Postinterview communication with residency applicants: a call for clarity!

Variable Practice, Variable Results: Impact of Postinterview Communication Practices Among Critical Care Medicine/Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Fellowship Applicants and Program Directors

BACKGROUND

Although postinterview communication (PIC) guidelines exist, adherence is voluntary. There are no studies of PIC practices in critical care medicine (CCM) and pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) fellowship recruitment.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the frequency, format, goals, and content of PIC between CCM/PCCM applicants and program directors? What is the impact of PIC on applicant and program rank order lists (ROLs)?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

CCM/PCCM applicants and program directors were separately surveyed after the 2022-2023 National Resident Matching Program Specialty Match. Surveys included multiple-choice, Likert-scale, and two free text questions. Thematic content analysis of free text responses was performed.

RESULTS

One-third of eligible participants responded (applicants: n = 373 [34%]; program directors: n = 86 [32%]). Applicant respondents applied to CCM (19%), PCCM (69%), or both (12%). Program directors represented CCM (17%), PCCM (57%), or both (26%) programs. Applicant (66%) and program director (49%) respondents reported initiating PIC. PIC did not impact ROL decision for most applicants (73%) or program directors (83%), though 21% of applicants and 17% of program directors moved programs or applicants up on their ROL in response to PIC. One-quarter (23%) of applicants strongly agreed or agreed that PIC was helpful in creating their ROL, 27% strongly disagreed or disagreed, and 29% were neutral. PIC challenges identified by both groups included time; lack of uniformity; peer pressure; misleading language; and uncertainty about motives, rules, and response protocols.

INTERPRETATION

PIC is common among CCM/PCCM applicants and program directors. About 50% of applicants and 20% of program directors share ranking intentions via PIC. Although PIC did not impact ROL for most applicants and program directors, a minority of applicants and program directors moved programs up on their ROL after receiving PIC from the other party. Applicants have mixed perspectives on PIC value. Applicants and program directors alike desire clear guidance on PIC to minimize ambiguous and misleading communication.

Applicant Experience in Communication With Residency Programs After the Introduction of Program Signaling

OBJECTIVE

Examine the applicant experience after introduction of program signaling for the 2023 obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) residency application cycle.

DESIGN

Responses to an online survey of OBGYN applicants participating in the 2023 match who participated in residency program signaling were compared to responses from a similar survey conducted in 2022. Demographic information included personal and academic background and how applicants and advisors communicated with programs. Numbers of applications and interviews, second look visits, away rotations, manner of contact, and timing of communication was compared. Statistical analysis included ANOVA for interval data, and χ2 and Kruskal-Wallis tests for categorical data.

RESULTS

A total of 711 of 2631 (27%) applicants responded in 2022 and 606 of 2492 (24.3%) responded in 2023. Approximately 2/3 of gold signals and 1/3 of silver signals led to an interview. There was no change in number of applications or interviews per applicant, but there was a broader distribution of interviews per applicant in 2023. Applicants in 2023 were less likely to engage in preinterview communication or do an away rotation to indicate interest in a program. There was decreased communication between applicants and programs after signaling was introduced. Informal communication continued to differ by racial and medical school background. Applicants from DO programs and international medical graduates (IMG) had more communication with programs than MD applicants but received fewer interview invitations. Fewer Black and Latin(x)/Hispanic applicants had faculty reach out to residency programs on their behalf compared to White and Asian applicants. There were differences in the number of interviews received based on racial and ethnic identity.

CONCLUSIONS

In the first year after implementation of program signaling, there was a decrease in preinterview communication and a broader distribution of interviews among applicants. Further efforts to create standard means of program communication may help to begin leveling the uneven playing field for applicants.

Promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Selection of Obstetrician-Gynecologists

In the setting of long-standing structural racism in health care, it is imperative to highlight inequities in the medical school-to-residency transition. In obstetrics and gynecology, the percentage of Black residents has decreased in the past decade. The etiology for this troubling decrease is unknown, but racial and ethnic biases inherent in key residency application metrics are finally being recognized, while the use of these metrics to filter applicants is increasing. Now is the time for action and for transformational change to rectify the factors that are detrimentally affecting the racial diversity of our residents. This will benefit our patients and learners with equitable health care and better outcomes.

Interview Experience, Post-interview Communication and Gender-based Differences in the Integrated Vascular Surgery Residency Match

OBJECTIVE

Integrated vascular surgery residency (IVSR) applicant perspective about the Match process has been rarely studied, yet has important implications on trainee recruitment. We sought to better understand the nature of the interview process, and post-interview communication and its impact on students' ranking choices.

