals to otolaryngology residency programs to indicate specific interest. Signals were used by programs when selecting candidates to interview.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome of interest was the association of signaling with interview selection. A series of logistic regression analyses were conducted at the individual program level. Each program within the 3 program cohorts (overall, gender, and URM status) was evaluated with 2 models.ResultsOf 636 otolaryngology applicants, 548 (86%) participated in preference signaling, including 337 men (61%) and 85 applicants (16%) who identified as underrepresented in medicine, including American Indian or Alaska Native; Black or African American; Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish origin; or Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. The median interview selection rate for applications with a signal (48% [95% CI, 27%-68%]) was significantly higher than for applications without a signal (10% [95% CI, 7%-13%]). No difference was observed in median interview selection rates with or without signals when comparing male (46% [95% CI, 24%-71%] vs 7% [95% CI, 5%-12%]) and female (50% [95% CI, 20%-80%] vs 12% [95% CI, 8%-18%]) applicants or when comparing applicants who identified as URM (53% [95% CI, 16%-88%] vs 15% [95% CI, 8%-26%]) with those who did not identify as URM (49% [95% CI, 32%-68%] vs 8% [95% CI, 5%-12%]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of otolaryngology residency applicants, preference signaling was associated with an increased likelihood of applicants being selected for interview by signaled programs. This correlation was robust and present across the demographic categories of gender and self-identification as URM. Future research should explore the associations of signaling across a broad range of specialties and the associations of signals with inclusion and position on rank order lists and match outcomes.
Project description:IntroductionThe Residency Match is becoming more competitive each year, and more than ever, medical students must prove themselves in the residency interview. Data from the 2018 National Residency Matching Program's Program Director Survey highlight the importance of the interview on Match performance. We developed a residency interview training program with the goal of preparing medical students for residency interviews, and we assessed the impact of the training on medical student confidence.MethodsOur residency interview training program includes (1) a short didactic session on the residency interview process, (2) an informational packet with commonly asked questions, (3) two 20-minute practice (mock) interviews, (4) 10 minutes of face-to-face feedback from interviewers, (5) a facilitated group debriefing, and (6) access to a participant's two videotaped interviews and a guided self-assessment. To evaluate the effectiveness of our program, we assessed student confidence with a pre- and postsurvey.ResultsWe have been running our residency interview training program since 2014. Over the last 5 years, 73 fourth-year medical students have participated. When polled after completing their first authentic residency interview, students felt they had more knowledge of the interview process, better preparation, and more confidence in their skills to interview successfully; they also believed that the program improved their interview performance.DiscussionPerformance during the residency interview is the most important factor used by residency programs to rank applicants. Using our residency interview training program, medical students can improve their confidence prior to interviews.
Project description:PurposeThe novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has swept the globe, with a domino effect on medical education and training. In this study, we surveyed Canadian radiology residents to understand the impact of the pandemic on their residency training, strategies utilized by the residency programs in mitigating those impacts, and factors important to residents in the selection of educational resources on COVID-19.MethodsA 10-item questionnaire was distributed to 460 resident members of the Canadian Association of Radiologists. The survey was open for 2 weeks, with a reminder sent at half-way mark.ResultsWe received 96 responses (response rate: 20.9%). The 4 highest affected domains of training were daytime case volumes (92.4%), daytime schedules (87.4%), internal and external assessments (86.5%), and vacation/travel (83.3%). Virtual teaching rounds (91.7%), change in schedules to allow staying home (78.1%), and virtual/phone readouts (72.9%) were the most utilized strategies by the Canadian radiology residency programs. Overall stress of exposure to the disease was moderate to low (86.5%). A minority of the residents were redeployed (6.2%), although most (68.8%) were on standby for redeployment. Residents preferred published society guidelines (92.3%), review papers (79.3%), video lectures (79.3%), and web tools (76.9%) for learning about COVID-19 imaging manifestations.ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on various domains of the Canadian radiology residency programs, which has been mitigated by several strategies employed by the training programs.
