The Impact of COVID-19 on Radiation Oncology Residency Applicant Away Rotations, Interviews, and Rank Lists: A Comparison Between the 2020 Match and 2021 Match.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
The COVID-19 pandemic modified the Residency Match process for fourth-year medical students. In-person away rotations were discouraged, interviews were virtual, and traditional factors used to rank programs were absent. Here, we compare survey results administered to both the 2020 and 2021 Match applicants to assess the influence of the pandemic on the radiation oncology (RO) Match process.Methods
An institutional review board-approved prospective cross-sectional study was conducted. The 2020 and 2021 RO Match applicants at a large RO program were invited to participate. Descriptive summary statistics were assessed.Results
The 2020 and 2021 Matches each had 76 applicants complete the survey with response rates of 54% and 57%, respectively. The 2 groups were predominantly white, cisgender male, single, and without children. Whereas 11% of 2020 applicants did not complete away rotations, 45% of 2021 applicants did not. For 2021 Match applicants, 65% of away rotations were performed virtually, whereas 51% were not for medical school credit. Of the applicants, 84% were satisfied with virtual interviews and 72% felt cost savings were worth not having in-person interviews. Whereas 49% of Match 2020 applicants spent >$5000 in interview costs, 0% of the Match 2021 applicants did so, with 45% spending <$100. Postinterview communications from programs increased during the pandemic from 36% to 42% in 2020 Match and 2021 Match, respectively. Although program culture was the most common factor influencing 2021 Match applicants program rankings, half of applicants did not gain a sense of program culture during virtual interviews.Conclusions
We found 2021 Match applicants completed fewer away rotations, were satisfied with virtual interviews/reduced costs, and did not gain a sense of program culture through virtual rotations/interviews despite it being the most important ranking factor reported. This study supports further exploration of virtual away rotations and virtual interviews moving forward beyond the pandemic.
SUBMITTER: Taparra K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8555343 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8170351 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeMedical students often complete clinical rotations at other institutions (away rotations). This study assesses the number of away rotations undertaken by radiation oncology residency applicants and their value from the applicants' perspective.Methods and materialsA survey was sent to applicants to a single radiation oncology program from 2015 to 2017. Questions addressed away rotation frequency, funding, motivations, barriers, and match results. A χ2 test was used to assess the correlation between number of away rotations and matching to an away program. Binary logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with undertaking >2 away rotations.ResultsThe response rate was 39% (n = 194); 89% of respondents completed ≥1 away rotation (median, 2; interquartile range, 2-3), of whom 39% (n = 67) matched to an away program. The number of away rotations completed did not differ between those who did and did not match (P = .29). Furthermore, the number of away rotations did not correlate with matching at an away program (P = .40). Factors associated with completing more away rotations included male sex and high loan burden (P < .05). Away rotations were perceived as extremely important (71%), with interest in a specific program (44%) and obtaining letters of recommendation (31%) the most common reasons to pursue away rotations. Only 9% (n = 15) of applicants did away rotations because they had no home program. Funding sources included personal savings (29%), family support (26%), and loans (22%). If costs were inconsequential, 67 applicants (35%) noted they would do more away rotations.ConclusionsAway rotations are common and often result in students matching to an away program, although benefits of ≥2 away rotations appear limited and have associated costs. Limiting the number of away rotations in radiation oncology may decrease costs without sacrificing one's chances of matching.
| S-EPMC7381360 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) allows post-interview contact between residency applicants and residency programs. Thank-you communications represent one of the most common forms, but data on their value to applicants and program directors (PD) are limited. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of thank-you communications on applicant- and residency-program rank lists.MethodsTwo anonymous, voluntary surveys were sent after the 2018 NRMP Match, one to applicants who were offered an interview at a single academic site in the 2017-2018 Match cycle, and one to EM PDs nationwide. The surveys were designed in conjunction with a nationally-recognized survey center and piloted and revised based on feedback from residents and faculty.ResultsOf 196 residency applicants, 97 (49.5%) responded to the survey. Of these, 73/95 (76.8%) reported sending thank-you communications. Twenty-two of 73 (30%) stated that they sent thank-you communications to improve their spot on a program's rank list; and 16 of 73 (21.9%) reported that they changed their rank list based upon the responses they received to their thank-you communications. Of 163 PDs, 99 (60.7%) responded to the survey. Of those PDs surveyed, 22.6% reported that an applicant could be moved up their program's rank list and 10.8% reported that an applicant could move down a program's rank list based on their thank-you communications (or lack thereof).ConclusionThe majority of applicants to EM are sending thank-you communications. A significant minority of applicants and PDs changed their rank list due to post-interview thank-you communications.
