A comparison of match outcomes between traditional medical degree and dual-degree applicants.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Dual degrees combining and MD with another professional degree (MPH, MBA, or PhD) are becoming more common in an attempt to increase an applicant's competitivity for a residency.Objective
This study was designed to assess differences in MD-only and dual degree MD applicants with respect to applicant characteristics and match outcomes.Methods
Utilizing the voluntarily-reported publicly available 2017-2019 Texas STAR database, we assessed applicants from 115 medical schools. Texas STAR indicates that over this time period, there were 18,224 responses for a response rate of 43.8%. Comparisons were made between groups using student's t-test and chi-squared analysis.Results
Compared to MD only students, MD/MPH applicants had a higher propensity towards primary care specialties. MD/PhD applicants did not differ versus MD only applicants in their selection of primary care specialties, or of competitive specialties. MD/MBA applicants chose more competitive specialties and less primary care specialties. Despite all these differences, match rates were not different comparing MD only and dual-degree students.Conclusions
Despite the growing popularity of combined MD programs, such programs do not appear to increase applicant match competitivity.
SUBMITTER: Christensen BR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7748145 | biostudies-literature | 2020
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A comparison of match outcomes between traditional medical degree and dual-degree applicants.
Christensen Bryce R BR Becnel Chad M CM Chan Leland P LP Minetos Paul D PD Clarke John F JF Kahn Marc J MJ
PloS one 20201218 12
<h4>Background</h4>Dual degrees combining and MD with another professional degree (MPH, MBA, or PhD) are becoming more common in an attempt to increase an applicant's competitivity for a residency.<h4>Objective</h4>This study was designed to assess differences in MD-only and dual degree MD applicants with respect to applicant characteristics and match outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>Utilizing the voluntarily-reported publicly available 2017-2019 Texas STAR database, we assessed applicants from 115 medi ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundOrthopaedic surgery is one of the most competitive specialties, resulting in many applicants going unmatched. Many unmatched applicants pursue a preliminary internship or research fellowship, but whether these activities make them more successful in subsequent match cycles has not been studied.ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of activities during the intervening period on match success in a subsequent cycle.MethodsAfter reviewing rank order lists for our program and National Resident Matching Program correspondence from 1994 to 2013, we identified 198 of 1216 ranked applicants (16.3%) who did not initially match. Of these, 57 applicants who matched through the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program did not reapply to orthopaedics or trained overseas.ResultsOf 141 reapplicants, 56 matched into orthopaedic surgery, with 87.5% (P < .001) matching at a program in the same region where they had either completed their medical degree or postgraduate year, and 37.5% matching at their home institution (P < .001). Successful reapplicants after a research fellowship had a significantly higher number of publications than unsuccessful reapplicants (P < .05). There was no significant difference in success after research or internship (P = .80) and no significant difference in success rates for US versus international reapplicants (P = .43).ConclusionsSuccess of reapplication into orthopaedic surgery may be less dependent on the route taken during the interim period, and more dependent on developing relationships with faculty at a local or regional institution.
| S-EPMC4763390 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this survey study is to compare the experiences of programs and applicants in the MedPhys Match (MPM) in the 2020-21 match cycle with experiences reported from previous match cycles. The 2020-21 match cycle was unique in that recruitment and interviewing were almost exclusively virtual during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA survey was sent to all applicants and programs registered for the 2020-21 MPM. Survey questions asked about the pre-interview screening, interview, ranking, and post-match stages of the residency match process. Survey data were analyzed using graphical methods and spreadsheet tools.ResultsAdvantages and disadvantages to the virtual interviewing experience were reported by applicants and program directors (PDs). The advantages included reduced cost and greater scheduling flexibility with fewer scheduling conflicts, allowing applicants to consider more programs. These advantages greatly outweighed the disadvantages such as the inability to meet faculty/staff and current residents in person and gauge the feel of the program. PDs recognized the advantages of minimal costs and time savings for applicants. Programs reported it was difficult to convey workplace culture and the physical environment and to gauge personality and interpersonal skills of the applicants.ConclusionThe virtual interviewing environment for residency recruitment in medical physics is strongly preferred by applicants over required in-person interviews. The advantages identified by applicants outweigh the disadvantages, allowing applicants to feel confident in their ranking decisions and overall satisfied with their match results. PDs acknowledge the greater equity of access to interviews for applicants in the virtual environment, however, they are overall less satisfied with their ability to showcase their program's strengths and to assess the personality of applicants. Caution is urged when considering a hybrid interview model to ensure fair assessments that do not depend on whether an applicant chooses to accept an optional in-person interview or site visit.
| S-EPMC10243329 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The association between perfectionism and depression in the medical profession can ultimately influence physicians' performance negatively. In medical students, especially maladaptive perfectionism is connected with distress and lower academic performance. The expression of perfectionism and symptoms of depression at the time of medical school application is not known. Therefore, we explored perfectionism and symptoms of depression in participants of multiple mini-interviews for medical school admission and investigated possible differences between applicants who were eventually admitted or rejected. METHODS:After the multiple mini-interviews admission procedure at Hamburg Medical School in August 2018, 146 applicants filled out a questionnaire including sociodemographic data and the following validated instruments: Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale by Hewitt and Flett (MPS-H), Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale by Frost (MPS-F), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), and a 10-item version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-10). The two groups of admitted and rejected applicants were compared and the correlation between symptoms of depression and perfectionism further explored. RESULTS:The admitted applicants were significantly more extrovert and had lower depression scores compared to the rejected applicants. In both groups, the composite scales of Adaptive Perfectionism (r = .21, p = .011) and Maladaptive Perfectionism (r = .43, p < .001) as well as their components correlated significantly with the PHQ-9 results. Maladaptive Perfectionism accounted for about 18% of variance in the PHQ-9 score. CONCLUSIONS:Rejected medical school applicants who participated in a multiple mini-interviews admission procedure showed higher levels of depression symptoms than admitted applicants. The degree of depressive symptoms can be partly explained by Maladaptive Perfectionism scores. Since coping in medical school and in postgraduate medical education require robust mental health, perfectionism questionnaires could be an additional tool in medical school selection processes.
| S-EPMC6794862 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveA paucity of data exists on the role of the interview day in programs and applicants' final rank list. The objective of our study was to investigate the impact interview day has on our programs and our interviewees' final rank list.MethodsFor the 2020 appointment year, our program used an Electronic Residency Application System Application Scoring Tool and Interview Scoring Tool to generate the preliminary rank list for our pulmonary and critical care fellowship applicants. The final rank list was decided after interviewers' discussion during the program's rank list meeting. We aimed to correlate the preliminary and final lists. We also surveyed applicants on the importance of interview day in generating their rank list.ResultsThe final and the preliminary rank lists were strongly correlated (rs(47) = 0.87, P < 0.001). There was a stronger correlation between the final rank and the rank based on the application score (rs(47) = 0.84, P < 0.001) than the rank based on the interview score (rs(47) = 0.64, P < 0.001). For the postinterview survey, 48 applicants were surveyed-20 replied with a response rate of 42% and 18 respondents (90%) rated the interview experience as important or very important in their rank list decisions.ConclusionsThe programs rank list correlated more with the candidates' written application than their interview day performance; however, interview experience greatly influenced the applicants' rank lists. In the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, in which all interviews are virtual, programs should make diligent efforts to construct virtual interview days, given their importance to applicants in generating their final rank list for the match.
| S-EPMC10269772 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo capture the perspectives of candidates applying for otolaryngology residency positions in the 2020-21 cycle, in the context of disruption caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.Subjects and methodsCandidates planning to apply to the otolaryngology 2020-21 match were invited to complete a cross-sectional online survey. Distribution was via otomatch.com and word of mouth. Descriptive statistics were performed.ResultsOf 85 eligible responses (estimated 18.9% of all applicants), many have had at least one board examination (71.8%) disrupted. A majority (85.9%) believe evaluation of candidates will change due to the pandemic, and 54.1% report they were now less confident in matching. Female applicants (37.6% of respondents) were found to have significantly higher odds of decreased confidence in matching (OR 2.781 [95% CI 1.045-7.4044]; P = .041). Many report a move to virtual interviews would increase the number of applications submitted (45.9%) and the number of interviews attended (77.6%). Some applicants (36.5%) did not believe residency programs would gather sufficient information about their candidacy to make an informed decision, and most (62.4%) did not believe that they would gather sufficient information to inform their own rank list.ConclusionsWe find that candidates believe their candidacy will be assessed differently in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, are largely less confident in successfully matching, and are planning to apply and interview more broadly. These data are relevant to otolaryngology residency leadership to inform clear dialogue and a smooth transition into an unprecedented application cycle.
