Dataset Information

The Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship Application Process: An Analysis of the Applicant Experience.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To evaluate the process of applying to orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships from the applicant's perspective, with a focus on number of program applications, interviews, interview day importance, and financial burden.

Methods

An anonymous electronic survey was distributed to all orthopaedic surgery residents who applied to orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships in the United States in 2016 and 2017. The survey contained 26 questions, with 10 pertaining to applicant demographics, accolades, and examination scores. A follow up e-mail was distributed at 2 and 4 weeks to increase participation.

Results

The survey was distributed to 453 sports medicine fellowship applicants; 148 (34.1%) completed the survey. Of the respondents, 130 (87.8%) were male and 18 (12.2%) were female. When analyzing United States Medical Licensing Examination scores, respondents who scored above a 251 on Step 2 CK were more likely to receive more than 20 interviews compared with those who scored lower (P = .013). Previous collegiate or professional athlete status did not influence the number of interviews received. In total, 94 of 147 (64.0%) respondents applied to more than 20 programs, and 73 respondents (49.7%) attended between 11 and 15 interviews. The majority of respondents spent between $4001 and $6000 (49; 33.1%) throughout the application process. Interaction with faculty and case volume/complexity were the most important factors in ranking programs.

Conclusions

The majority of orthopaedic surgery residents pursue at least 1 year of fellowship training following residency, with sports medicine being one of the most popular specialties. The application process for sports medicine fellowships is complex, competitive, and a financial burden for applicants. Most applicants apply to more than 20 programs, spend between $4000 and $6,000 over the course of the application process, and value faculty interaction and case volume/complexity over other factors associated with a program.

Clinical relevance

As other surgical fellowships have detailed their application process from the applicant's perspective, there remains a need for increased transparency of the sports medicine fellowship application in order to offer additional insight and guidance for future applicants.

SUBMITTER: Zeoli T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8128989 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Over the last year, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread across the world as a global pandemic, bringing unprecedented changes to the healthcare landscape for patients and physicians. Medical trainees have been similarly affected, as medical schools throughout the United States have implemented remote learning-based curriculums and withdrawn third- and fourth-year students from in-hospital clerkships. Of particular importance is the impact of COVID-19 on current orthopaedic surgery residents applying to subspecialty fellowship programs. Because of the highly transmissible nature of the virus and current social distancing restrictions, orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship interviews are being held virtually during the 2020-2021 application cycle. This transition to videoconference interviewing may de-emphasize an applicant's unique personality or interpersonal interactions that are traditionally captured in a variety of settings during the interview day. In turn, this may lead to increased prioritization of various aspects of the application, such as the applicant's residency program, letters of recommendation, and research productivity. Matching to a sports medicine fellowship program is an inherently competitive process and the COVID-19 pandemic presents novel challenges to orthopaedic residents in their efforts to successfully match. The purpose of this review is to describe the changes made to the orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship interview process resulting from COVID-19 during the 2020-2021 application cycle and discuss how these changes may impact the future fellowship application process. This review discusses the changes made to the orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship interview process caused by COVID-19 during the 2020-2021 application cycle. This review also assesses how such changes may impact the future application process and proposes potential adaptations to the current virtual interview format if it should become the new standard moving forward.

Project description:IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to determine which components of sports medicine fellowships are most important to applicants when reviewing fellowship websites during the application process.MethodsAn anonymous survey was distributed to 492 fellowship applicants from the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 cycles. The survey included questions about the importance of including components of fellow education, recruitment, and experience on program websites. The weighted average of responses determined each component's rank, with 5 being "very important" and 1 being "not at all important." Responses were analyzed by application cycle, current position, and sex using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.ResultsSixty-five applicants participated in the survey and completed the demographics section, resulting in a 13.2% response rate. According to participants, the most important components to include on fellowship websites were exposure to advanced operative sports medicine techniques (weighted average, 4.62), complexity of cases performed (4.52), and number of cases performed (4.50). Analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences in opinion between application cycles for flexibility for conducting a remote interview (P = .0074), jobs obtained by previous fellows (P = .019), national rank of department (P = .021), program's geographic location (P = .026), protected academic time (P = .038), current positions for criteria for fellows' performance evaluations (P = .028), program's geographic location (P = .0097), and protected academic time (P = .0079). There were statistically significant differences in opinion between current positions regarding flexibility for conducting a remote interview (P = .0026), jobs obtained by previous fellows (P = .012), and national rank of department (P = .0013).ConclusionsOrthopaedic sports medicine fellowship applicants believe that it is most important to include information about the volume and complexity of fellows' cases and their day-to-day commitments on program websites.Clinical relevanceThis information would enable applicants to identify programs that will support professional development and allow program directors to communicate expectations.