| S-EPMC6948692 | 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:ImportanceThe ophthalmology residency application process is critical for applicants and residency programs, and knowledge about the preferences of applicants would assist both groups in improving the process.ObjectiveTo evaluate the experiences and preferences of ophthalmology residency applicants.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional, nonvalidated survey was conducted online. All applicants to the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute ophthalmology residency program during the 2018-2019 application cycle were invited to complete the survey. Data collection occurred from April 1, 2019, to April 30, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresApplicant demographics, application submissions, interview experiences, financial considerations, match results, and suggestions for improvement of the application process.ResultsResponses were received from 185 applicants (36.4%), including 77 women (41.6%). A successful match into an ophthalmology residency was achieved by 172 respondents (93.0%). There was a mean (SD) US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score of 245.8 (13.3) points. Respondents applied to a mean (SD) of 76.4 (23.5) ophthalmology residency programs, received 14.0 (9.0) invitations to interview, and attended 10.3 (4.4) interviews. Choices regarding applications and interviews were based mostly on program reputation, location, and advisor recommendation. A usual lead time of at least 3 weeks between the invitation and interview was reported by 126 respondents (69.2%), which was reduced to 14 respondents (15.1%) when a wait-list was involved. The ophthalmology residency application process cost a mean (SD) of $5704 ($2831) per applicant. Respondents reported that they were most able to reduce costs through housing choices (hotel stays or similar arrangements) and least able to reduce costs by limiting the number of programs to which they applied or at which they interviewed.Conclusions and relevanceThe ophthalmology residency application process is complex and poses substantial challenges to applicants and residency programs. These findings suggest that many current applicants have difficulty selecting programs to apply to, and most respondents desired changes to the current system of interview invitations and scheduling.
| S-EPMC7068667 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:The "stable marriage" algorithm underlying the National Residency Match Program (NRMP) has been shown to create optimal outcomes when students submit true preference lists. Previous research has shown students may allow external information to affect their rank lists. The objective of this study was to determine whether medical students consistently make rank lists that reflect their true preferences. METHODS:A voluntary online survey was sent to third-year students at a single midwestern medical school. Students were given hypothetical scenarios that either should or should not affect their true residency preferences and rated the importance of six factors to their final rank list. The survey was edited by a group of education scholars and revised based on feedback from a pilot with current postgraduate year 1 residents. RESULTS:Of 175 students surveyed, 140 (80%) responded; 63% (88/140) reported that their "perceived competitiveness" would influence their rank list at least a "moderate amount. Of 135 students, 31 (23%) moved a program lower on their list if they learned they were ranked "low" by that program, while 6% (8/135) of respondents moved a program higher if they learned they were ranked "at the top of the list." Participants responded similarly (κ = 0.71) when presented with scenarios asking what they would do vs what a classmate should do. CONCLUSION:Students' hypothetical rank lists did not consistently match their true residency preferences. These results may stem from a misunderstanding of the Match algorithm. Medical schools should consider augmenting explicit education related to the NRMP Match algorithm to ensure optimal outcomes for students.
| S-EPMC6948682 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective This article characterizes the resources used by ophthalmology residency applicants when deciding where to apply, interview, and rank. Design Cross-sectional, online survey. Participants All applicants to the University of California-San Francisco ophthalmology residency program during the 2019 to 2020 and 2020 to 2021 application cycles. Methods A secure, anonymous, 19-item post-match questionnaire was distributed to participants inquiring about demographic information, match outcomes, and resources used to learn and make decisions about residency programs. Results were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods. Main Outcome Measures Qualitative ranking of resources used to decide where to apply, interview, and rank. Results One hundred thirty-six of 870 solicited applicants responded to the questionnaire, for a response rate of 15.6%. Digital platforms were ranked as more important resources than people (i.e., faculty, career advisors, residents, and program directors) when applicants were deciding where to apply and interview. Digital platforms became far less important when applicants were formulating their rank lists, at which time the program's academic reputation, perceived happiness of residents and faculty, interview experience, and geographic location were more important. When learning about residency programs, 100% of respondents engaged with program Web sites, and the majority engaged with program emails ( n =88 [85.4%]), Doximity ( n =82 [79.6%]), Reddit ( n =64 [62.1%]), Instagram ( n =59 [57.3%]), the FREIDA residency program database ( n =55 [53.4%]), and YouTube ( n =53 [51.5%]). All 13 digital platforms included in the survey were utilized by at least 25% of respondents, largely passively (i.e., reading rather than producing content). Respondents indicated that the most important topics to include on program Web sites were the number of residents accepted per year, current resident profiles, and resident alumni job/fellowship placement. Conclusion Applicants engage heavily with digital media in deciding where to apply and interview but rely heavily on their personal experiences with the program in deciding where to rank. Ophthalmology programs may facilitate recruitment of applicants by optimizing their digital media platforms.
