Dataset Information

Where Do International Medical Graduates Matriculate for Internal Medicine Training? A National Longitudinal Study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

In 2020, roughly 25% of applicants who matched into internal medicine (IM) residencies were international medical graduates (IMGs). We examine 12-year trends in distribution of IMGs among IM training programs and explore differences in program perceptions towards IMG recruitment.

Methods

Since 2007, Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine Annual Surveys have collected data about trainees by medical school graduate type. Sixteen additional questions regarding perceptions of IMGs were included in the 2017 spring survey.

Results

The 2017 survey response rate was 63.3% (236/373) and ranged from 61.9 to 70.2% for the 2007-2019 Annual Surveys. During that 12-year period, 55-70% of community programs' and 22-30% of university programs' PGY1 positions were filled by IMGs. In 2017, 45% of community programs' and 15% of university programs' interview and ranking positions were allocated to IMGs. Departmental pressure (university 45.6% [95% CI 43.7-47.5]; community 28.2% [95% CI 26.6-29.7]; p = 0.007), institutional priority (university 64.0% [95% CI 62.1-66.0]; community 41% [95% CI 36.9-44.6]; p = 0.001), and reputational concerns (university 52.8% [95% CI 50.0-55.6]; community 38.5% [95% CI 36.0-40.9]; p = 0.045) were cited as factors influencing recruitment of IMGs.

Conclusion

Our study was limited to exploring program factors in residency recruitment and did not assess applicant preferences. There is a large, longstanding difference in the recruitment of IMGs to US community-based and university residencies, beginning during the interview and ranking process. Further research in disparities in IMG recruitment is needed, including exploring pressures, preferences, and potential biases associated with the recruitment of IMGs.

SUBMITTER: Reddy ST

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7878164 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAt a time of increased need and demand for general internists in Canada, the attractiveness of generalist careers (including general internal medicine, GIM) has been falling as evidenced by the low number of residents choosing this specialty. One hypothesis for the lack of interest in a generalist career is lack of comfort with the skills needed to practice after training, and the mismatch between the tertiary care, inpatient training environment and "real life". This project was designed to determine perceived effectiveness of training for 10 years of graduates of Canadian GIM programs to assist in the development of curriculum and objectives for general internists that will meet the needs of graduates and ultimately society.MethodsMailed survey designed to explore perceived importance of training for and preparation for various aspects of Canadian GIM practice. After extensive piloting of the survey, including a pilot survey of two universities to improve the questionnaire, all graduates of the 16 universities over the previous ten years were surveyed.ResultsGaps (difference between importance and preparation) were demonstrated in many of the CanMEDS 2000/2005 competencies. Medical problems of pregnancy, perioperative care, pain management, chronic care, ambulatory care and community GIM rotations were the medical expert areas with the largest gaps. Exposure to procedural skills was perceived to be lacking. Some procedural skills valued as important for current GIM trainees and performed frequently (example ambulatory ECG interpretation) had low preparation ratings by trainees. Other areas of perceived discrepancy between training and practice included: manager role (set up of an office), health advocate (counseling for prevention, for example smoking cessation), and professional (end of life issues, ethics).ConclusionGraduates of Canadian GIM training programs over the last ten years have identified perceived gaps between training and important areas for practice. They have identified competencies that should be emphasized in Canadian GIM programs. Ongoing review of graduate's perceptions of training programs as it applies to their current practice is important to ensure ongoing appropriateness of training programs. This information will be used to strengthen GIM training programs in Canada.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine sex differences in the specialty training recruitment outcomes of UK medical graduates; and whether sex differences were explained by prior academic attainment and previous fitness to practise (FtP) declarations.DesignRetrospective longitudinal cohort study.SettingAdministrative data on entrants to all UK medical schools from the UK Medical Education Database.Participants10 559 doctors (6 155; 58% female) who entered a UK medical school in 2007 or 2008 and were eligible to apply for specialty training by 2015.Primary outcome measureOdds of application, offer and acceptance to any specialty training programme, and on to each of the nine largest training programmes, adjusting for sex, other demographics, prior academic attainment, FtP declaration and medical school.ResultsAcross all specialties, there were no sex differences in applications for specialty training, but women had increased odds of getting an offer (OR=1.40; 95% CI=1.25 to 1.57; p<0.001) and accepting one (OR=1.43; 95% CI=1.19 to 1.71; p<0.001). Seven of the nine largest specialties showed significant sex differences in applications, which remained after adjusting for other factors. In the adjusted models, Paediatrics (OR=1.57; 95% CI=1.01 to 2.46; p=0.046) and general practice (GP) (OR=1.23; 95% CI=1.03 to 1.46; p=0.017) were the only specialties to show sex differences in offers, both favouring women. GP alone showed sex differences in acceptances, with women being more likely to accept (OR=1.34; 95% CI=1.03 to 1.76; p=0.03). Doctors with an FtP declaration were slightly less likely to apply to specialty training overall (OR=0.84; 95% CI=0.71 to 1.00; p=0.048) and less likely to accept an offer to any programme (OR=0.71; 95% CI=0.52 to 0.98; p=0.036), after adjusting for confounders.ConclusionsSex segregation between medical specialties is due to differential application, although research is needed to understand why men are less likely to be offered a place on to GP and Paediatrics training, and if offered GP are less likely to accept.