Dataset Information

Mind the Gap: An Analysis of "Gap Year" Prevalence, Productivity, and Perspectives Among Radiation Oncology Residency Applicants.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Medical 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 MATERIALS:An 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. RESULTS:The 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. CONCLUSIONS:Research 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.

SUBMITTER: Sidiqi B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7525797 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mind the Gap: An Analysis of "Gap Year" Prevalence, Productivity, and Perspectives Among Radiation Oncology Residency Applicants.

Sidiqi Baho B Gillespie Erin F EF Wang Chunyu C Dawson Melissa M Wu Abraham J AJ

International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 20190211 2

<h4>Purpose</h4>Medical 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.<h4>Methods and materials</h4>An anonymous survey was emailed to all applicants to a single radiation oncology program from 2015 to 2017. Survey ...[more]

PMID: 30763663

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.

Project description:ImportanceOphthalmology-residency selection committees require robust metrics to review applicants. Participation in research activities is a core component of the application process for its perceived association with future academic productivity.ObjectiveTo evaluate the correlation between the number of preresidency peer-reviewed publications (PPPs) and subsequent peer-reviewed publications or career choices of ophthalmology residency graduates.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, names of ophthalmology residency graduates were obtained. PubMed-indexed publication records were generated and publications were categorized as preresidency, intraresidency, and postresidency. First author and journal publications with an impact factor (IF) score of 3 or more were recorded. Current academic and community-based career statuses were designated. Names were obtained from cohort and alumni lists on residency program websites or by emailing program directors. Participants included US Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited ophthalmology residency graduates from 2013 to 2016.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measure was association of PPPs with later publications, first authorship, and journal publications with an IF score of 3 or more. The secondary outcome measure was difference in characteristics associated with academic vs community-based ophthalmologist.ResultsA total of 964 ophthalmologists (52% of graduates) were studied and most (85.5%) had PubMed-indexed publications. First authorship (ρ = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.67-0.74; P < .001) had a strong positive correlation with intraresidency publications, while journal publications with an IF score of 3 or more (ρ = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.51-0.60; P < .001) and PPPs (ρ = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.32-0.43; P < .001) had moderate and weak positive correlations, respectively. For postresidency publications, journal publications with an IF score of 3 or more (ρ = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.84-0.87; P < .001) had the strongest positive correlation followed by first authorship (ρ = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.79; P < .001) and PPPs (ρ = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.20-0.31; P < .001). Preresidency (t = 3.3; P = .001), intraresidency (t = 4.1; P < .001), postresidency (t = 7.5; P < .001), first author (t = 6.6; P < .001), and journal publications with an IF score of 3 or more (t = 5.9; P < .001) were greater for academic ophthalmologists compared with community-based ophthalmologists.Conclusions and relevancePreresidency publication history is at least weakly correlated with future publications or work in an academic setting among ophthalmologists. Multiple factors associated with academic productivity were evaluated; however, adjustment for multiple analyses was not done and further testing is required to prove whether these factors are predictive.

Project description:PurposeDespite the call to increase the number of radiation oncologists in Latin America, the quality, similarity, and number of residency training programs are unknown. We seek to describe the current state of residency programs in radiation oncology in Latin America.Methods and materialsLatin American Residents in Radiation Oncology performed a cross-sectional analysis of universities and training centers for radiation oncologists in Latin America. Latin American Residents in Radiation Oncology members identified and contacted current residents and specialists at each center to obtain information and documents that described their training curricula.ResultsAs of 2020, 13 of 23 (56.5%) Latin American countries have radiation oncology training. Seventy-three training centers were identified (59 active and 14 inactive), associated with 28 universities. On average, each active center trains 2.6 new residents per year, and in total, 156 residents are trained annually. The average length of training programs is 3.6 years. Brazil and Mexico comprise 31 (52.5%) and 7 (11.9%) of active programs, respectively, and 64 (41.8%) and 50 (32.7%) residents, respectively. Training is available in 38 cities in 13 countries, and outside Brazil and Mexico, only 13 cities in 11 countries (9 capitals and 4 noncapital cities). Individualized curriculum documents were provided by 20 (83.3%) of 24 non-Brazilian programs, while 1 standardized guideline was provided for Brazilian training programs. These demonstrated variation between subjects taught, their devoted time, outside specialty rotations, and experiences in modern techniques. Seventy-five percent include volumetric modulated arc therapy, 70% stereotactic radiosurgery, and 55% stereotactic body radiation therapy training. One-hundred percent include gynecologic brachytherapy education and <50% brachytherapy education in other disease sites.ConclusionsTraining is highly centralized in capital cities. The number of trainees is insufficient to close the current human resource divide but is limited by available job openings. Over 50% of training programs now include technological training in stereotactic radiosurgery, stereotactic body radiation therapy, or volumetric modulated arc therapy; however, substantial variation still exists. The development of radiation oncology specialists must be improved and modernized to address the escalating demand for cancer care.

Dataset Information

Mind the Gap: An Analysis of "Gap Year" Prevalence, Productivity, and Perspectives Among Radiation Oncology Residency Applicants.

Publications

Mind the Gap: An Analysis of "Gap Year" Prevalence, Productivity, and Perspectives Among Radiation Oncology Residency Applicants.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets