Patterns and Perceptions of "Away" Rotations Among Radiation Oncology Residency Applicants.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
Medical students often complete clinical rotations at other institutions (away rotations). This study assesses the number of away rotations undertaken by radiation oncology residency applicants and their value from the applicants' perspective.Methods and materials
A survey was sent to applicants to a single radiation oncology program from 2015 to 2017. Questions addressed away rotation frequency, funding, motivations, barriers, and match results. A χ2 test was used to assess the correlation between number of away rotations and matching to an away program. Binary logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with undertaking >2 away rotations.Results
The response rate was 39% (n = 194); 89% of respondents completed ≥1 away rotation (median, 2; interquartile range, 2-3), of whom 39% (n = 67) matched to an away program. The number of away rotations completed did not differ between those who did and did not match (P = .29). Furthermore, the number of away rotations did not correlate with matching at an away program (P = .40). Factors associated with completing more away rotations included male sex and high loan burden (P < .05). Away rotations were perceived as extremely important (71%), with interest in a specific program (44%) and obtaining letters of recommendation (31%) the most common reasons to pursue away rotations. Only 9% (n = 15) of applicants did away rotations because they had no home program. Funding sources included personal savings (29%), family support (26%), and loans (22%). If costs were inconsequential, 67 applicants (35%) noted they would do more away rotations.Conclusions
Away rotations are common and often result in students matching to an away program, although benefits of ≥2 away rotations appear limited and have associated costs. Limiting the number of away rotations in radiation oncology may decrease costs without sacrificing one's chances of matching.
SUBMITTER: Sidiqi BU
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7381360 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC8170351 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8555343 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We aimed to investigate whether implicit linguistic biases exist in letters of recommendation (LORs) for applicants to radiation oncology (RO) residency. LORs (n = 487) written for applicants (n = 125) invited to interview at a single RO residency program from the 2015 to 2019 application cycles were included for analysis. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software was used to evaluate LORs for length and a dictionary of predetermined themes. Language was evaluated for gender bias using a publicly available gender bias calculator. Non-parametric tests were used to compare linguistic domain scores. The median number of the LORs per applicant was 4 (range 3-5). No significant differences by applicant gender were detected in LIWC score domains or gender bias calculator (P > 0.05). However, LORs for applicants from racial/ethnic backgrounds underrepresented in medicine were less likely to include standout descriptors (P = 0.008). Male writers were less likely to describe applicant characteristics related to patient care (P < 0.0001) and agentic personality (P = 0.006). LORs written by RO were shorter (P < 0.0001) and included fewer standout descriptors (P = 0.014) but were also more likely to include statements regarding applicant desirability (P = 0.045) and research (P = 0.008). While language was globally male-biased, assistant professors were less likely than associate professors (P = 0.0064) and full professors (P = 0.023) to use male-biased language. Significant linguistic differences were observed in RO residency LORs, suggesting that implicit biases related to both applicants and letter writers may exist. Recognition, and ideally eradication, of such biases are crucial for fair and equitable evaluation of a diverse applicant pool of RO residency candidates.
| S-EPMC7591242 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeMedical students may take a year off during medical school (a "gap year") to strengthen their applications for competitive specialties such as radiation oncology. This can incur significant financial and opportunity costs. We sought to understand the prevalence, nature, and funding of gap years undertaken by radiation oncology applicants.Methods and materialsAn anonymous survey was emailed to all applicants to a single radiation oncology program from 2015 to 2017. Survey questions assessed gap year utilization, funding, motivations, and perceptions. Separately, all 2017 Electronic Residency Application Service (n = 176) applications to this program were reviewed for reference.ResultsThe 2017 cohort had a response rate of 69% (n = 121), with an overall response rate of 39% (n = 194) for applicants between 2015 to 2017. Of non-MD/PhD respondents, 33% (n = 53) reported taking a gap year. The main reason for a gap year (68%) was to produce more publications, and 50% of all respondents viewed a gap year as "important" or "very important" for matching in radiation oncology. Twenty-eight students (53%) reported using personal loans, savings, or family support to cover gap year expenses. Most who took a gap year (83%) viewed funding as "difficult" or "extremely difficult" to obtain. Fewer publications before gap year and more dedicated research time were significant predictors of undertaking a gap year, whereas sex, marital status, dependent status, and financial aid were not significant.ConclusionsResearch productivity is commonly perceived as important for matching in radiation oncology, leading many applicants to take gap years, which are usually supported by personal financial resources. We did not identify statistically significant socioeconomic disparities between applicants that took a gap year and those who did not. However, further study is warranted to determine whether pressure to take a gap year, particularly in the absence of readily available funding sources, deters some potential applicants from pursuing radiation oncology altogether.