Project description:BackgroundMicroaggressions are one form of gender bias contributing to gender disparities and mistreatment, but their prevalence during virtual residency interviews has not been explored.ObjectiveTo explore applicants' recall of experiencing gender microaggressions during virtual residency interviews and whether these experiences affected programs' rank position on applicants' rank lists.MethodsFourth-year medical students at a single institution who participated in the 2021 Match were surveyed after submitting their rank lists. Students were surveyed categorically on (1) their recall of the frequency they experienced 17 gender microaggressions during interviews, and (2) how these affected reported ranking of programs on their rank lists.ResultsSixty-one percent (103 of 170) of eligible students responded to the survey. Seventy-two percent (36 of 50) of women experienced at least one microaggression compared to 30% (9 of 30) of men. The largest difference was in the experience of environmental microaggressions, which are demeaning cues communicated individually or institutionally, delivered visually, or that refer to climate (P<.001). Women experienced more microaggressions than men in nonsurgical (P=.003) and surgical specialties excluding obstetrics and gynecology (P=.009). When microaggressions were experienced at 1 to 2 programs, 36% of applicants (26 of 73) reported significantly lowering program ranking, compared to 5% (1 of 19) when microaggressions occurred at more than 5 programs (P=.038).ConclusionsWomen applicants experience more microaggressions than men do during nonsurgical and male-dominated surgical specialty residency interviews. Respondents who recalled experiencing microaggressions at fewer programs were more likely to report significantly lowering the rank of those programs compared to those who experienced them at more programs.
Project description:Purpose This article evaluates the relevance of social media to ophthalmology residency applicants in the setting of virtual interviews, the types of information sought by applicants, and the impact of rebranding of an institutional and departmental social media account. Design Cross-sectional survey. Participants Ophthalmology residency applicants from the 2020 to 2021 cycle. Methods A voluntary survey was emailed to 481 applicants to the University of Louisville Department of Ophthalmology residency during the 2020 to 2021 application cycle to gauge the impact of social media on their perspectives of residency programs, especially with regards to a new departmental social media account. Main Outcome Measures Applicants' use of social media platforms and specific components of departmental social media accounts found most useful. Results The 13-question survey was completed by 84/481 applicants (17.5% response rate). Social media was used by 93% of respondents. Of those respondents reporting social media use, the most common platforms utilized included Instagram (85%), Facebook (83%), Twitter (41%), and LinkedIn (29%). Sixty-nine percent of respondents specifically used Instagram to learn more about residency programs. With regards to the rebranded Instagram account at the University of Louisville, 58% of respondents reported being influenced, with all asserting that the account positively encouraged them to apply to the program. The most informative elements of the account related to current resident profiles, resident life, and living in Louisville. Conclusion A majority of responding ophthalmology residency applicants utilized social media to search for program information. A newly developed social media profile at a single institution positively influenced applicant impressions of the program, with the most importance assigned to information provided about current residents and typical resident life. These findings suggest key areas where programs should continue to dedicate online resources with targeted information to better recruit applicants.
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic presented many challenges for graduate medical education, including the need to quickly implement virtual residency interviews. We investigated how different programs approached these challenges to determine best practices.MethodsSurveys to solicit perspectives of program directors, program coordinators, and chief residents regarding virtual interviews were designed through an iterative process by two child neurology residency program directors. Surveys were distributed by email in May 2021. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics.ResultsResponses were received from 35 program directors and 34 program coordinators from 76 programs contacted. Compared with the 2019-2020 recruitment season, in 2020-2021, 14 of 35 programs received >10% more applications and most programs interviewed ≥12 applicants per position. Interview days were typically five to six hours long and were often coordinated with pediatrics interviews. Most programs (13/15) utilized virtual social events with residents, but these often did not allow residents to provide quality feedback about applicants. Program directors could adequately assess most applicant qualities but felt that virtual interviews limited their ability to assess applicants' interpersonal communication skills and to showcase special features of their programs. Most respondents felt that a combination of virtual and in-person interviewing should be utilized in the future.ConclusionsResidency program directors perceived some negative impacts of virtual interviewing on their recruitment efforts but in general felt that virtual interviews adequately replaced in-person interviews for assessing applicants. Most programs felt that virtual interviewing should be utilized in the future.
Project description:BackgroundChief residents have a unique role in graduate medical education (GME). They not only connect residents with program and hospital leadership, but also advocate for the wellbeing and educational priorities of trainees. Previous studies have focused on describing the characteristics of chief residents (CRs), however little is known about how CRs are selected across GME programs.MethodsOne-on-one semi-structured interviews with all (n = 21) GME program directors at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine were conducted from January to March 2022. Investigators independently coded the transcripts using an inductive approach to categorize meaningful segments of text; this culminated in the identification of explanatory themes.ResultsFrom discussions with 21 program directors, four themes were identified: (1) identifying candidates: timing, recruitment, nominations, as well as desirable attributes and data considered; (2) applications: expression of intent and participation in interviews; (3) selections: voting, discussions leading to consensus, and program director intimately involved in the choice(s); and (4) confidence in processes and outcomes.ConclusionsOur results provide a deeper understanding of the nuances associated with the selection of CRs. It is hoped that the descriptions of the similarities and differences across GME programs will prompt reflection about what is done at one institution such that all programs can consider what are the best practices to serve their individual goals and needs.