Dataset Information

Current Applicant Perceptions of the Ophthalmology Residency Match.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The ophthalmology residency application process is critical for applicants and residency programs, and knowledge about the preferences of applicants would assist both groups in improving the process.

Objective

To evaluate the experiences and preferences of ophthalmology residency applicants.

Design, setting, and participants

This cross-sectional, nonvalidated survey was conducted online. All applicants to the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute ophthalmology residency program during the 2018-2019 application cycle were invited to complete the survey. Data collection occurred from April 1, 2019, to April 30, 2019.

Main outcomes and measures

Applicant demographics, application submissions, interview experiences, financial considerations, match results, and suggestions for improvement of the application process.

Results

Responses were received from 185 applicants (36.4%), including 77 women (41.6%). A successful match into an ophthalmology residency was achieved by 172 respondents (93.0%). There was a mean (SD) US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score of 245.8 (13.3) points. Respondents applied to a mean (SD) of 76.4 (23.5) ophthalmology residency programs, received 14.0 (9.0) invitations to interview, and attended 10.3 (4.4) interviews. Choices regarding applications and interviews were based mostly on program reputation, location, and advisor recommendation. A usual lead time of at least 3 weeks between the invitation and interview was reported by 126 respondents (69.2%), which was reduced to 14 respondents (15.1%) when a wait-list was involved. The ophthalmology residency application process cost a mean (SD) of $5704 ($2831) per applicant. Respondents reported that they were most able to reduce costs through housing choices (hotel stays or similar arrangements) and least able to reduce costs by limiting the number of programs to which they applied or at which they interviewed.

Conclusions and relevance

The ophthalmology residency application process is complex and poses substantial challenges to applicants and residency programs. These findings suggest that many current applicants have difficulty selecting programs to apply to, and most respondents desired changes to the current system of interview invitations and scheduling.

SUBMITTER: Venincasa MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7068667 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Current Applicant Perceptions of the Ophthalmology Residency Match.

Venincasa Michael J MJ Cai Louis Z LZ Gedde Steven J SJ Uhler Tara T Sridhar Jayanth J

JAMA ophthalmology 20200501 5

<h4>Importance</h4>The ophthalmology residency application process is critical for applicants and residency programs, and knowledge about the preferences of applicants would assist both groups in improving the process.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the experiences and preferences of ophthalmology residency applicants.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This cross-sectional, nonvalidated survey was conducted online. All applicants to the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute ophthalmology residency pr ...[more]

PMID: 32163107

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective This article characterizes the resources used by ophthalmology residency applicants when deciding where to apply, interview, and rank. Design Cross-sectional, online survey. Participants All applicants to the University of California-San Francisco ophthalmology residency program during the 2019 to 2020 and 2020 to 2021 application cycles. Methods A secure, anonymous, 19-item post-match questionnaire was distributed to participants inquiring about demographic information, match outcomes, and resources used to learn and make decisions about residency programs. Results were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods. Main Outcome Measures Qualitative ranking of resources used to decide where to apply, interview, and rank. Results One hundred thirty-six of 870 solicited applicants responded to the questionnaire, for a response rate of 15.6%. Digital platforms were ranked as more important resources than people (i.e., faculty, career advisors, residents, and program directors) when applicants were deciding where to apply and interview. Digital platforms became far less important when applicants were formulating their rank lists, at which time the program's academic reputation, perceived happiness of residents and faculty, interview experience, and geographic location were more important. When learning about residency programs, 100% of respondents engaged with program Web sites, and the majority engaged with program emails ( n =88 [85.4%]), Doximity ( n =82 [79.6%]), Reddit ( n =64 [62.1%]), Instagram ( n =59 [57.3%]), the FREIDA residency program database ( n =55 [53.4%]), and YouTube ( n =53 [51.5%]). All 13 digital platforms included in the survey were utilized by at least 25% of respondents, largely passively (i.e., reading rather than producing content). Respondents indicated that the most important topics to include on program Web sites were the number of residents accepted per year, current resident profiles, and resident alumni job/fellowship placement. Conclusion Applicants engage heavily with digital media in deciding where to apply and interview but rely heavily on their personal experiences with the program in deciding where to rank. Ophthalmology programs may facilitate recruitment of applicants by optimizing their digital media platforms.

