Dataset Information

Association of Doximity Ranking and Residency Program Characteristics Across 16 Specialty Training Programs.

ABSTRACT: Background:Residency program prestige is an important variable medical students consider when creating their rank list. Doximity Residency Navigator is a ranking system that previous reports have shown significantly influences medical student application decisions. Doximity's use of peer nomination as a central component of its methodology for determining program rank has drawn criticism for its lack of objectivity. Doximity has not published information regarding how peer nomination and more objective measures are statistically weighted in reputation calculation. Objective:This study assesses whether a strong negative correlation exists between residency program size and Doximity ranking. Methods:A cross-sectional study of Doximity residency rankings from the 2018-2019 academic year was conducted. Data extracted from Doximity included program rank, size, and age. Data were additionally collected from the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research, National Institutes of Health, funding in 2018 and the US News & World Report Best Medical Schools 2019-2020. A multivariable linear regression model was used that included Doximity ranking as the outcome variable and residency program size as the predictor variable with adjustment for the aforementioned variables. Results:Sixteen of the 28 specialties on Doximity were included in the analysis, representing 3388 unique residency programs. After adjustment for covariates, residency program size was a significant predictor of Doximity ranking (? = -1.84; 95% CI -2.01 to -1.66, P < .001). Conclusions:These findings support the critique that the Doximity reputation ranking system may favor larger residency programs. More transparency for Doximity reputation ranking algorithm is warranted.

SUBMITTER: Feinstein MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6795328 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association of Doximity Ranking and Residency Program Characteristics Across 16 Specialty Training Programs.

Feinstein Max M MM Niforatos Joshua D JD Mosteller Lauretta L Chelnick David D Raza Syed S Otteson Todd T

Journal of graduate medical education 20191001 5

<h4>Background</h4>Residency program prestige is an important variable medical students consider when creating their rank list. Doximity Residency Navigator is a ranking system that previous reports have shown significantly influences medical student application decisions. Doximity's use of peer nomination as a central component of its methodology for determining program rank has drawn criticism for its lack of objectivity. Doximity has not published information regarding how peer nomination and ...[more]

PMID: 31636829

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHealth disparities continue to exist despite the call to increase education of health care practitioners. An assessment of health disparities education has not been previously studied in a national cohort.ObjectiveTo describe and compare the curriculum on health disparities from the perspective of program directors and perceptions of training among internal medicine residents.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional survey study used a survey of US internal medicine program directors, the 2015 Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine annual survey, which included questions about health disparities curriculum, and a 1-time survey of US internal medicine residents that asked questions related to their training in health disparities on the American College of Physicians 2015 Internal Medicine In-Training Examination. All internal medicine program directors who were members of Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine (368 of 396 accredited programs), and internal medicine residents who took the Internal Medicine In-Training Examination were eligible. Final analysis of the merged data set was completed in 2018.ExposuresQuestions were included on the annual Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine survey and the Internal Medicine In-Training Examination.Main outcomes and measuresProgram directors reported on presence of health disparities curriculum, educational methods, quality, barriers and challenges to curriculum, and Clinical Learning Environment Review. Residents reported whether they received training and quality of the training in health disparities.ResultsA total of 227 program directors (response rate, 61.7%) and 22 723 residents (response rate, 87.2%) responded to the surveys. A total of 90 program directors (39.6%) reported a curriculum in health disparities, but among these, only 16 program directors (17.8%) felt quality of their education was very good or excellent. In more than half of the programs (52 programs [55.9%]), outcomes of the curriculum were not measured. After merging, the combined data set included 18 883 residents from 366 APDIM member programs with 225 program director responses. Among these, 13 251 residents (70.2%) reported some training in caring for patients at risk for health disparities. Of residents who reported receiving training, 10 494 (79.2%) rated the quality as very good or excellent.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that that despite the Clinical Learning Environment Review mandate and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education required competencies for training in health disparities, relatively few internal medicine programs in the US provided educational curriculum. Additionally, the existence of health disparities curricula in internal medicine training programs was not associated with resident's perception of training or its quality.

Project description:IntroductionSurgery and the training of young surgeons face various challenges. Work hour restrictions, demographic changes, medicolegal demands, as well as economic constraints have led to changes in patient care and thus changed surgical residency. In addition to the daily training at work, several theoretical and practical courses are offered to surgical residents. The aim of this manuscript is to provide an overview of the existing courses and programs for surgical residents in Germany. It describes the current structure of surgical training in Germany for 10 subspecialties and sets out existing approaches to implement structured surgical training by professional associations as well as by commercial providers.Materials and methodsThe official homepages of 10 surgical associations were analyzed for information on structured surgical training and a Google search for surgical training programs was conducted. Then, the websites of two commercial providers were searched for information in courses. In addition, the members of the German Young Surgeons Association were asked open questions about the existence of structured resident training and additional training opportunities in their specialty. The courses were analyzed for structural characteristics such as the price and type of course (single course, exam preparatory course, and structured program). A structured program was defined as a set of courses based on learning objectives that are designed to cover all aspects of the specialty and include some form of summative or formative assessment.ResultsSeveral courses are offered by varied providers; some of them associated with surgical associations and some commercial. Seven of 10 professional associations offer single courses and six of them offer exam preparatory courses. Commercial providers only offer single courses. All of these courses are optional; there is no requirement to take part in any of them. None of them is free of charge, but most offer discounts for members of surgical societies. Only one structured program exists for orthopedics and trauma surgery. A fixed schedule does not exist for any surgical subspecialty, but it is rather the responsibility of the trainee or his/her supervisor to pick or suggest a course that suits their personal state of knowledge.DiscussionUntil now, it depends on personal motivation and the generosity of hospitals whether or not surgical residents will receive training outside of their training hospital. Various external courses are offered in all surgical subspecialties to complement on-the-job training. It is unknown how many residents take part in them. The implementation of new, competence-based specialist training regulations in Germany in 2018 may facilitate a change in surgical education. Simulation-based education can promote the acquisition and consolidation of surgical skills. Additional training possibilities and structured programs should be implemented in surgical resident training to foster competence-based education and surgical proficiency.

Dataset Information

Association of Doximity Ranking and Residency Program Characteristics Across 16 Specialty Training Programs.

Publications

Association of Doximity Ranking and Residency Program Characteristics Across 16 Specialty Training Programs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets