Trends in Radiation Oncology Residency Applicant Interview Experiences and Post-Interview Communication

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.

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

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.

The Game Continues: Seeking Clarity in the Radiation Oncology Match

Though the previous Gaming the Match agreement offered guidance to programs on how best to approach the Match process, guidance for applicants remains inconsistent. Here we review and propose guidelines by which the spirit of the Match may better be achieved for both program directors and applicants alike.

Virtual Radiation Oncology Clerkship During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond

Purpose

We evaluated the impact of a virtual radiation oncology clerkship.

Methods and Materials

We developed a 2-week virtual radiation oncology clerkship that launched on April 27, 2020. Clerkship components included a virtual clinic with radiation oncology faculty and residents, didactic lectures, student talks, and supplemental sessions such as tumor boards and chart rounds. Medical students completed pre- and post-clerkship self-assessments. Faculty and resident participants also completed surveys on their experience with virtual lectures and clinics. Pre- and post-clerkship results were compared using a 2-sided paired t test. An analysis of variance model was used to analyze the clerkship components.

Results

Twenty-six medical students, including 4 visiting students, enrolled over 2 clerkship periods (4 weeks). All students completed the pre- and post-clerkship self-assessments and agreed that the clerkship improved their understanding of radiation oncology. Compared with 3 (11.5%) students who agreed that they understood the daily responsibilities of a radiation oncologist before the clerkship, 22 (84.6%) students agreed and 3 (11.5%) strongly agreed that they understood the daily responsibilities of a radiation oncologist after the clerkship (P < .0001). Although 15 students (57.7%) reported an increased interest in radiation oncology because of the clerkship, the mean level of interest in radiation oncology as a career remained the same, with pre- and post-clerkship scores of 3.0 (±0.9) and 3.0 (±1.1) on a 5-point scale, respectively (P = .7). Students found virtual clinic and didactic lectures to be the most valuable components of the clerkship. Most respondents agreed (30.8%) or strongly agreed (65.4%) to recommend the clerkship to their classmates.

Conclusions

Our virtual clerkship was effective in increasing medical student interest in and knowledge about radiation oncology. These data will help optimize a new paradigm of virtual radiation oncology education for medical students during COVID-19 and beyond.