| S-EPMC7481654 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The acceptance of students to a medical school places a considerable emphasis on performance in standardized tests and undergraduate grade point average (uGPA). Traditionally, applicants may be judged as a homogeneous population according to simple quantitative thresholds that implicitly assume a linear relationship between scores and academic success. This 'one-size-fits-all' approach ignores the notion that individuals may show distinct patterns of achievement and follow diverse paths to success. In this study, we examined a dataset composed of 53 variables extracted from the admissions application records of 1,088 students matriculating to NYU School of Medicine between the years 2006-2014. We defined training and test groups and applied K-means clustering to search for distinct groups of applicants. Building an optimized logistic regression model, we then tested the predictive value of this clustering for estimating the success of applicants in medical school, aggregating eight performance measures during the subsequent medical school training as a success factor. We found evidence for four distinct clusters of students-we termed 'signatures'-which differ most substantially according to the absolute level of the applicant's uGPA and its trajectory over the course of undergraduate education. The 'risers' signature showed a relatively higher uGPA and also steeper trajectory; the other signatures showed each remaining combination of these two main factors: 'improvers' relatively lower uGPA, steeper trajectory; 'solids' higher uGPA, flatter trajectory; 'statics' both lower uGPA and flatter trajectory. Examining the success index across signatures, we found that the risers and the statics have significantly higher and lower likelihood of quantifiable success in medical school, respectively. We also found that each signature has a unique set of features that correlate with its success in medical school. The big data approach presented here can more sensitively uncover success potential since it takes into account the inherent heterogeneity within the student population.
| S-EPMC6961867 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough allopathic (MD) and osteopathic (DO) students have similar curricular requirements, little is known about differences in MD and DO preparedness for obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) residency.ObjectiveTo assess differences in experiences and confidence of MD vs DO students who matched to OB/GYN.MethodsThis cross-sectional survey study was open to all fourth-year medical students who matched to OB/GYN in the United States in April 2021. The survey included demographic data, clinical experiences, confidence (5-point sliding scale), and a 11-item knowledge test. Survey responses were compared to assess for disparities in experiences and confidence.ResultsSurvey response rate was 72.0% (1057 of 1469) students matched to OB/GYN postgraduate year 1 positions. Of the 871 MD and 175 DO responding students, MDs were more likely to have clerkships ≥6 weeks (78.1% vs 15.4%; P<.001) and a home sub-internship (92.0% vs 53.4%; P<.001). DOs reported more hands-on experiences with procedures (MD median=35 [20-35] vs DO median=40 [25-65]; P=.002). There was no difference in self-reported confidence in knowledge, technical skills, or having a realistic sense of internship, and no difference in baseline knowledge test scores. DOs felt less confident about their medical school preparation (aOR 0.40; 95% CI 0.25-0.66; P<.001) and were more likely to perceive inequity of residency preparation (aOR 1.88; 95% CI 1.18-3.00; P=.002).ConclusionsMD students matched to US OB/GYN residency programs reported longer clerkship and more home sub-internships, while DO students reported more hands-on experiences. Despite reporting similar confidence in knowledge and skills, DO students felt less prepared for internship.
| S-EPMC10449345 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVirtual reality (VR) technology has developed rapidly in recent years and has been applied in many fields, including medical education. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the examination pass rate of medical students educated using VR and those receiving traditional education to evaluate the teaching effect of VR in medical education.MethodsThe PubMed, Springer Link, Science Direct, and Wiley Online Library were searched from inception to May 2020. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were then evaluated, relevant information extracted and a meta-analysis conducted. Students were allocated to a VR group, those trained using VR technology, and a traditional education group, those who received a traditional medical education.ResultsSix studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results indicate a significant difference between the pass rate of students educated using VR and those receiving traditional medical education. The odds ratios and confidence intervals of individual studies and our meta-analysis are illustrated with a forest plot.ConclusionsStudents in the VR group performed better than those in the traditional education group. Teaching with VR may enhance student learning in medical education. Medical schools should consider making greater use of VR when educating students.
