Evaluating Urology Residency Applications: What Matters Most and What Comes Next?

Surgical Artificial Intelligence in Urology: Educational Applications

Surgical education has seen immense change recently. Increased demand for iterative evaluation of trainees from medical school to independent practice has led to the generation of an overwhelming amount of data related to an individual's competency. Artificial intelligence has been proposed as a solution to automate and standardize the ability of stakeholders to assess the technical and nontechnical abilities of a surgical trainee. In both the simulation and clinical environments, evidence supports the use of machine learning algorithms to both evaluate trainee skill and provide real-time and automated feedback, enabling a shortened learning curve for many key procedural skills and ensuring patient safety.

Implementation of a shared research database to increase medical student awareness and involvement in urology research A pilot study

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to assess the effect of a shared institutional research database on medical students' scholarly work, perceived research competency, and self-reported satisfaction.

METHODS

An institutional inventory database was created on Google Sheets with a listing of available mentors and a description of their ongoing research projects. The inventory database was shared with interested students and faculty. Students who agreed to participate were surveyed pre- and post-inventory. Survey questions assessed student demographics, prior research experience, and their perception of research competency and satisfaction. The number of presentations, publications, and articles pre- and post-inventory were also abstracted. Survey responses were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

A total of 20 students were surveyed pre-inventory and at a median followup of six months (5-7) post-inventory. There was a significant increase in scholarly presentations and publications post-inventory (p<0.05 for all). Furthermore, post-inventory, students reported feeling more confident in establishing an academic career, finding good mentors, managing their relationship with their mentor, managing professional challenges, and effectively showcasing themselves professionally and describing their research (p<0.05 for all). More than 65% of students agreed or strongly agreed that the database was easy to use, accessible, transparent, and would like a similar database created for other specialty departments.

CONCLUSIONS

After performing mentorship-guided research through an institutional research database, medical students felt more confident in their ability to perform research and produced more scholarly work. Therefore, we recommend a research database be created across all institutional departments to foster interest in conducting research.

Gender Bias in Letters of Recommendation: Relevance to Urology Match Outcomes and Pursuit of Fellowship Training/Academic Career

OBJECTIVE

To review applications to a single urology residency program to determine application characteristics predictive of (1) successful match into urology residency and (2) pursuit of fellowship training and/or academic practice after completion of residency. Our principal variables of interest were gender bias as assessed in letters of recommendation (LOR), personal statements, Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE), race, and gender.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Applications submitted to our urology residency program in the 2014 cycle were reviewed. Twenty-three variables were analyzed, including applicant demographics, application materials, and gender bias. Deidentified text from LOR, personal statements, and MSPE was evaluated for gender bias using an open-source gender bias calculator. A subanalysis of applicants who matched at a top 25 urology program was performed. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify applicant variables associated with (1) match success and (2) fellowship training or academic employment as of September 2021.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-two completed applications were analyzed. First authorship of a published manuscript was significantly associated with greater odds of matching. Female gender and top 25 medical school attendance were both significant predictors of matching at a top 25 urology program. The number of first-author publications was associated with completion of fellowship training or current employment in an academic position.

CONCLUSION

First-author publications are the most important preinterview determinant of match success and subsequent pursuit of academic practice/fellowship training. Certain applicant characteristics are associated with matching at highly ranked programs. Gender bias in application materials (including LOR) does not appear to exert a significant influence on match and early career outcomes.

Rapidly Increasing Number and Cost of Residency Applications in Surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical specialties represent the most competitive residency positions to obtain, and applicants for these spots may apply to increasingly more programs in an attempt to match. We describe trends in residency applications across all surgical specialties from 2017 to 2021 application cycles.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This review of the 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 surgical residency application cycles used the American Association of Medical Colleges' Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) databases. Data from a total of 72,171 applicants to United States surgical residencies during the study's time period were included. The 2021 ERAS fee schedule was used to calculate the cost of applications.