METHODS

A voluntary and anonymous survey was sent to students who matched to IVSR in 2020, inquiring about interviews, post-interview communications and factors influencing students' rank-lists.

RESULTS

70 of the 73 matched students completed the survey (96% response rate; 23 female and 47 male). Applicants reported they were asked questions about other programs of interest (81.4%), top choice programs (65.7%), marital-status (32.9%), family-planning (7.1%) and religion (1.4%) during interviews. Female applicants were more frequently asked questions about family-planning (17.4% vs 2.1%; P<.01) and marital-status (52.5% vs 23.4%; P <.01) compared to male applicants. After interviews, 92.9% of applicants notified their top choice program of their ranking preference. 61.4% of applicants received post-interview communication with regards to ranking from at least one program, initiated by program directors in 81.3% of instances. Among these applicants, 58.1% reported that the post-interview communication had an impact on their rank-list and 46.5% matched at a program by which they were contacted. 5.7% of applicants were asked by a program to reveal their ranking of the program and 11.4% were promised by a program to be ranked first if the applicant reciprocally ranked them first. Female and male applicants weighed program culture, operative volume, mentorship and prestige equally in making their rank-list. Male applicants weighed the sub-internship experience more significantly; however, female applicants weighed the sub-internship experience, personal relationships in certain cities, dedicated professional development years and large female representation in the program more heavily (P<.02).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides insight into the interview experience and impactful factors for the vascular surgery match. Both female and male applicants were asked a high number of questions about personal matters unrelated to medical school performance. Female applicants, however, experienced a higher proportion of these instances, particularly regarding family-planning. These findings demonstrate the factors that are important to applicants in the match process and raises awareness of potential challenges in the interview and recruitment process.

Applicant-to-Residency Program Communication: Does It Matter?

OBJECTIVES

To elucidate the frequency and types of pre- and post-interview communication that applicants engage with programs, to garner the perceptions of both applicants and program directors (PDs), and determine if communication influences outcomes.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Electronic surveys were distributed to otolaryngology residency applicants, and to PDs of ACGME-accredited otolaryngology programs after the 2018 to 2019 application cycle.

RESULTS

93 of 324 applicants (28.7%) and 33 of 106 PDs (31.3%) responded. In the pre-interview period, 58.1% of applicants sent emails of interest, and 41.9% had a mentor initiate communication. In the post-interview period, the majority of applicants (82.8%) sent notes of intent to their number one choice, and 32.3% had a faculty mentor communicate this on their behalf. The majority of PDs (84.8%) were undecided or did not believe that emails of interest influence decisions to offer an interview, whereas 81.8% believed that communication initiated by an applicant's mentor has an impact on interview offers. No PD agreed that declarations of intent from applicants have an impact on their rank lists, while only 33.3% of PDs believed that a mentor communicating this for an applicant has some impact. Our statistical findings are in agreement with these perceptions as neither applicant-initiated pre-interview (P = .54), mentor-initiated pre-interview (P = .62), applicant-initiated post-interview (P = .11) nor mentor-initiated post-interview (P = .78) communications influenced the number of interviews received or ultimate match outcome.

CONCLUSION

Pre- and post-interview communication practices vary widely among otolaryngology applicants. Applicant-initiated communication has no impact on outcomes, while mentor-initiated communication is perceived to have more benefit, despite not impacting interview or match outcomes in this study.

Do You Really Mean It? Assessing the Strength, Frequency, and Reliability of Applicant Commitment Statements During the Anesthesiology Residency Match

BACKGROUND

Despite the critical nature of the residency interview process, few metrics have been shown to adequately predict applicant success in matching to a given program. While evaluating and ranking potential candidates, bias can occur when applicants make commitment statements to a program. Survey data show that pressure to demonstrate commitment leads applicants to express commitment to multiple institutions including telling >1 program that they will rank them #1. The primary purpose of this cross-sectional observational study is to evaluate the frequency of commitment statements from applicants to 5 anesthesiology departments during a single interview season, report how often each statement is associated with a successful match, and identify how frequently candidates incorrectly represented commitments to rank a program #1.

METHODS

During the 2014 interview season, 5 participating anesthesiology programs collected written and verbal communications from applicants. Three residency program directors independently reviewed the statements to classify them into 1 of 3 categories; guaranteed commitment, high rank commitment, or strong interest. Each institution provided a deidentified rank list with associated commitment statements, biographical data, whether candidates were ranked-to-match, and if they successfully matched.

