When Faced With Facebook: What Role Should Social Media Play in Selecting Residents?

The Role of Social Media in Psychiatry Recruitment: a Survey of Program Directors

OBJECTIVE

This study assesses the utilization of social media profiles by psychiatry residency program directors when recruiting potential psychiatry residents and evaluates the attitudes of residency program directors toward social media profiles.

METHODS

In 2019, a 26-item survey was created via RedCap and sent to 239 program directors who participated in the 2019-2020 general psychiatry residency match. Program directors were asked about whether they reviewed the social media profile of applicants, when in the process, and whether decisions about ranking were made on the basis of the information found. Program directors were also asked about their general thoughts on social media.

RESULTS

Eighty-one responses were received (34% of program directors). The majority of respondents noted that they did not formally review the social media profile of applicants (n = 79; 97.5%). Ten of those 79 (12.7%) noted that they informally reviewed applicants' social media profiles. Nearly all respondents of the survey either agreed or strongly agreed that a psychiatrist's duty of professionalism extends to behavior on social media.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the majority of program directors surveyed are not formally using applicants' social media profiles in psychiatry residency recruitment. Program directors are performing this practice informally, however, and are interested in formal guidance in this area. Given the increasing dialogue regarding social media use in medicine, future studies should assess for what constitutes unprofessional behavior as well as creation of more formal guidelines to help program directors.

Evaluating Applicant Perceptions of the Impact of Social Media on the 2020-2021 Residency Application Cycle Occurring During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Due to challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, residency programs in the United States conducted virtual interviews during the 2020-2021 application season. As a result, programs and applicants may have relied more heavily on social media-based communication and dissemination of information.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine social media's impact on residency applicants during an entirely virtual application cycle.

METHODS

An anonymous electronic survey was distributed to 465 eligible 2021 Match applicants at 4 University of California Schools of Medicine in the United States.

RESULTS

A total of 72 participants (15.5% of eligible respondents), applying to 16 specialties, responded. Of those who responded, 53% (n=38) reported following prospective residency accounts on social media, and 89% (n=34) of those respondents were positively or negatively influenced by these accounts. The top three digital methods by which applicants sought information about residency programs included the program website, digital conversations with residents and fellows of that program, and Instagram. Among respondents, 53% (n=38) attended virtual information sessions for prospective programs. A minority of applicants (n=19, 26%) adjusted the number of programs they applied to based on information found on social media, with most (n=14, 74%) increasing the number of programs to which they applied. Survey respondents ranked social media's effectiveness in allowing applicants to learn about programs at 6.7 (SD 2.1) on a visual analogue scale from 1-10. Most applicants (n=61, 86%) felt that programs should use social media in future application cycles even if they are nonvirtual.

CONCLUSIONS

Social media appears to be an important tool for resident recruitment. Future studies should seek more information on its effect on later parts of the application cycle and the Match.

Social Media and Health Care, Part I: Literature Review of Social Media Use by Health Care Providers

BACKGROUND

As the world continues to advance technologically, social media (SM) is becoming an essential part of billions of people's lives worldwide and is affecting almost every industry imaginable. As the world is becoming more digitally oriented, the health care industry is increasingly visualizing SM as an important channel for health care promotion, employment, recruiting new patients, marketing for health care providers (HCPs), building a better brand name, etc. HCPs are bound to ethical principles toward their colleagues, patients, and the public in the digital world as much as in the real world.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to shed light on SM use worldwide and to discuss how it has been used as an essential tool in the health care industry from the perspective of HCPs.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted between March and April 2020 using MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science for all English-language medical studies that were published since 2007 and discussed SM use in any form for health care. Studies that were not in English, whose full text was not accessible, or that investigated patients' perspectives were excluded from this part, as were reviews pertaining to ethical and legal considerations in SM use.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 83 studies. More studies were included from article references, and a total of 158 studies were reviewed. SM uses were best categorized as health promotion, career development or practice promotion, recruitment, professional networking or destressing, medical education, telemedicine, scientific research, influencing health behavior, and public health care issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Multidimensional health care, including the pairing of health care with SM and other forms of communication, has been shown to be very successful. Striking the right balance between digital and traditional health care is important.

Recruitment and Networking With Social Media for the Otolaryngology Match in the COVID-19 Pandemic

COVID-19 has created new challenges and opportunities regarding the way in which programs and applicants will interact in the 2020-2021 otolaryngology residency match cycle. Social media and other virtual platforms offer a flexible and efficient medium for applicants and programs to gain information, communicate, and align interests. In this commentary, we explore ways in which social media may facilitate recruitment and networking in the virtual otolaryngology match.

A Narrative Review of the Evidence Supporting Factors Used by Residency Program Directors to Select Applicants for Interviews

BACKGROUND

Residency applicants feel increasing pressure to maximize their chances of successfully matching into the program of their choice, and are applying to more programs than ever before.

OBJECTIVE

In this narrative review, we examined the most common and highly rated factors used to select applicants for interviews. We also examined the literature surrounding those factors to illuminate the advantages and disadvantages of using them as differentiating elements in interviewee selection.

METHODS

Using the 2018 NRMP Program Director Survey as a framework, we examined the last 10 years of literature to ascertain how residency directors are using these common factors to grant residency interviews, and whether these factors are predictive of success in residency.

RESULTS

Residency program directors identified 12 factors that contribute substantially to the decision to invite applicants for interviews. Although United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 is often used as a comparative factor, most studies do not demonstrate its predictive value for resident performance, except in the case of test failure. We also found that structured letters of recommendation from within a specialty carry increased benefit when compared with generic letters. Failing USMLE Step 1 or 2 and unprofessional behavior predicted lower performance in residency.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the evidence basis for the factors most commonly used by residency directors is decidedly mixed in terms of predicting success in residency and beyond. Given these limitations, program directors should be skeptical of making summative decisions based on any one factor.