| S-EPMC7940910 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:Accurate risk stratification of patients with heart failure (HF) is critical to deploy targeted interventions aimed at improving patients' quality of life and outcomes. Objectives:To compare machine learning approaches with traditional logistic regression in predicting key outcomes in patients with HF and evaluate the added value of augmenting claims-based predictive models with electronic medical record (EMR)-derived information. Design, Setting, and Participants:A prognostic study with a 1-year follow-up period was conducted including 9502 Medicare-enrolled patients with HF from 2 health care provider networks in Boston, Massachusetts ("providers" includes physicians, clinicians, other health care professionals, and their institutions that comprise the networks). The study was performed from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2014; data were analyzed from January 1 to December 31, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures:All-cause mortality, HF hospitalization, top cost decile, and home days loss greater than 25% were modeled using logistic regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operation regression, classification and regression trees, random forests, and gradient-boosted modeling (GBM). All models were trained using data from network 1 and tested in network 2. After selecting the most efficient modeling approach based on discrimination, Brier score, and calibration, area under precision-recall curves (AUPRCs) and net benefit estimates from decision curves were calculated to focus on the differences when using claims-only vs claims + EMR predictors. Results:A total of 9502 patients with HF with a mean (SD) age of 78 (8) years were included: 6113 from network 1 (training set) and 3389 from network 2 (testing set). Gradient-boosted modeling consistently provided the highest discrimination, lowest Brier scores, and good calibration across all 4 outcomes; however, logistic regression had generally similar performance (C statistics for logistic regression based on claims-only predictors: mortality, 0.724; 95% CI, 0.705-0.744; HF hospitalization, 0.707; 95% CI, 0.676-0.737; high cost, 0.734; 95% CI, 0.703-0.764; and home days loss claims only, 0.781; 95% CI, 0.764-0.798; C statistics for GBM: mortality, 0.727; 95% CI, 0.708-0.747; HF hospitalization, 0.745; 95% CI, 0.718-0.772; high cost, 0.733; 95% CI, 0.703-0.763; and home days loss, 0.790; 95% CI, 0.773-0.807). Higher AUPRCs were obtained for claims + EMR vs claims-only GBMs predicting mortality (0.484 vs 0.423), HF hospitalization (0.413 vs 0.403), and home time loss (0.575 vs 0.521) but not cost (0.249 vs 0.252). The net benefit for claims + EMR vs claims-only GBMs was higher at various threshold probabilities for mortality and home time loss outcomes but similar for the other 2 outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance:Machine learning methods offered only limited improvement over traditional logistic regression in predicting key HF outcomes. Inclusion of additional predictors from EMRs to claims-based models appeared to improve prediction for some, but not all, outcomes.
| S-EPMC6991258 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSelection into medical school is highly competitive with more applicants than places. Little is known about the preparation that applicants undertake for this high stakes process. The study aims to determine what preparatory activities applicants undertake and what difficulties they encounter for each stage of the application process to medical school and in particular what impact these have on the outcome.MethodsA cross-sectional survey of 1097 applicants who applied for a place in the University of Adelaide Medical School in 2007 and participated in the UMAT (Undergraduate Medicine and Health Sciences Admission Test) and oral assessment components of the selection process. The main outcome measures were an offer of an interview and offer of a place in the medical school and were analysed using logistic regression.ResultsThe odds of a successful outcome increased with each additional preparatory activity undertaken for the UMAT (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.33; P < 0.001) and the oral assessment (1.36, 1.19 to 1.55; P < 0.001) stage of selection. The UMAT preparatory activities associated with the offer of an interview were attendance of a training course by a private organisation (1.75, 1.35 to 2.27: P < 0.001), use of online services of a private organisation (1.58, 1.23 to 2.04; P < 0.001), and familiarising oneself with the process (1.52, 1.15 to 2.00; p = 0.021). The oral assessment activities associated with an offer of a place included refining and learning a personal resume (9.73, 2.97 to 31.88; P < 0.001) and learning about the course structure (2.05, 1.29 to 3.26; P = 0.022).For the UMAT, applicants who found difficulties with learning for this type of test (0.47, 0.35 to 0.63: P < 0.001), with the timing of UMAT in terms of school exams (0.48, 0.5 to 0.66; P < 0.001) and with the inability to convey personal skills with the UMAT (0.67, 0.52 to 0.86; P = 0.026) were significantly less likely to be offered an interview.ConclusionsMedical schools make an enormous effort to undertake a selection process that is fair and equitable and which selects students most appropriate for medical school and the course they provide. Our results indicate that performance in the selection processes can be improved by training. However, if these preparatory activities may be limited to those who can access them, the playing field is not even and increasing equity of access to medical schools will not be achieved.
| S-EPMC4220562 | biostudies-literature