| S-EPMC9927998 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Charting Outcomes resource is useful in gauging an applicant's competiveness for a given specialty. However, many variables are not reported in Charting Outcomes that may influence an applicant's ability to match. A significant proportion of applicants record their experiences in an anonymous, self-reported applicant spreadsheet. We analyzed factors associated with a successful match using this dataset to test the hypothesis that research productivity and high academic performance correlates with success rates. A retrospective analysis of "RadOnc Interview Spreadsheet" for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 radiation oncology match was performed. Data were accessed via studentdoctor.net. Board scores, research characteristics, Sub-I participation, and interview invitation rates were available. Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis, and chi-square tests were used for statistical analysis. When possible, results were compared to those reported in the National Residency Match Program's "Charting Outcomes" report. A total of 158 applicants were examined for the applicant characteristics. Applicants applied to a median of 61 programs and received a median of 14 interviews. The mean step 1 score was 248 (range: 198 to 272) and most were in the highest grade point average quartile (68.3%). 21.7% participated in additional research year(s), and 19% obtained a PhD. The majority of applicants took three radiation oncology electives (48.7%). On multivariate analysis, alpha-omega-alpha (AOA) honors society status (p=0.033), participating in a research year (p=0.001) and number of journal publications (p=0.047) significantly correlated with higher interview invitation rates. In summary, this study identifies important considerations for radiation oncology applicants that have not been previously reported, such as induction into AOA and number of journal publications.
| S-EPMC6022246 | biostudies-other
Project description:Interviews for the integrated plastic surgery residency match took place in a virtual format for the 2020-2021 application cycle. Current literature lacks the perspectives of program directors (PDs) on virtual interviews compared with traditional in-person interviews.MethodsFollowing institutional review board approval, an anonymous 17-question survey was distributed by email to 82 program directors of integrated plastic surgery residency programs in the United States. Participants were asked baseline program information, the number of positions and interview invites offered, and their perspectives on various aspects of the virtual interview process.ResultsSixty-two (75.6%) PDs completed the survey. Thirty-seven percent reported increasing the number of interview offers per available residency spot. On a five-point Likert scale (1, not well at all; 5, extremely well), PDs showed no significant differences in their ability judge an applicant's professionalism (3.1 ± 1.1), interpersonal and communication skills (3.2 ± 1.1), and "fit" with their program (2.9 ± 0.9) during virtual interviews (P = 0.360). Sixty-eight percent reported being satisfied (15.3% extremely satisfied, 52.5% somewhat satisfied) with the virtual interview process, though 76.3% preferred in-person interviews.ConclusionsThis study is the first to provide insight into PDs' impressions of virtual residency interviews. Although most reported being satisfied with the virtual interview process, the majority still preferred in-person interviews. Further long-term studies evaluating the pros and cons of each interview modality may provide more information on whether virtual interviews could become a sustainable alternative to the traditional in-person residency interview.
| S-EPMC8376389 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is significant demand for training in Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO) fellowships. Previous work has explored objective quantitative metrics of applicants that matriculated to CGSO fellowships; however, ambiguity remains concerning academic benchmarks and qualitative factors that impact matriculation. STUDY DESIGN:A web-based survey was sent to each ACGME/SSO-approved CGSO fellowship training program. The survey was comprised of 24 questions in various forms, including dichotomous, ranked, and five-point Likert scale questions. RESULTS:Twenty-nine of 30 program directors (97%) submitted complete survey responses, representing 64 of the 65 CGSO fellowship positions (99%) currently offered. Programs received a mean of 73 applications per cycle (range 50-125) and granted a mean of 26 interviews (range 2-45). Seventy-two percent of programs had an established benchmark for ABSITE score percentile before offering a candidate an interview, with 62% of those programs setting that benchmark above the 50th percentile. The majority of programs also had established benchmarks for quantity of first author publications (mean: 2.3) and all publications of any authorship (mean: 4.4). An applicant's interview was ranked as the most important factor in determining inclusion on the program's rank list. The ability to work as part of a team, interpersonal interaction/communication abilities, and operative skills were rated as most important applicant characteristics, whereas an applicant's personal statement was ranked as least important. CONCLUSIONS:After established academic benchmarks have been met, a multitude of factors influences ranking of applicants to the CGSO fellowship, most of which are assessed at the interview.
| S-EPMC6684844 | biostudies-literature