Project description:PurposeTo survey orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship program directors to determine the current research productivity of both fellows and faculty in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs in the United States.MethodsAn anonymous 18-question survey was distributed via e-mail to all 95 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship program directors in the United States. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. Questions included whether fellows are required to complete a certain number of projects during their fellowship year and whether fellows have protected research time.ResultsOf the programs, 31 (33%) responded to the survey. Twenty-four programs (80%) require fellows to complete 1 to 4 projects. Twenty-one programs (71%) provide 4 to 8 hours of weekly protected research time. Twenty-four programs (77%) publish 1 to 2 manuscripts per fellow during the fellowship. Twenty-two programs (71%) have fellows work on 1 to 2 projects at a time. Annually, 26 programs (84%) give 0 to 5 podium presentations, 24 (80%) present 0 to 5 posters, and 15 (48%) report 0 to 5 publications. Twenty-four programs (77%) have research fellows and/or assistants to help with research. The presence of dedicated research assistants and more than 25 annual fellowship program publications were found to be useful screening data for more than 2 and more than 4 average publications per fellow, respectively.ConclusionsThe research productivity of orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs may be an important consideration for applicants. Applicants who desire to be productive in research during their fellowship year should consider programs with dedicated research assistants and/or programs that publish more than 25 times annually.Clinical relevanceThis is a descriptive epidemiologic study that helps define the research productivity landscape in orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships. A more accurate understanding of sports medicine fellowship research experience may facilitate a better match between a program's research expectations and an applicant's research interests.

Project description:PurposeTo determine the objective characteristics of fellowship directors (FDs) in orthopaedic sports medicine by focusing on the demographics, academic background, institutional history, research experience, and professional affiliations of FDs in this field.MethodsData was collected for each FD via institutional biographies or publicly available curriculum vitae (CV). The data collected for each FD included age, gender, race/ethnicity, previous training institutions, residency and fellowship graduation years, additional advanced degrees, military affiliation, institutional loyalty, year hired by current institution, career timeline, Scopus H-index, number of publications, and total number of citations.ResultsOf the 88 FDs, 87 (98.9%) were male and 1 (1.1%) was female. The mean age for all FDs was 54.7 years (± 9.1 standard deviation). The majority of FDs were White (n = 80; 90.9%). The mean Scopus H-index, total number of publications, and total number of citations were 22.5 ± 16.6, 90.0 ± 91.6, and 2773.9 ± 3962.9, respectively. On average, it took 9.5 ± 7.3 years from fellowship graduation until FD appointment. Additionally, the mean number of years of employment or affiliation with the current institution was 17.2 ± 9.4, and the mean number of years in an FD role was 10.9 ± 9.3.ConclusionOrthopaedic sports medicine fellowship directors are largely distinguished by their high level of research productivity and accomplishment. Additionally, orthopaedic training pedigree seems to play a role in FD role attainment, with a handful of orthopaedic residency and sports medicine fellowship programs producing a large percentage of current FDs. Finally, FDs are overwhelmingly white males with little female or minority representation.Clinical relevanceThis study outlines some of the most important characteristics among orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship directors and identifies racial and gender disparities within this population of leaders that may have detrimental effects on the field as a whole.

