Recommendations on the use of virtual interviews in the orthopaedic trauma fellowship match : A survey of applicant and fellowship director perspectives
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
The aim of this study was to assess applicant and fellowship director (FD) perspectives on virtual interviewing based on the 2019 to 2020 orthopaedic trauma fellowship interview experience and to develop recommendations for future application cycles. Methods
Web-based surveys were distributed to all matched applicants and orthopaedic trauma FDs after the 2019 and 2020 orthopaedic trauma fellowship match. Thirty-one applicants and 23 FDs completed the survey—response rates of 34% and 38%, respectively. Results
Virtual interviews were completed by 68% of applicants and 17% of FDs. Twenty-nine percent of applicants felt they were able to familiarize themselves with the culture of programs, and 38% of applicants were satisfied with their ability to present themselves. Most (62%) were comfortable ranking programs based on the virtual interview, but 38% reported the format influenced them to rank a program lower. Among all applicants, 77% preferred the in-person interview. Most FDs (75%) reported virtual interviews limited their ability to familiarize themselves with an applicant, and only 50% were comfortable ranking an applicant afterward. Still, 78% of FDs believe there is a role for virtual interviews in the fellowship match. Choosing a virtual interview may negatively affect applicants as 97% of applicants worry the choice conveys less interest to programs, while 43% of FDs would interpret it as less interest. Conclusions
Virtual interviews have multiple shortcomings but are technically feasible and provide reasonable information to applicants and FDs to complete the match process. Our recommendations, based on the perspectives of applicants and FDs, can guide their implementation.
SUBMITTER: Yong T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8568371 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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:Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most graduate medical education (GME) training programs conducted virtual interviews for prospective trainees during the 2020-2021 application cycle. Many internal medicine (IM) subspecialty fellowship programs hosted virtual interviews for the first time with little published data to guide best practices.To evaluate how IM subspecialty fellowship applicants perceived the virtual interview day experience.We designed a 38-item questionnaire that was sent via email to applicants in eight IM subspecialty programs at a single tertiary academic medical center (University of California, San Francisco) from September-November, 2020.Seventy-five applicants completed the survey (75/244, 30.7%), including applicants from all eight fellowship programs. Most survey respondents agreed that the length of the virtual interview day (mean = 6.4 hours) was long enough to gather the information they needed (n = 65, 86.7%) and short enough to prevent fatigue (n = 55, 73.3%). Almost all survey respondents agreed that they could adequately assess the clinical experience (n = 71, 97.3%), research opportunities (n = 72, 98.6%), and program culture (n = 68, 93.2%). Of the respondents who attended a virtual educational conference, most agreed it helped to provide a sense of the program's educational culture (n = 20, 66.7%). Areas for improvement were identified, with some survey respondents reporting that the virtual interview day was too long (n = 11) or that they would have preferred to meet more fellows (n = 10).Survey respondents indicated that the virtual interview was an adequate format to learn about fellowship programs. These findings can inform future virtual interviews for GME training programs.
| S-EPMC8253192 | biostudies-literature
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:PurposeTo understand the opinions of both orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship program directors (PDs) and applicants regarding the utility of virtual interviews in comparison to in-person interviews following the 2022-2023 application cycle.MethodsAn anonymous online survey was distributed through the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine to applicants and PDs of orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs. Questions in the survey included how the virtual format affected the applicants' personal connection to the program, the interview day structure, and costs associated with the interview process.ResultsResponses were received from 69 of 93 PDs (74%) and 97 of 266 applicants (36%). Ninety-five percent of PDs (59 of 62) preferred in-person interviews, compared to 79% of applicants (70 of 89). Ninety-eight percent of PDs (60 of 61) and 82% of applicants (72 of 88) thought it was important/very important to interview in-person. Sixty-one percent of PDs (35 of 57) and 49% of applicants agreed/strongly agreed that conducting virtual interviews negatively affected their personal connection with the fellowship interviewee/program. The presence of virtual interviews allowed 50% (43 of 86) of applicants to go on more interviews. Thirty-two percent (18 of 57) of fellowship programs saved up to $5,000 conducting virtual interviews, and 85% (69 of 81) of applicants saved up to $5,000 on travel expenses by attending virtual interviews.ConclusionsVirtual interviews allow fellowship applicants to complete more interviews and presented financial savings for both programs and applicants. However, both PDs and applicants stated that interviewing in-person is essential for applicants to meet faculty and tour the facilities.Clinical relevanceThis study may be valuable to fellowship programs considering continued use of virtual interviews.