Project description:PurposeUsing 2020 match applicants, the purpose of this study was to identify baseline applicant perspectives on the match process surveying (1) away rotations, (2) interview/postinterview communications, and (3) factors influencing applicant rank order lists.Methods and materialsApplicants in the 2020 match cycle at a large radiation oncology (RO) residency program received a questionnaire covering demographics and the match process: away rotations, interview/postinterview communications, and ranking. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with completing fewer away rotations.ResultsOf 141 surveys sent, 76 were completed, for a response rate of 54%. Most applicants were White, male, and matched into RO. One in 3 applicants did not have a home RO program. Most applicants completed 2 RO rotations (ie, a home rotation and an additional away rotation; range, 0-4 total rotations); RO rotations influenced the applicant rank order lists and the ultimate match result for 94% and 79% of applicants, respectively. Forty-seven percent of applicants reported being asked inappropriate questions during the interview (eg, parental or marital status). Applicants did not perceive a consistent message regarding postinterview communications from program directors. Most applicants were contacted postinterview. Interviews cost most applicants more than $5000. Thirty-seven percent of respondents reported submitting a letter of interest after the interview, hoping to improve their rank. When applying to programs, general reputation and location were the most common influential factors mentioned. When ranking programs, informal conversations with residents and program culture observations were the most common influential factors mentioned. Based on multivariable analysis, applicants who completed fewer RO rotations (including away rotations) had greater odds of matching to their home program (odds ratio [OR], 12.05; 95% CI, 1.27-206.69), lower odds of program location influencing where to apply (OR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.003-0.37), and lower odds of the program's general reputation affecting their rank list (OR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.001-0.47).ConclusionsThe results suggest that medical students perceive away rotations as an important influencer of their match process. Although applicants and program directors both participate in postinterview communications, interactions with residents influence rank order lists. These data may serve as an up-to-date baseline to evaluate the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the RO match process.

Project description:PurposeThe COVID-19 pandemic modified the Residency Match process for fourth-year medical students. In-person away rotations were discouraged, interviews were virtual, and traditional factors used to rank programs were absent. Here, we compare survey results administered to both the 2020 and 2021 Match applicants to assess the influence of the pandemic on the radiation oncology (RO) Match process.MethodsAn institutional review board-approved prospective cross-sectional study was conducted. The 2020 and 2021 RO Match applicants at a large RO program were invited to participate. Descriptive summary statistics were assessed.ResultsThe 2020 and 2021 Matches each had 76 applicants complete the survey with response rates of 54% and 57%, respectively. The 2 groups were predominantly white, cisgender male, single, and without children. Whereas 11% of 2020 applicants did not complete away rotations, 45% of 2021 applicants did not. For 2021 Match applicants, 65% of away rotations were performed virtually, whereas 51% were not for medical school credit. Of the applicants, 84% were satisfied with virtual interviews and 72% felt cost savings were worth not having in-person interviews. Whereas 49% of Match 2020 applicants spent >$5000 in interview costs, 0% of the Match 2021 applicants did so, with 45% spending <$100. Postinterview communications from programs increased during the pandemic from 36% to 42% in 2020 Match and 2021 Match, respectively. Although program culture was the most common factor influencing 2021 Match applicants program rankings, half of applicants did not gain a sense of program culture during virtual interviews.ConclusionsWe found 2021 Match applicants completed fewer away rotations, were satisfied with virtual interviews/reduced costs, and did not gain a sense of program culture through virtual rotations/interviews despite it being the most important ranking factor reported. This study supports further exploration of virtual away rotations and virtual interviews moving forward beyond the pandemic.

