Using skype as an alternative for residency selection interviews.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Edje L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3771184 | biostudies-other | 2013 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundVideoconference interviews (VCIs) are increasingly being used in the selection process of residency program candidates across a number of medical specialties, but nevertheless remain an underutilized approach, particularly in the field of primary care.ObjectiveThis retrospective data review with cost analysis explores financial and acceptability outcomes of VCI implementation over a 9-year period.MethodsVCIs were incorporated into the recruitment process at a community-based academic family medicine residency program in 2011, whereby suitable candidates were selected for VCIs after Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) application review. Based on the outcome of VCI, candidates were invited via a structured interview tool for a subsequent in-person interviews to determine final rank decisions. Costs of the interview process were tracked, as well as perceptions of VCIs.ResultsVCI implementation over 9 years demonstrated a median 48% reduction of in-person interviews-or 95 applicants eliminated out of a total 195 VCIs performed. This represents a mean annual direct cost savings estimated at $9,154, equating to a 55% reduction in allocated program costs, in addition to indirect cost savings to both applicants and the program.ConclusionsCompared to exclusively in-person interviewing, the utilization of VCIs is potentially more cost-effective for residency programs and candidates, while creating a more personal experience for applicants early in the recruitment process. Limited data of acceptability among faculty and candidates is generally favorable but remains mixed.
| S-EPMC7771615 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine 2020 residency cycle application practices and to model potential consequences in the 2021 cycle if (1) applicants scheduled an uncapped number of interviews; (2) applicants were capped to schedule 12 interviews; (3) residency programs kept their number of interview offers unchanged; and (4) programs increased their interview offers by 20%. DESIGN AND SETTING:The authors sent an anonymous survey to all obstetrics and gynecology applicants registered through the Electronic Residency Application Service in February 2020 asking respondents to share demographics and number of interview offers received and completed. Based on prior estimates that 12 interviews are needed to match in obstetrics and gynecology, respondents were divided into Group 12+ (those receiving ?12 interview offers) and Group <12 (those receiving <12 offers). Model assumptions were (1) applicants can complete all interviews they are offered because they are virtual; (2) interview offers that applicants in Group 12+ decline are subsequently offered to applicants in Group <12; (3) the proportions of interviews offered to Group 12+ and Group <12 will remain the same if programs chose to increase their total number of interview spots. PARTICIPANTS:Among 2508 applicants, 750 (30%) provided the number of interview offers received and completed: 417 (56%) in Group 12+ and 333 (44%) in Group <12. RESULTS:In models where applicants are uncapped in the number of interviews, Group <12 applicants receive <1 interview offer, even if programs increase the number of interviews offered and performed. If applicants are capped at 12 interviews, Group <12 applicants will receive 9 interview offers on average and will reach 12 if programs increase the number of interviews offered by 20%. CONCLUSIONS:This work highlights how current inefficiencies may lead to negative consequences with virtual interviews. Interview caps and preference signaling systems need to be urgently considered.
| S-EPMC7489264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedical training programs candidate's interview is an integral part of the residency matching process. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, conducting these interviews was challenging due to infection prevention restrains (social distancing, namely) and travel restrictions. E-interviews were implemented by the Saudi Commission for Healthcare Specialties (SCFHS) since the matching cycle of March 2020 to hold the interviews in a safer virtual environment while maintaining the same matching quality and standards.AimThis study was conducted to assess the medical training residency program applicants' satisfaction, stress, and other perspectives for the (SCFHS) March 2020 Matching-cycle conducted through an urgently implemented E-interviews process.MethodA cross-sectional, nationwide survey (Additional file 1) was sent to 4153 residency-nominated applicants to the (SCFHS) March 2020 cycle.ResultsAmong the 510 candidates who responded, 62.2% applied for medical specialties, 20.2% applied for surgical specialties, and 17.6% applied for critical care and emergency specialties. Most respondents (61.2%) never had previous experience with web-based video conferences. Most respondents (80.2%) used the Zoom application to conduct the current E-interviews, whereas only 15.9% used the FaceTime application. 63.3% of the respondents preferred E-interviews over in-person interviews, and 60.6% rated their experience as very good or excellent. 75.7% of the respondents agreed that all their residency program queries were adequately addressed during the E-interviews. At the same time, 52.2% of them agreed that E-interviews allowed them to represent themselves accurately. 28.2% felt no stress at all with their E-interviews experience, while 41.2% felt little stressed and only 8.2% felt highly stressed. The factors that were independently and inversely associated with applicants' level of stress with E-interviews experience were their ability to represent themselves during the interviews (p = 0.001), cost-savings (p < 0.001), their overall rating of the E-interviews quality (p = 0.007) and the speed of the internet connection (p < 0.006).ConclusionVideoconferencing was implemented on an urgent basis during the COVID-19 pandemic in the medical residency application process in Saudi Arabia. It was perceived as an adequate and promising tool to replace in-person interviews in the future. Applicants' satisfaction was mainly driven by good organization, cost-saving, and their ability to present themselves. Future studies to enhance this experience are warranted.
| S-EPMC8405253 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDuring interviews, medical students may feel uncomfortable asking questions that might be important to them, such as parental leave. Parental leave policies may be difficult for applicants to access without asking the program director or other interviewers. The goal of this study is to evaluate whether parental leave information is presented to prospective residents and whether medical students want this information.MethodsFifty-two program directors (PD's) at 3 sites of a single institution received a survey in 2019 to identify whether parental leave information is presented at residency interviews. Medical students received a separate survey in 2020 to identify their preferences. Fisher exact tests, Pearson χ2 tests and Cochran-Armitage tests were used where appropriate to assess for differences in responses.ResultsOf the 52 PD's, 27 responded (52%) and 19 (70%) indicated that information on parental leave was not provided to candidates. The most common reason cited was the belief that the information was not relevant (n = 7; 37%). Of the 373 medical students, 179 responded (48%). Most respondents (92%) wanted parental leave information formally presented, and many anticipated they would feel extremely or somewhat uncomfortable (68%) asking about parental leave. The majority (61%) felt that these policies would impact ranking of programs "somewhat" or "very much."ConclusionsParental leave policies may not be readily available to interviewees despite strong interest and their impact on ranking of programs by prospective residents.
| S-EPMC8684616 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The diversity of modern society is often not represented in the medical workforce. This might be partly due to selection practices. We need to better understand decision-making processes by selection committees in order to improve selection procedures with regard to diversity. This paper reports on a qualitative study with a socio-constructivist perspective conducted in 2015 that explored how residency selection decision-making occurred within four specialties in two regions in the Netherlands. Data included transcripts of the decision-making meetings and of one-on-one interviews with committee members before and after the group decision-making meetings. Candidates struggled to portray themselves favorably as they had to balance playing by the rules and being authentic; between fitting in and standing out. Although admissions committees had a welcoming stance to diversity, their practices were unintentionally preventing them from hiring underrepresented minority (URM) candidates. While negotiating admissions is difficult for all candidates, it is presumably even more complicated for URM candidates. This seems to be having a negative influence on attaining workforce diversity. Current beliefs, which make committees mistakenly feel they are acting fairly, might actually justify biased practices. Awareness of the role of committee members in these processes is an essential first step.