RESULTS

Program directors consistently differentiated among strong interest, high rank, and guaranteed commitment statements with κ coefficients of 0.9 (95% CI, 0.8-0.9) or greater between any pair of reviewers. Overall, 35.8% of applicants (226/632) provided a statement demonstrating at least strong interest and 5.4% (34/632) gave guaranteed commitment statements. Guaranteed commitment statements resulted in a 95.7% match rate to that program in comparison to statements of high rank (25.6%), strong interest (14.6%), and those who provided no statement (5.9%). For those providing guaranteed commitment statements, it can be assumed that the 1 candidate (4.3%) who did not match incorrectly represented himself. Variables such as couples match, "R" positions, and not being ranked-to-match on both advanced and categorical rank lists were eliminated because they can result in a nonmatch despite truthfully ranking a program #1.

CONCLUSIONS

Each level of commitment statement resulted in a progressively increased frequency of a successful match to the recipient program. Only 5.4% of applicants committed to rank a program #1, but these statements were very reliable. These data can help program directors interpret commitment statements and assist accurate evaluation of the interest of candidates throughout the match process.

Postinterview Communications: Two Surveys of Internal Medicine Residency Program Directors Before and After Guideline Implementation

PURPOSE

Guidelines surrounding postinterview communication (PIC) after residency interviews were issued by the National Resident Matching Program and Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine. How they have influenced PIC and program directors' (PDs') reasons for PIC is unknown.

METHOD

Annual surveys of 365 U.S. internal medicine residency PDs in 2013 and 368 in 2015 were used. Questions about frequency, intent, and usefulness of PIC and knowledge of guidelines before and after new PIC guidelines were included. Chi-square tests were used to compare data sets, and multivariate logistic regression was performed for 2015 data to identify factors predicting engagement in PIC, using program characteristics, PD characteristics, and beliefs about the benefits of PIC as independent variables.

RESULTS

There were 265 (73%) respondents in 2013 and 227 (62%) in 2015. While the number of programs with a PIC policy increased 43%, the level of contact increased 7%. Few PDs indicated PIC was helpful to them; however, PDs who felt PIC helps target applicants were more likely to engage in PIC (OR 4.21, SE 1.88, P = .001). The main reason for continuing PIC (50% of PDs) was that PIC, part of their program's culture, was considered "good manners."

CONCLUSIONS

New guidelines increased the number of programs with a PIC policy, but the overall rate of applicant contact did not change despite few PDs feeling PIC was helpful to recruitment. The culture surrounding PIC may be difficult to overcome via guidelines alone, and more definitive rules are necessary to implement change.

How Does the Current Generation of Medical Students View the Radiology Match?: An Analysis of the AuntMinnie and Student Doctor Network Online Forums

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The AuntMinnie (AM) and the Student Doctor Network (SDN) online forums are popular resources for medical students applying for residency. The purpose of this study was to describe medical student radiology-related posts on AM and SDN to better understand the medical student perspective on the application and Match process.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed all posts made on the AM and SDN online forums over 5 consecutive academic years from July 2012 to July 2017. Each thread was organized into one of six major categories. We quantified forum utilization over the past 5 years by the total number of and the most frequently posted and viewed thread topics.

RESULTS

We reviewed 2683 total threads with 5,723,909 views. Total number of threads posted and viewed fell by 46% and 63%, respectively, from 2013-2014 to 2014-2015, after which they returned near baseline by 2016-2017, along with an increase in interventional radiology-related posts between 2012-2013 (13%) and 2016-2017 (32%) (P < .001). The most common application-related topics were preapplication and program ranking advice (20% of all threads and views). Many posts were related to postinterview communication with residency programs (2% of all threads and views).

CONCLUSIONS

After a drop in 2013-2014, utilization of AM and SDN increased in 2016-2017, along with increased interest in interventional radiology. Addressing the student concerns identified in our study, especially in preparing residency applications, ranking programs, and navigating difficult situations, such as postinterview program communication, may improve the radiology application process for future medical students and their advisors.

Association of Mentor-to-Program Contact and Applicant Rank Disclosure With Vitreoretinal Fellowship Applicant's Final Match Outcome in 2016 and 2017

Importance

Communication between applicants, mentors, and training programs is common before the residency and fellowship match. Few studies have examined the association of prematch communication on final match outcomes.

Objectives

To report various characteristics of the vitreoretinal surgery fellowship match and to examine the association of mentor-to-program communication and applicant disclosure of their number 1 ranking with the probability of matching number 1.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study of the 2016 and 2017 vitreoretinal surgery fellowship matches, an online survey examined (1) number of applications submitted, (2) number of programs ranked, (3) rank order of final match, (4) total application and interview-related costs, (5) mentor-to-program contact, (6) applicant disclosure of number 1 ranking, and (7) mentor disclosure of number 1 ranking. A link to an anonymous online survey was sent to 198 matched fellows (105 fellows from the 2016 match and 93 from the 2017 match).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Survey responses regarding the vitreoretinal surgery fellowship application process.

Results

The survey was sent to 198 matched fellowship applicants, and 152 (77%) completed the survey. Of the 105 matched applicants in 2016, 21 (20%) were women. Of the 93 matched applicants in 2017, 24 (26%) were women. Matched applicants applied to a mean (SD) of 34 (17) programs (range, 1-85) and ranked a mean (SD) of 12 (4) programs (range, 1-27). Of 152 applicants, 66 (43%) matched at their number 1 ranked program, 23 (15%) matched number 2, and 21 (14%) matched number 3. The mean (SD) total cost was $5500 ($2776) (range, $500-$13 500). Two-sided χ2 testing found no association (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.34-1.4; P = .33) between mentor-to-program contact and the probability of applicants matching at their number 1 ranked program. Matched applicants who revealed their number 1 ranking either personally or via a mentor matched at a program ranked lower (more desirable) on their rank list (mean match ranking, 2.8) compared with those who did not reveal their number 1 ranking (mean match ranking, 4.2; 95% CI, 0.2-2.5; P = .01). Applicant disclosure of their intention to rank a program number 1, either personally or via a mentor, was associated with matching number 1 (odds ratio, 2.6; range, 1.1-6.0; P = .03).

Conclusions and Relevance

Vitreoretinal fellowship applicants who disclosed their number 1 ranking, either personally or via a mentor, were associated with improved match outcomes compared with their cohorts who did not make such disclosures.

Ethical violations and discriminatory behavior in the MedPhys Match

Purpose

The purpose of this survey study is to investigate behaviors in conflict with the ethical standards of the Medical Physics Residency (MedPhys) Match (MPM) process as stated in the MPM rules (a) and with the nondiscrimination regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (b), in addition to other behaviors that may in other ways erode the fairness of the system.

Methods

A survey was sent to all applicants and program directors registered for the 2015 and 2016 MPM. Survey questions asked about application, interview, and postinterview experiences, match results, and overall satisfaction with the process.

Results

Thirteen percent of 2015 respondents and 20% of 2016 respondents were asked by at least one program how highly they planned to rank them or which program they would rank first. Thirty‐seven percent of 2015 and 40% of 2016 program directors indicated that candidates communicated to the program their rank intent, with 22.0% in 2015 and 12.5% in 2016 being told that their program would be ranked first. Twenty‐three percent of 2015 respondents indicated being asked by at least one program during the interview about children or plans to have children; including 19% of males and 33% of females. In 2016, these values were 28% overall, 22% male, and 36% female. Fifty‐seven percent of 2015 respondents who were asked this question indicated being uncomfortable or very uncomfortable answering, including 27.3% of males and 88.9% of females. In 2016, 42.9% of all respondents indicated being uncomfortable or very uncomfortable answering, including 10.0% of males and 80.0% of females.

Conclusions

In the first two years of the MPM, there were widespread instances of ethical violations and discriminatory questioning during the interview process. Educating both interviewers and candidates on the MPM rules and general EEOC guidelines should decrease these instances and increase the fairness of the residency selection process.

This article is related content to the editorial: https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12169

Internal Medicine Program Directors' Perceptions of the "All In" Match Rule: A Cross-Sectional Survey

BACKGROUND

Since 2013, the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) has asked all programs to declare themselves to be "all in" or "all out" for the NRMP. Before this rule was enacted, program directors who were surveyed expressed concerns about what they anticipated with the change, including resources for increased applications and potential delays with residency start times.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the positive and negative effects of the rule change on recruiting seen from the perspective of internal medicine (IM) program directors.

METHODS

In this mixed model cross-sectional survey, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited IM program directors were surveyed regarding their impressions of the impact of the policy change. Data were aggregated using constant comparative analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 127 of 396 (32%) IM program directors responded, and 122 of 127 (96%) identified their program as "all in." A total of 110 respondents expressed impressions of the rule change, with 48% (53 of 111) reporting positive responses, 28% (31 of 111) neutral responses, and 24% (27 of 111) negative responses. Programs with higher percentages of visa-holding residents had lower positive responses (37% [22 of 60] versus 61% [31 of 51]). Resident quality was felt to be unchanged or improved by most program directors (93%, 103 of 111), yet 24% (27 of 112) reported increases in delayed start times for visa-holding residents. Qualitative analysis identified increased fairness, at the expense of an increase in program resources as a result of the change.

CONCLUSIONS

A slight majority of residency programs reported a neutral or negative impression of the rule change. Since the rule change, program directors noted increased application volume and delayed residency starts for visa-holding residents.