Project description:Purpose To determine the proportion of faculty members at the top orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs who completed a fellowship at one of these programs themselves, how many remained at their fellowship training programs as an attending (institutional loyalty), where they most commonly completed residency and medical school, and to characterize their research productivity. Methods The fellowship programs of current orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship faculty members at each of the top 10 orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs (based on a recent study) were determined by searching program websites or contacting program coordinators. For each program, we determined the proportion of faculty members who completed fellowship at one of these top 10 programs and the proportion who remained at their fellowship program as an attending. Residency and medical school information was found for faculty members on their professional websites. To determine research output, each faculty member’s name was searched within the Scopus database and the number of publications was recorded. Results Data were obtained from each of the top 10 sports medicine fellowship programs. Fifty-eight of 82 (70.7%) fellowship faculty members completed fellowship at a top 10 program. Regarding institutional loyalty, 36 of 82 (43.9%) fellowship faculty members remained at the program where they trained, with one program led entirely by alumni. The average number of publications per faculty member was 130.6, with a range among the 10 programs of 23-355.8. Conclusions Most orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship faculty at the top perceived training programs completed a fellowship at one of these same programs and maintain high research productivity. Clinical Relevance Orthopaedic surgery trainees who wish to become faculty members at one of the top orthopaedic sports medicine training programs should aim to match into one of these top programs when applying for fellowship.

Project description:Purpose The purpose of this study was to report demographic trends in terms of ethnicity/race and gender among the membership and leadership positions of the Arthroscopy Association of North America (AANA) and the American Orthopaedic Society of Sports Medicine (AOSSM). Over the years both AANA and AOSSM will increase in diversity through their committee membership and leadership positions. Methods AANA and AOSSM membership and leadership were reviewed for the years 2010, 2015, and 2020. Race/ethnicity was divided into Caucasian, Asian, African American (AA), Hispanic/Latin/South American (HLSA), and Middle Eastern (ME). Gender was limited to male or female, based on name and photographic depiction. Results Diversity in AANA and AOSSM committee and leadership positions is summarized in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. In 2010, 166/191 (87%) AANA committee members were Caucasian, as compared with 125/186 (67%) in 2020. Asian committee members were similar in 2010 (13/191, 7%) and 2015 (13/216, 6%) but increased to 17/186 (10%) in 2020. HLSA committee members increased from 5/191 (3%) 2010 to 11/186 (6%) in 2020. AA committee membership increased from 2/191 (1%) in 2010 to 5/186 (3%) in 2020. The diversity of AANA Board of Director leadership positions increased, with Caucasian representation decreasing from 14/14 (100%) 2010 to 11/12 (92%) in 2020 and Asian representation increasing from 0% in 2010 to 1/12 (8%) in 2020, with HLSA, AA and ME remaining the same with 0/12 (0%). In AANA, men comprised 181/191 (95%) committee members in 2010 and 166/186 (89%) in 2020. The percentage of female committee members increased from 10/191 (5%) in 2010 to 20/186 (11%) in 2020. In 2010, 73/79 (92%) AOSSM committee members were Caucasian compared to 62/81 (77%) in 2020 with AA having the largest increase in committee members from 0% in 2010 to 6/81 (7%) in 2020 (Table 2). Within AOSSM, men comprised 73/79 (92%) committee members in 2010 and 70/81 (86%) in 2020. The percentage of female committee members in AOSSM increased from 6/79 (8%) in 2010 to 11/81 (14%) in 2020. Conclusion There has been a progressive trend toward increasing diversity in both committee membership and leadership positions in AANA and AOSSM from 2010 to 2020. Within AANA, there has been a decrease in the Caucasian representation from 87% in 2010 to 67% in 2020 and an increase in the female representation from 5% in 2010 to 11% in 2020. AOSSM demonstrated a similar trend, with Caucasian representation decreasing from 92% in 2010 to 77% in 2020, in addition to female percentage increasing from 8% in 2010 to 14% in 2020. Although there has been an increase in representation of minority and female orthopaedic surgeons within both societies, there is still room for more diversity and inclusion within committee membership and leadership. It is important to progress toward the understanding of the changes that need to be made and work to implement opening the field of orthopaedic sports medicine.