| S-EPMC7900052 | biostudies-literature
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 Compared to in-person recruitment, virtual interviewing reduces costs and promotes equity. However, many residency applicants believe that visiting programs helps inform their rank decisions. Objective We assessed the feasibility of and stakeholder opinions about optional in-person visits after virtual interviewing and program rank list finalization. Methods Six internal medicine residency programs conducted virtual recruitment in 2022-2023 and finalized their rank lists 4 weeks before the deadline. Applicants were invited for optional in-person visits after program rank list finalization. Interviewed applicants, program directors, and program administrators were given surveys that included 7-17 questions and employed "skip logic," discrete answers (eg, "yes/no/unsure" or multiple choice), and open-ended questions. Survey questions assessed stakeholders' opinions about the value, equity, and potential downsides of this recruitment process. Results Participating programs interviewed an average of 379 applicants (range 205-534) with 39 (10.3% [39 of 379], range 7.9%-12.8% [33 of 420-51 of 397]) applicants completing in-person visits. Of 1808 interviewed applicants, 464 responded to the survey (26%); 88% (407 of 464) believe a similar optional in-person visit should be offered next year, 75% (347 of 464) found this process equitable, but only 56% (258 of 464) trusted programs not to change their rank lists. Nearly all who attended an in-person visit (96.5%, 109 of 113) found it valuable. All program directors liked the optional in-person visit and believe future applicants should be offered similar in-person visits. Conclusions A large majority of participating applicants and program directors believe that in-person visits should be offered after program rank list finalization. The majority of respondents felt this recruitment process was equitable.
| S-EPMC10686638 | 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:MotivationAlternative splice site selection is inherently competitive and the probability of a given splice site to be used also depends on the strength of neighboring sites. Here, we present a new model named the competitive splice site model (COSSMO), which explicitly accounts for these competitive effects and predicts the percent selected index (PSI) distribution over any number of putative splice sites. We model an alternative splicing event as the choice of a 3' acceptor site conditional on a fixed upstream 5' donor site or the choice of a 5' donor site conditional on a fixed 3' acceptor site. We build four different architectures that use convolutional layers, communication layers, long short-term memory and residual networks, respectively, to learn relevant motifs from sequence alone. We also construct a new dataset from genome annotations and RNA-Seq read data that we use to train our model.ResultsCOSSMO is able to predict the most frequently used splice site with an accuracy of 70% on unseen test data, and achieve an R2 of 0.6 in modeling the PSI distribution. We visualize the motifs that COSSMO learns from sequence and show that COSSMO recognizes the consensus splice site sequences and many known splicing factors with high specificity.Availability and implementationModel predictions, our training dataset, and code are available from http://cossmo.genes.toronto.edu.Supplementary informationSupplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
| S-EPMC6022534 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Although never directly compared, structured interviews are reported as being more reliable than unstructured interviews. This study compared the reliability of both types of interview when applied to a common pool of applicants for positions in an emergency medicine residency program. METHODS: In 2008, one structured interview was added to the two unstructured interviews traditionally used in our resident selection process. A formal job analysis using the critical incident technique guided the development of the structured interview tool. This tool consisted of 7 scenarios assessing 4 of the domains deemed essential for success as a resident in this program. The traditional interview tool assessed 5 general criteria. In addition to these criteria, the unstructured panel members were asked to rate each candidate on the same 4 essential domains rated by the structured panel members. All 3 panels interviewed all candidates. Main outcomes were the overall, interitem, and interrater reliabilities, the correlations between interview panels, and the dimensionality of each interview tool. RESULTS: Thirty candidates were interviewed. The overall reliability reached 0.43 for the structured interview, and 0.81 and 0.71 for the unstructured interviews. Analyses of the variance components showed a high interrater, low interitem reliability for the structured interview, and a high interrater, high interitem reliability for the unstructured interviews. The summary measures from the 2 unstructured interviews were significantly correlated, but neither was correlated with the structured interview. Only the structured interview was multidimensional. CONCLUSIONS: A structured interview did not yield a higher overall reliability than both unstructured interviews. The lower reliability is explained by a lower interitem reliability, which in turn is due to the multidimensionality of the interview tool. Both unstructured panels consistently rated a single dimension, even when prompted to assess the 4 specific domains established as essential to succeed in this residency program.
| S-EPMC3244318 | biostudies-other