| S-EPMC10753054 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo 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.MethodsAn 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThe 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 relevanceAs 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.
| S-EPMC8128989 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTravel restrictions amidst the COVID-19 pandemic reshaped interviewing for fellowships into a predominantly virtual process. How this impacts Obstetrics and Gynecology (OB/GYN) resident approaches to fellowship application and Match navigation is largely unknown.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional survey study of fourth year OB/GYN residents in the United States who participated in at least one virtual fellowship interview in 2020. We collected information regarding demographics, application strategy, perceived strengths and weaknesses of virtual interviews, and confidence with rank list creation. Descriptive statistics were used for categorical variables and responses pre- and post-Match were compared using Fisher's exact test.ResultsSeventy-five out of an estimated 490 applicants (~ 15% response rate) completed the survey. Of the respondents, 65.3% felt they interviewed at more programs virtually than they would anticipate completing in person, but perceived less confidence in having the necessary information (n = 45, 60%) or understanding the culture of programs (n = 59, 78.7%) to create a rank list. Cost savings were the main benefit of virtual interviews (n = 50, 66.7%), and inability to get a true "feel" for a program was the biggest limitation (n = 43, 57.3%). A majority (46.7%) advocate for a future hybrid interview process.ConclusionsOB/GYN residents pursuing fellowship reported interviewing at more programs during the virtual season, but had less confidence with rank list creation. Cost savings benefits are weighed against difficulty getting a "feel" for programs virtually. Most would advocate for a future hybrid interview process.
| S-EPMC8789205 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeOrthopaedic residents are increasingly seeking international health electives (IHEs) during training, and many such experiences involve providing orthopaedic trauma care. However, little is known about the availability of IHEs during orthopaedic trauma fellowship training. The purpose of our study is to assess the global health opportunities available to US orthopaedic trauma fellows.MethodWe conducted an online, Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap)-based survey of orthopaedic trauma fellowship program directors (PDs) in the United States. The survey link was sent by the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) Fellowship Committee to all US OTA-approved orthopaedic trauma fellowship PDs. Follow-up reminder e-mails were delivered at set time intervals from baseline over a period of 4 weeks.ResultsThe overall response rate was 80% (43/54). Only 3 of 43 responding programs (7%) offer a structured global health program, but over the last 10 years, 12.5% of the remaining programs (5/40) have had a fellow participate in an IHE during fellowship training. Around 100% of PDs reported fellow satisfaction with their IHEs, and all PDs agreed that the educational experience provided by their fellows' IHE participation was valuable. Among programs with no recent fellow IHE participation and without a structured global health program, 9% of PDs (3/35) expect to institute such a program. Lack of funding, lack of established international partner sites, and fellow time away were the most common perceived barriers to IHE participation. A total of 54% of PDs agree that participation in an IHE during training plays a major role in shaping fellows' future professional and volunteer activities.ConclusionThere are limited global health opportunities among US orthopaedic trauma fellowship programs, with only 7% (3/43) offering a structured global health program. Perceived barriers include lack of funding, lack of established partner sites, and concerns related to clinical/call coverage. Greater efforts to establish sustainable funding and international partnerships may increase opportunities for IHEs during orthopaedic trauma fellowship training.