RESULTS

The number of applicants across the study interval remains unchanged. Trends suggest more women and underrepresented minorities in medicine are applying to surgical residencies today compared to 5 years ago. The mean number of applications per applicant increased 32.0% from 39.3 in 2017 to 51.8 in 2021, resulting in an increased application fee cost of $329 per applicant. Mean total cost for application fees alone in 2021 were $1211 per applicant. In 2021, the cost of applying to surgical residency for all applicants was over $26 million, a nearly $8 million increase from 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been an increase in the number of applications per applicant in the past 5 residency application cycles. Increased applications create barriers and burdens for applicants, and residency program personnel. These rapid increases are unsustainable and require intervention, although a viable solution has yet to be elucidated.

Understanding Current Demographics, Practice Patterns, and Concerns of Women in Urology: Analysis From the 2022 Society of Women in Urology Census Task Force

OBJECTIVE

To describe the current demographics, needs, and challenges of women in Urology throughout the United States, including active Urologists as well as urologic trainees.

METHODS

An electronic survey was distributed via email and social media sites to all members of the Society of Women in Urology, including residents, fellows, and female urologists practicing in the US and its territories, between February 2022 and May 2022. The survey collected information on demographics, practice type, workplace, personal, family issues, barriers, and career plans from all respondents.

RESULTS

Of the estimated 1375 women urologists and trainees based on AUA census data, 379 responses (27.6% response rate) were received. Almost all respondents (98%) are members of the AUA. The average age was 42.9years (SD 18.6). In terms of ethnicity, most self-reported as White 71.0%, followed by 16.4% Asian or Asian American, and 6.3% African American. The majority reported practicing in urban locations (63.5%) at an academic setting (55.7%), followed by similar distribution between private practice and hospital-employed settings (17.0% and 16.7%, respectively). The vast majority, 89.6%, reported working full-time, while only 10.4% worked part-time. The average hours of work per week were 56.7 (SD 14.5). In terms of personal demographics, 81.9% were married, 17.3% were single and 1% did not answer. 68.8% of responders had children, with the majority of these children being born during or after training.

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings, although female urologists have increased in numbers, certain ethnicities are under-represented. Additional surveys and engagement of current trainees and practitioners are needed to identify further areas of intervention for specific needs.

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Urology Residency Match and Geographic Proximity of Applicants

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impacts of COVID-19 pandemic-related changes and program-specific characteristics on the geographic diversity of the 2021 and 2022 urology match classes.

METHODS

We gathered publicly available information to compare match outcomes in 2021 and 2022 to the previous 5 application cycles (2016-2020). Variables included residency program class size, program and resident AUA section, and program and resident medical school. Univariate comparisons were made with Fisher's t-tests. Odds ratios were calculated following multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Comparing the previous 5 application cycles to the 2 pandemic years individually and together showed no significant changes in home or in-section matches. However, when comparisons were stratified by small (1-2 residents) vs large (3+ residents) programs, a significant increase in at-home and in-section matches was observed for small programs in 2021. Large programs did not experience significant changes in match patterns. Multivariate analysis showed that small programs had significantly lower odds of matching applicants from home institutions and within AUA sections. Additionally, certain AUA sections demonstrated significantly increased likelihood of accepting in-section applicants.

CONCLUSION

The changes from in-person to virtual application cycles during the pandemic particularly affected small residency programs in 2021. With easing restrictions and logistical improvements in the 2022 cycle, locoregional match rates partially shifted back to prepandemic patterns, though not completely. Although the pandemic did not affect geographic diversity in urology as much as in other surgical subspecialties, these findings and further study should be considered to optimize upcoming cycles.

Comparative Evaluation of the Electronic Residency Application Service Versus the Plastic Surgery Common Application to a Single Institution in the 2022 Integrated Plastic Surgery Match

BACKGROUND

The Plastic Surgery Common Application (PSCA) has emerged as a low-cost alternative application portal to the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) for integrated plastic surgery applicants. During the 2021 to 2022 application cycle, our plastic surgery residency program accepted both the PSCA and ERAS applications to help recruit candidates otherwise deterred by prohibitively high application costs. We sought to determine how the PSCA compared with the ERAS application in a standardized review of applications scores.

