Dataset Information

Improving the fellowship interview experience for reproductive endocrinology and infertility candidates: a survey.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To collect data on the current reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) fellowship interview process so that it may be improved in the future.

Design

Web-based cross-sectional survey. In addition, fellowship program directors and coordinators were contacted by e-mail.

Setting

Survey data were collected after completion of the 2018 REI fellowship interview season.

Patients

Not applicable.

Interventions

None.

Main outcome measures

Number of days used for interviews, missed opportunities to interview, frequency of travel to the same city, average money spent, recommendations for how the interview process could be improved.

Results

There were 44 survey respondents. The mean number of interviews attended was 12.6 (range, 1-22). On average 13.4 (0-30) days off work were used to interview. About 68.1% (n = 30) missed an opportunity to interview at a program they were interested in. The most common reasons were the interview date was the same day as another interview, could not attend due to geographic location, and cost was too high. About 72% (n = 31) traveled to the same city more than once for an interview. The average cost per interview was $478 (range, $200-$1,000) and average cost per interview season was $5,660 (range, $900-$15,000). Fellowship program data were available from 43 of 48 programs contacted. The number of dates that had conflicting interviews scheduled were 26.

Conclusions

These data highlight the need to coordinate the REI fellowship recruitment process between programs to reduce conflicting interview dates and mitigate costs to applicants. Based on these results, a concrete action plan is presented.

SUBMITTER: New EP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8244322 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo assess oncofertility content on fertility clinic websites as indicated by eight relevant keywords. Additionally, we sought to describe the relationship between oncofertility content and five predetermined clinic characteristics.MethodsWe examined 381 fertility clinic websites that are members of the Society for Associated Reproductive Technology (SART). Extracted data included clinic location, practice type (private vs academic), size (cycles/year), type of NCI designated center (cancer center vs comprehensive cancer center), and distance from the nearest NCI center. Additionally, we documented whether the clinic was located in a state mandating reproductive and infertility services and/or included fertility preservation for "iatrogenic infertility" as reported by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). Data were summarized using descriptive statistics and compared using chi-squared or t-test as appropriate.ResultsOf the 381 fertility clinic websites analyzed, 322 (85%) contained at least one oncofertility-related keyword. Most frequently used terms included cancer (79%) and fertility preservation (78%), while less frequently used terms included suppression (9.4%) and shielding (5.0%). Practices that initiated ≥ 501 cycles per year were more likely to mention one of the oncofertility keywords (OR 1.2; 95% CI 1.1-1.3). The associations of oncofertility website content with practice type, state-mandated fertility insurance coverage, and distance from an NCI-designated cancer center were not statistically significant. Large clinic size was the only predictive factor for inclusion of oncofertility website content. Further studies are required to evaluate whether inclusion of oncofertility content on clinic websites impacts the use of these services by patients with cancer.ConclusionThis is the first study correlating availability of oncofertility content on SART fertility clinic websites with consideration of geographic proximity to NCI designated cancer centers. Large clinic size was the only predictive factor for inclusion of oncofertility website content.

Project description:ObjectiveThe correct path after finishing residency in cardiac surgery (CS) has been unclear to most of the young cardiac surgeons. Pursuing a fellowship abroad is by far the most preferred option for many residents after residency. We report the results of the first nationwide survey on the experience of Indian cardiac surgeons who have pursued a fellowship abroad.MethodsA 10-question Web-based survey was distributed in March, 2018, to all cardiac surgeons in India who have done at least 1 year of fellowship or registrarship in CS abroad. A reminder was sent after 1 month. All responses were verified for genuineness and entirety. A significant 55 responses qualified for survey analysis.ResultsFifty-five surgeons with a mean experience of 8.1 years after residency and at least 1 year of international training responded to the survey. Australia and New Zealand were the most common countries opted for post-residency training and a majority did a 2-year international fellowship. Most of them were fairly satisfied with protocol learning (4.1/5), research work (3.3/5) and financial support (3.7/5) but not with the surgical hands-on experience (2.9/5). The greatest challenge after the fellowship was to establish an independent practice and get patient referrals. Forty per cent of the surgeons felt that Indian post-residency training could be comparable to international fellowships if the centre is chosen wisely. A few (16%) of them even believed that Indian post-residency training is better than international fellowships.ConclusionsInternational fellowships have their own merits and demerits and are to be chosen wisely. In the present situation, Indian post-residency training for basic surgical work is comparable to that of overseas. However, international exposure is recommended for learning advances in cardiac surgical subspecialities like minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS), robotic CS, aortic and endovascular techniques and heart failure surgeries.

Project description:PurposeThe Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic occurred during the interview period for numerous surgical fellowships, resulting in most programs transitioning to a virtual interview format during the 2020-2021 application cycle. This study investigated modifications adopted by fellowship programs and perceptions of the virtual interview format among hand surgery fellowship applicants.MethodsVoluntary, anonymous online surveys were emailed to all applicants to the Johns Hopkins hand surgery fellowship during the 2020-2021 interview cycle. The surveys were released after the rank order list certification deadline on May 6, 2021, and closed on May 18, 2021, before the match results were released. Descriptive statistics based on the overall cohort and primary outcome of an applicant's willingness to recommend virtual interviews in the future were conducted.ResultsThirty-four of 112 (30.4%) applicants completed their surveys. Twenty-seven (79.4%) survey respondents recommended the virtual interview format in the future and 7 (20.6%) did not. Applicants who recommended virtual interviews were similar to those who did not on the basis of the number of interviews received and taken, information provided by programs, and self-rated competency with the virtual interview format. Those who recommended virtual interviews rated the effectiveness of self-advocacy higher compared with those who did not. All respondents agreed that cost savings and scheduling were more effective with virtual interviews. Perceived weaknesses differed between the 2 groups and included the lack of physical tour, difficulty with self-advocacy, and technical difficulties. The majority of survey respondents preferred in-person interviews before the interview cycle (n = 32, 94.1%), whereas nearly half of survey respondents preferred virtual interviews after the interview cycle (n = 16, 47.1%).ConclusionsNearly 80% of survey respondents recommended virtual interviews in the future. Major benefits included effectiveness of scheduling and cost savings.Clinical relevanceVirtual interviews may be considered as an alternative or adjunct to in-person hand surgery fellowship interviews in the future.