| S-EPMC7997153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePreference signals were to be implemented in over 15 specialties during the 2022-2023 residency match. Analyzing results from the implementation of signals during the American Urological Association (AUA) urology match may inform future behavior.ObjectiveTo characterize applicant and program signal usage and results in the Society of Academic Urology and AUA databases with respect to interview invites and rank list creation.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study involved all applicants and residencies in the 2021-2022 AUA match with data analysis conducted in April through July 2022.ExposuresFive signals indicating interest.Main outcomes and measuresUsing verified match and survey data reported by applicants and programs, a logistic regression was performed on applicant factors associated with obtaining an interview-the main outcome (using inclusion on rank list as a proxy): age, gender, degree (MD or DO), dispersal of signal, US senior status, racial minority group status, Latino ethnicity, international medical graduate status, presence of a home program, AUA geographic section, and US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score. Applicant signal dispersal strategies were stratified by applicant and program competitiveness, as well as program behavior upon receipt of signal with respect to extending interviews and rank list ordering of applicants.ResultsA total of 2659 signals were sent by 553 candidates (mean [SD] age, 27.4 [2.9] years; 179 female [32.4%], 243 racial minority candidates [61.2%]) submitting rank lists for 364 positions at 143 programs. Programs received a median (IQR) of 352 (295-411) applications and were signaled to a median of 16 (8-26) times each. In a logistic regression estimating interview status, geographic proximity (OR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.05-5.15; P = .001) and signal status (OR, 6.04; 95% CI, 3.50-10.40; P < .001) were associated with receiving an interview. Using multiple imputation by chained equations to impute missing data and broadening the data set, male gender (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.92; P = .04) and international medical graduate status (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.81; P = .04) were negative variables, while MD degree (OR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.27-4.36; P = .02) and US senior status (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.13-3.23; P = .04) were positive variables.Conclusions and relevanceThis study of the usage and trends of the newly added preference signals reported the most common strategies for signal dispersal; in an analysis of factors involved in obtaining an interview, geographic similarity between applicant and program and preference signal usage were associated with successful applications.
| S-EPMC9860522 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe 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.MethodsAn 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsWe 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.
| S-EPMC8555343 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionVirtual interviews (VI) are now a permanent part of pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) recruitment, especially given the cost and equity advantages. Yet inability to visit programs in person can impact decision-making, leading applicants to apply to more programs. Moreover, the cost advantages of VI may encourage applicants to apply to programs farther away than they might otherwise have been willing or able to travel. This could create unnecessary strain on programs. We conducted this study to determine whether PEM fellowship applicants would apply to a larger number of programs and in different geographic patterns with VI (2020 and 2021) as compared to in-person interviews (2018 and 2019).MethodsWe conducted an anonymous national survey of all PEM fellows comparing two cohorts: current fellows who interviewed inperson (applied in 2018/2019) and fellows who underwent VIs in 2020/2021 (current fellows and those recently matched in 2021). The study took place in March-April 2022. Questions focused on geographic considerations during interviews and the match. We used descriptive statistics, chi-square and t-tests for analysis.ResultsOverall response rate was 42% (231/550); 32% (n = 74) interviewed in person and 68% (n = 157) virtually. Fellows applied to a median of 4/6 geographic regions (interquartile range 2, 5). Most applied for fellowship both in the same region as residency (216, 93%) and outside (192, 83%). Only the Pacific region saw a statistically significant increase in applicants during VI (59.9% vs 43.2%, P = 0.02). There was no statistical difference in the number of programs applied to during in-person vs VI (mean difference (95% confidence interval 0.72, -2.8 - 4.2). A majority matched in their preferred state both during VI (60.4%) and in-person interviews (65.7%). The difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.45).ConclusionWhile more PEM fellowship applicants applied outside the geographic area where their residency was and to the Pacific region, there was no overall increase in the number of programs or geographic areas PEM applicants applied to during VI as compared to in-person interview seasons. As this was the first two years of VI, ongoing data collection will further identify trends and the impactof VI.
| S-EPMC11000550 | biostudies-literature