| S-EPMC7525797 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesResidency directors in emergency medicine (EM) have been placing increased value on the Standardized Letter of Evaluation to evaluate the escalating numbers of residency applications received each year. This has placed added significance on EM away rotations (ARs). We sought to determine the overall availability of ARs in EM.MethodsWe surveyed clerkships sites at the end of 2018-2019 application season. The survey requested data about maximum rotation spots available, actual number of students that rotated, and data about application processing and rotation offer decision making.ResultsWe received 190 responses, of which 129 (49% of 262 clerkship sites surveyed) provided data regarding available positions and student rotators. A total of 3,472 ARs were completed at the responding sites. The average capacity ratio (CR; maximum available AR spots divided by AR completed by students) for responding sites was 1.57. AR availability varied by time and geography. Most AR positions were filled during peak season (CR = 1.22); however, many went unfilled outside of this time frame (CR = 2.41). Geographic data showed some locations had significant unfilled AR availability.ConclusionsOur survey data show that there are at least 1.5 AR positions per applicant. Students can be reasonably expected to complete one AR and, in select cases, a second. CR during peak season indicates nearly saturated AR positions. Flexibility of rotation timing and tools to link open AR positions with students needing to complete a rotation will help optimize filling available AR positions. Continued effort in application advising from home clerkships and processes to ensure equitable distribution of AR positions among students will help ensure interested students obtain a position.
| S-EPMC8019196 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Owing to the coronavirus 2019 pandemic limiting both applicants and residency programs in their ability to connect in-person, it is likely that a shift toward virtual connections was made. We aimed to query applicants regarding their perspectives of orthopaedic residency program social media use. Furthermore, we aimed to quantify the number of orthopaedic surgery residency programs with active social media accounts. All applicants to a single orthopaedic surgery residency were surveyed regarding their perceptions of social media use by orthopaedic surgery residency programs. After this, we evaluated social media use by orthopaedic surgery residency programs. Of total, 54.3% of applicants indicated that an orthopaedic surgery residency program they followed on social media posted content that increased their interest in the program. Furthermore, 77.8% of the applicants believed that orthopaedic surgery residency programs should have social media accounts, specifically Instagram. Of the orthopaedic surgery residencies identified, 113 (58.9%) had Instagram, 84 (43.8%) had Twitter, and 21 (10.9%) had Facebook accounts. Applicants largely feel that orthopaedic surgery residencies should have social media accounts. Orthopaedic surgery residencies saw the value in connecting with students virtually, as shown by nearly 90% of the programs, with social media starting their accounts this year.
| S-EPMC8691490 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWe aimed to assess perceptions of, and training regarding, the publishing process among US radiation oncology (RO) residents, focusing on awareness and understanding of criteria for selecting appropriate and legitimate peer-reviewed journals for academic publishing. The growing challenge of predatory publication in the broader scientific realm and its relevancy to resident training is also briefly discussed.Methods and materialsA survey was opened to residents of all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited RO programs in the United States, focusing on 3 categories: (1) demographics; (2) submission, peer review, and publication of academic research; and (3) subjective ranking of factors for choosing an appropriate publisher/journal. Results were stratified by level of training and number of publications.ResultsOverall, 150 of 690 residents (19.8%) responded, with a 98% (147 of 150) completion rate. Twenty of 150 residents (13.3%) reported formal training in manuscript preparation and choosing academic journals. Only 3.4% of residents reported departmental guidelines regarding publication in "predatory" journals; 57.7% were unsure. The 3 most important factors influencing publisher and journal choice were impact factor (ranked first for 59.0%), whether a journal is found in a major index (ranked first for 18.0%), and association with a reputable organization (ranked first for 17.0%). Importance of impact factor increased with number of publications (50% with 0 publications, 48.3% with 1-5, 63.9% with 5-10, 76.2% with 10-15, and 70.6% with >15). Cost considerations influenced journal choice at least once for 79 (52.7%) residents.ConclusionsImpact factor was the most important consideration for residents when choosing an appropriate publisher, with increased emphasis with increasing number of publications. A minority had formal training in choosing appropriate academic journals and knowing how to identify so-called predatory journals or were aware if their department has proscriptions regarding publication in such journals. Additional emphasis on formal training for RO residents in manuscript preparation and choosing academic journals is warranted.
| S-EPMC7136641 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe burnout rate among US radiation oncology residents was 33% in 2016. To our knowledge there are no published interventions addressing burnout among radiation oncology residents. We describe the implementation of a well-being curriculum, cocreated by a psychologist, a medical humanities professional, and radiation oncology attending and resident physicians.Methods and materialsRadiation oncology residents at our institution were surveyed to determine themes that induced burnout. A curriculum was developed, with monthly small group sessions focused on 1 identified topic. Sessions alternated between psychological tool-focused approaches and humanities exercises. These were led by a psychologist or medical humanities professional. Residents were given protected time to attend sessions during business hours. Participation was optional. Participants were assigned a random identifier, and the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index (PFI) was assessed at baseline and 3-month intervals. PFI trends were analyzed after 1 year. At the end of the year, a focus group was held to evaluate work satisfaction and self-reported interactions with patients and coworkers. This information was used to improve the curriculum.ResultsAll 12 residents in the radiation oncology program participated in the curriculum. There was an equal number of residents of postgraduate years 2 through 5. Six of the participants were female. Of the participants, 11 completed the PFI. At baseline, 80% of residents met criteria for burnout. This decreased to 67%, 50%, and 33% at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively. The proportion of residents meeting criteria for very good professional fulfillment was 30%, 56%, 38%, and 22% at baseline and 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively. On average, 9 of 12 residents attended each session.ConclusionsOur experience demonstrates the feasibility of collaborating with residents in the development of a well-being curriculum to cater programming to their needs, which we believe led to excellent engagement and attendance at each session.
| S-EPMC8654639 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResidency recruitment is a high-stakes activity for all participants, yet there is limited information about how applicants choose among programs.ObjectiveThis study evaluated the importance applicants place on various residency program attributes; whether applicant priorities vary by sex, race/ethnicity, or specialty choice; and whether the importance of these factors changes over time.MethodsHighly ranked applicants to residency programs at 2 academic medical centers were surveyed annually from 2004 to 2012 regarding the importance of 26 characteristics in selecting a program. Mean ratings of importance for each factor were analyzed to assess priority for the overall applicant group, and whether priorities differed for subgroups (by sex, race/ethnicity, and specialty).ResultsOf 9669 applicants surveyed, 6285 (65%) responded. The 5 factors with highest rating of importance (overall and across all subgroups) were the program's ability to prepare residents for future training or position, resident esprit de corps, faculty availability and involvement in teaching, depth and breadth of faculty, and variety of patients and clinical resources. Small but significant differences in the ratings of some factors by sex and/or specialty group were identified. Institution-level characteristics, such as call rooms, salary, and benefits, were relatively unimportant. Applicant priorities were stable over the 9-year study period.ConclusionsHighly ranked applicants to competitive residency programs value educational aspects of the program most highly, along with resident morale. Top factors were consistent across subgroups and over the 9 years of the study. These findings have implications for resident recruitment strategies.
| S-EPMC4507921 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe evolving landscape of application processes for obstetrics and gynecology residency applicants poses many challenges for applicants and advisors. The lack of data coordination among national groups creates crucial gaps in information for stakeholder groups.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify the current state of the advising milieu for obstetrics and gynecology residency applicants and their career advisors, the annual Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics survey focused on US clerkship directors' experiences advising students through these processes.Study designA 23-item anonymous survey was developed that asked respondents about demographics and outcomes for the students that they advised through the 2021 application process and their experiences with dual applicants and students not matching. The survey was sent electronically to all obstetrics and gynecology clerkship directors with active Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics memberships in April 2021.ResultsOf 224 total clerkship directors, 143 (63.8%) responded to the survey, Of the 143 respondents, almost all (136 [95.1%]) served as career advisors, and 50 (35.0%) were aware of students dual applying. Furthermore, obstetrics and gynecology was rarely the backup to a more competitive specialty. For the 2021 application cycle, 79 of 143 respondents (55.2%) reported having students not successfully match into obstetrics and gynecology, with "academic concerns" followed by "poor communication skills" as the primary reasons cited for students not matching.ConclusionThis snapshot of clerkship directors' experiences advising students in the residency application process reveals notably high rates of dual applicants and students not matching into obstetrics and gynecology. This work fills key gaps in our knowledge of current processes and highlights the importance of career advising at multiple points during the application process.
| S-EPMC10585629 | biostudies-literature