METHODS

The PSCA and ERAS applications from 28 candidates who received interviews from the Keck School of Medicine were analyzed. These 56 applications were randomly assigned across 22 independent reviewers. Each reviewer scored applications on a scale of 1 to 5 with regard to communication skills, leadership, intellectual curiosity, compatibility with the program, service, and perseverance. Mean scores between the applications were compared using 2-tailed z tests, with statistical significance set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

The 56 residency applications had a combined mean score of 4.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.13-4.29). The mean score of PSCA applications (4.19; 95% CI, 4.08-4.31) did not significantly differ from the mean score of ERAS applications (4.24; 95% CI, 4.12-4.35; P = 0.57). The PSCA and ERAS applications did not have a significant difference in the mean scores for any review category.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference between the overall scores and the scores of each review category between the PSCA and ERAS applications, suggesting that the PSCA may be a reasonable alternative to ERAS for medical students applying to plastic surgery residency.

Evaluating PubMed-Indexed Publications of Applicants Successfully Matching into the Top 50 Urology Residency Programs in the 2021-2023 Cycles

Background and objective Urology residency match occurs through the American Urological Association (AUA), and hence information about the success of applicants in finding a match is not readily available. The average number of publications a successful urology applicant has when applying for residency is unknown. In light of this, we conducted this study to examine the number of PubMed-indexed research projects involving US senior medical students who successfully matched into the top 50 urology residency programs in the 2021, 2022, and 2023 match cycles. We also assessed these applicants based on their medical schools and gender. Methods Doximity Residency Navigator was used to generate the top 50 residency programs as sorted by reputation. Newly matched residents were found using program Twitter accounts and residency program websites. PubMed was queried for peer-reviewed publications of incoming interns. Results The average number of publications across all incoming interns in the three years was 3.65. The average number of urology-specific publications was 1.86 and that of first-author urology publications was 1.11. The median number of total publications for matched applicants was 2, and applicants with a total of five publications were in the 75th percentile for research productivity. Conclusion A successful applicant had two PubMed-indexed urology papers on average and also had a urology-specific first-author paper in the cycles we surveyed. There has been an increase in publications per applicant when comparing the results to previous application cycles, which can be attributed to post-pandemic changes.

Modeling the Urology Residency Application and Match Process: A Mathematical Argument for Application and Interview Caps

OBJECTIVE

To develop a mathematical model to predict the effects of an application and interview cap on the urology match success rate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using 2020-2021 AUA data, we created a mathematical model in MATLAB that simulated 481 applicants applying to a total of 357 training positions distributed across 143 urology residency programs. Applicants were divided into top (16%), middle (68%), and bottom (16%) strata based on a normal distribution. Programs were divided into 3 equally sized strata (1/3, 1/3, 1/3) based on Doximity rankings. Outcomes include results of a simulated AUA Match: percentage of training positions filled, percentage of interview spots filled, percentage of applicants matching from each stratum, applicant preference distribution (the percentage breakdown of applicants matching at their first, second, third, fourth, or >fourth choice), and cost/time savings of a capped application process.

RESULTS

Based on the results of our simulated model, match parameters were optimized with caps of 50 applications and 20 interviews per applicant. Programs filled all training positions and nearly all interview spots. Top applicants matched more frequently than middle applicants who matched more frequently than bottom applicants. Applicant preference distribution remained stable with these caps compared to the true match results.

CONCLUSION

Application and interview caps of 50 and 20, respectively, would reduce average applications by at least 39% from the 2021-2022 cycle. This would lead to over 17,000 fewer applications, $832 saved per applicant, and over 4400 hours of time saved across all Urology programs.

Effect of Holistic Review, Interview Blinding, and Structured Questions in Resident Selection: Can we Predict Who Will Do Well in a Residency Interview?

OBJECTIVE

To examine the Urology residency application process, particularly the interview. Historically, the residency interview has been vulnerable to bias and not determined to be a predictor of future residency performance. Our goal is to determine the relationship between pre-interview metrics and post-interview ranking using best practices for Urology resident selection including holistic review, blinded interviews, and structured behaviorally anchored questions.

METHODS

Applications were assessed on cognitive (Alpha Omega Alpha, class rank, junior year clinical clerkship grades) and non-cognitive attributes (letters of recommendation [LOR], personal statement [PS], demographics, research, personal characteristics) by reviewers blinded to USMLE scores and photograph. Interviewers were blinded to the application other than PS and LORs. Interviews consisted of a structured behaviorally anchored question (SBI) and an unstructured interview (UI). Odds ratios were determined comparing pre-interview and interview impressions.