Project description:Importance:It has been nearly 25 years since medical students were queried regarding their perspectives on otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (OHNS) residency selection. Understanding this viewpoint is critical to improving the current application process. Objective:To evaluate the perceptions of 2016 OHNS residency applicants regarding the application process and offer suggestions for reform. Design, Setting, and Participants:In this cross-sectional study of anonymous online survey data, a 14-question survey was designed based on resources obtained from a computerized PubMed, Ovid, and GoogleScholar database search of the English language from January 1, 1990, through December 31, 2015, was conducted using the following search terms: (medical student OR applicant) AND (application OR match) AND otolaryngology. The survey was administered to 2016 OHNS residency applicants to examine 4 primary areas: current attitudes toward the match, effect of the new Otolaryngology Program Directors Organization personal statement mandate, sources of advice and information, and suggestions for improvement. In January 2016, an email was sent to 100 program directors asking them to distribute the survey to current OHNS applicants at their institution. One follow-up reminder email was sent in February 2016. A link to the survey was posted on the Otomatch.com homepage on January 28, 2016, with the last response received on March 28, 2016. Main Outcome and Measures:Survey responses regarding the residency application process. Results:A total of 150 of 370 residency applicants (40.5%) responded to the survey. Of these, 125 respondents (90.6%) noted applying to programs in which they had no specific interest simply to improve their chances of matching. Applicants intended to apply to more programs than they actually did (63.6 vs 60.8; r?=?0.19; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.40). Program directors advised fewer applications than other sources; however, 58 respondents (38.7%) did not receive advice from a program director. A total of 121 respondents (80.7%) found online program information to be insufficient. Finally, 90 of 140 respondents (64.3%) noted that they would agree to a hard cap on applications, among other suggestions for improvement. Conclusions and Relevance:Several main themes emerged from the data, providing a foundation for process improvement opportunities: careful consideration to applicant mentorship, including peers; uniform set of criteria for residency program websites; and investigating alternative match platforms, which may allow hard caps, flagging programs of higher interest, or wave application cycles. Overall, the otolaryngology applicant provides a unique perspective regarding the current state of the match and potential opportunities for system-wide improvement.

Project description:Background The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of telemedicine in the field of ophthalmology. Despite the increasing utilization of telemedicine, there is a lack of formal training in ophthalmology residency programs to ensure ophthalmologists are prepared to conduct virtual eye exams. Objective This article aims to assess the impact of an ophthalmic telemedicine curriculum on ophthalmology residents' self-reported knowledge acquisition in conducting telemedicine eye exams, perceived ability to diagnose, manage, and triage common eye diseases, and evaluate their attitudes toward the current and future use of teleophthalmology. Methods This single-center study at Massachusetts Eye and Ear used a nonvalidated pre- and postcurriculum survey conducted during the 2020 to 2021 academic year among ophthalmology residents. Participants engaged in an ophthalmic telemedicine curriculum that consisted of interactive didactic lectures and electronic postdidactic assessments. Results Twenty-four residents (100%) completed a precurriculum survey, while 23 of 24 (95.8%) residents completed both the telemedicine curriculum and a postcurriculum survey. On a five-point Likert scale, the median interquartile range (IQR) scores for confidence with setup/logistics, history taking, examination, documentation, and education increased from 2.5 (2.0-4.0) to 4.0 (3.5-4.5) ( p = 0.001), 3.0 (3.0-4.0) to 5.0 (4.0-5.0) ( p < 0.001), 2.0 (1.8-2.0) to 4.0 (3.5-4.0) ( p < 0.001), 2.0 (1.0-2.0) to 4.0 (3.0-4.0) ( p < 0.001), and 2.5 (2.0-3.0) to 4.0 (4.0-4.0) ( p < 0.001), respectively. The median (IQR) scores for comfort with ethics/professionalism, disparities and conducting patient triage, diagnosis, and management increased from 2.0 (2.0-2.3) to 4.0 (3.0-4.0) ( p < 0.001), 2.0 (2.0-2.0) to 3.0 (3.0-4.0) ( p < 0.001) and 3.0 (2.0-3.0) to 4.0 (3.0-4.0) ( p = 0.001), 2.0 (2.0-3.0) to 3.0 (3.0-4.0) ( p < 0.001), and 3.0 (2.0-3.0) to 3.0 (3.0-4.0) ( p = 0.008), respectively. Conclusion The implementation of an ophthalmic telemedicine curriculum increased resident confidence and self-reported knowledge across all logistical and clinical components of virtual ophthalmic care. Formal telehealth curricula can address an unmet educational need of resident trainees in an era of rapid uptake and utilization of telehealth services.

Dataset Information

Current Applicant Perceptions of the Ophthalmology Residency Match.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Current Applicant Perceptions of the Ophthalmology Residency Match.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets