Perspectives of Stakeholders About an Early Result Acceptance Program to Complement the Residency Match in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Obstetrics and gynecology clerkship directors' experiences advising residency applicants

BACKGROUND

The evolving landscape of application processes for obstetrics and gynecology residency applicants poses many challenges for applicants and advisors. The lack of data coordination among national groups creates crucial gaps in information for stakeholder groups.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify the current state of the advising milieu for obstetrics and gynecology residency applicants and their career advisors, the annual Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics survey focused on US clerkship directors' experiences advising students through these processes.

STUDY DESIGN

A 23-item anonymous survey was developed that asked respondents about demographics and outcomes for the students that they advised through the 2021 application process and their experiences with dual applicants and students not matching. The survey was sent electronically to all obstetrics and gynecology clerkship directors with active Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics memberships in April 2021.

RESULTS

Of 224 total clerkship directors, 143 (63.8%) responded to the survey, Of the 143 respondents, almost all (136 [95.1%]) served as career advisors, and 50 (35.0%) were aware of students dual applying. Furthermore, obstetrics and gynecology was rarely the backup to a more competitive specialty. For the 2021 application cycle, 79 of 143 respondents (55.2%) reported having students not successfully match into obstetrics and gynecology, with "academic concerns" followed by "poor communication skills" as the primary reasons cited for students not matching.

CONCLUSION

This snapshot of clerkship directors' experiences advising students in the residency application process reveals notably high rates of dual applicants and students not matching into obstetrics and gynecology. This work fills key gaps in our knowledge of current processes and highlights the importance of career advising at multiple points during the application process.

Strategies to Counteract Impact of Harmful Bias in Selection of Medical Residents

Human biases impact medical care in ways that perpetuate health disparities. Research has demonstrated that biases negatively affect patient outcomes and stifle diversity across the physician workforce, further compounding health disparities by worsening patient-physician concordance. Taken as one, the application, interview, recruitment, and selection processes employed by residency programs has been one of the critical junctures where bias has exacerbated inequities among future physicians. In this article, the authors define diversity and bias, review the history of bias in residency programs' processes for selecting residents, explore the impact of this history on workforce demographics, and discuss ways to optimize and work toward equity in the practices used by residency programs to select residents.

Rejecting Reforms, Yet Calling for Change: A Qualitative Analysis of Proposed Reforms to the Residency Application Process

PURPOSE

Annual increases in the number of residency applications burden students and challenge programs. Several reforms to the application process have been proposed; however, stakeholder input is often overlooked. The authors examined key stakeholders' opinions about several proposed reforms to the residency application process and identified important factors to guide future reforms.

METHOD

Using semistructured interviews, the authors asked educational administrators and trainees to consider 5 commonly proposed reforms to the residency application process: Match to obtain residency interviews, preference signaling, application limits, geographic preference disclosure, and abolishing the Match. The authors conducted a modified content analysis of interview transcripts using qualitative and quantitative analytic techniques. Frequency analysis regarding the acceptability of the 5 proposed reforms and thematic analysis of important factors to guide reform were performed. Fifteen-minute interviews were conducted between July and October 2019, with data analysis completed during a 6-month period in 2020 and 2021.

RESULTS

Participants included 30 stakeholders from 9 medical specialties and 15 institutions. Most participants wanted to keep the Match process intact; however, they noted several important flaws in the system that disadvantage students and warrant change. Participants did not broadly support any of the 5 proposed reforms. Two themes were identified: principles to guide reform (fairness, transparency, equity, reducing costs to students, reducing total applications, reducing work for program directors, and avoiding unintended consequences) and unpopular reform proposals (concern that application limits threaten less competitive students and signaling adds bias to the system).

CONCLUSIONS

Key stakeholders in the residency application process believe the system has important flaws that demand reform. Despite this, the most commonly proposed reforms are unacceptable to these stakeholders because they threaten fairness to students and program workload. These findings call for a larger investigation of proposed reforms with a more nationally representative stakeholder cohort.

Characterization of Applicant Preference Signals, Invitations for Interviews, and Inclusion on Match Lists for Residency Positions in Urology

Importance

Preference 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.

Objective

To 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 Participants

This cohort study involved all applicants and residencies in the 2021-2022 AUA match with data analysis conducted in April through July 2022.

Exposures

Five signals indicating interest.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Using 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.

Results

A 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 Relevance

This 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.

Distributions of Residency Interviews With the Implementation of Virtual Interviews and Standardization of Interview Offer Dates

OBJECTIVE

Virtual interviews were widely implemented alongside many other changes in the 2021 residency application process. We investigated how these many interventions may have influenced interview distributions and completions.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey distributed electronically to obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) residency applicants in February 2021. Distributions of interview invitations, interviews completed, and percent of interview offers completed were compared to the previous application cycle. The odds ratios of receiving interviews were calculated based on applicant characteristics including test scores, number of applications, and race/ethnicity.

SETTING

All OBGYN residency applicants registered through the Electronic Residency Application Service.

PARTICIPANTS

The 915 (36%) of 2577 total OBGYN applicants who responded to the survey.

RESULTS

US allopathic medical students received fewer interview offers in 2021 (median 13 [interquartile range 9-19]) compared to 2020 (median 15 [interquartile range 11-20]). There was no difference in the absolute numbers of interviews completed. A United States Medical Licensing Exam Step 1 score ≥221 resulted in more than a five-fold increase in adjusted odds of receiving at least 12 interviews for allopathic students. Black or African American US allopathic seniors had a 2.3 odds ratio for receiving at least 12 interview invitations compared to White non-Hispanic or Latino US allopathic seniors, adjusted for Step 1 score and the number of programs applied to. Interview offers released on standardized dates had a mitigating effect on completing more interviews among allopathic seniors with at least 12 interview invitations.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual interviews did not change the overall number of interviews completed. Standardization of interview offer dates mitigated excessive virtual interviewing, yet additional measures are needed to curb interview inflation and the effects on interview distributions.

Stakeholder Perspectives on Limiting Residency Applications and Interviews in Obstetrics and Gynecology

PURPOSE

Application inflation in the current residency application process leads to congestion, inefficiency, and perceptions of inequity. The authors aimed to assess the interest of key stakeholders on the topic of capping applications and interviews, and their perceptions regarding equity of the process.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was electronically distributed in March 2021 to Obstetrics and Gynecology (OBGYN) residency applicants, clerkship directors, program directors, and student affairs deans after the submission of the rank order list for the 2021 application cycle and prior to the release of final Match results. Participants answered questions regarding the perceived equity of the current process (no limits on applications submitted or interviews completed) compared with limiting the number of applications and interviews students could submit or complete. Respondents supporting caps reported the number they considered a reasonable cap for applications and interviews. Associations between the profiles of applicants and program directors and their interest in application and interview caps were explored using chi-squared tests for non-parametric statistics and t-tests for normally distributed interval data. The University of Michigan determined the study exempt from IRB review.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 36.0% (1167/3243), including 34.0% of applicants (879/2579), 50.3% of program directors (143/284), 41.8% of clerkship directors (94/225) and 32.9% of student affairs deans (51/155). All groups reported application caps for either all applicants or the most competitive applicants to be more equitable than the current process, and suggested a median application cap ranging from 25 (clerkship directors and program directors) to 40 (applicants). All groups also believed interview caps to be more equitable than the current process, and suggested a median interview cap ranging from 12 (clerkship directors) to 15 (applicants, program directors, and student affairs deans).

CONCLUSIONS

Stakeholders in the OBGYN application process consider caps to applications and interviews a promising means to improve equity in the Match.