RESULTS

Fifty-one applicants were included in the analysis. USMLE step 1 score (average 245) was associated with Alpha Omega Alpha, class rank, junior year clinical clerkship, and PS. The UI score was associated with the LOR (P = .04) whereas SBI scores were not (P = .5). Faculty rank was associated with SBI, UI, and overall interview (OI) scores (P < .001). Faculty rank was also associated with LOR. Resident impression of interviewees were associated with faculty interview scores (P = .001) and faculty rank (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Traditional interviews may be biased toward application materials and may be balanced with behavioral questions. While Step 1 score does not offer additional information over other PI metrics, blinded interviews may offer discriminant validity over a PI rubric.

Characteristics of Medical Schools in the United States Associated With Successful Match into Urology Residency Programs: Analysis of the 2016-2021 Urology Resident Cohort

OBJECTIVE

To determine the characteristics of US medical schools associated with successful urology match applicants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using publicly available data, demographics and bibliometrics were collected for 1814 current urology residents who attend a US-based Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Accredited program, reflecting matched applicants over a 6-year period from 2016-2021. A generated list of US feeder medical schools for urology was analyzed for correlative and predictive factors. Statistical analyses to characterize these factors included Pearson's Correlation Coefficient (PCC) and univariable and multivariable linear regression, respectively, as needed.

RESULTS

There were 516 (28.45%) female residents and 58 (3.20%) international medical graduates. The mean number of published papers and abstracts ± SD pre-residency was 5.54 ± 7.20 with a mean h-index of 1.97 ± 2.24. The Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine had the highest percentage of successful matches into urology (n = 7, 3.65%), while the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center College of Medicine produced the highest absolute number (n = 41, 3.30%). The presence of a home urology program and pre-residency h-index had the strongest correlation with producing urology residents (PCC = 0.5769 and 0.3709, respectively, P<.0001).

CONCLUSION

Understanding the characteristics of a successful urology match applicant and the medical schools that produce them will be vital as USMLE Step 1 exam becomes pass/fail. Further research into these schools' curricula is required to better understand the effect of early exposure to urology on matching into urology.

Navigating the Ophthalmology & Urology Match with a Significant Other

OBJECTIVE

Medical students with a significant other in medical school face challenges when applying for residency as they attempt to match in proximity to their partner. The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) offers a Couples Match to aid such applicants. This system is not available for ophthalmology and urology because these specialties utilize match systems outside the NRMP and have an early match timeline. The purpose of this study is to analyze usage of the Couples Match and assess ophthalmology and urology applicant viewpoints on the Couples Match system.

DESIGN & SETTING

First, NRMP data on the Couples Match from 1987 to 2021 was reviewed. Second, an online survey was sent to 559 ophthalmology and 321 urology applicants to The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in the 2021 match cycle.

PARTICIPANTS

342 ophthalmology and urology applicants (39% response rate).

RESULTS

There is increased usage of the Couples Match over time. In response to the survey, 89% of participants agreed that a Couples Match should be implemented in their specialty. 107 (31%) had a significant other in medicine. 78% of 68 respondents whose significant other also applied in 2021 reported that they would have used the Couples Match had it been available. 21% of those with a significant other considered not applying to ophthalmology or urology because there was no Couples Match. There are mixed responses regarding whether the early match timeline is beneficial to couples. Female applicants were more likely to report hesitancy about mentioning a significant other during the application process.

CONCLUSIONS

The Couples Match is highly desired by applicants to ophthalmology and urology, and the lack of such a system is a deterrent to pursuing these fields. Future studies will help elucidate how the match system can be leveraged to aid individuals applying with a significant other.

Standardized Letter of Recommendation: Can Everyone Be Awesome?

OBJECTIVE

Standardized letters of recommendation (SLOR) are hypothesized to decrease bias and provide consistent domains for evaluation. However, their ability to differentiate among applicants is unknown. The utilization and functionality of SLOR and the impact of SLOR domain rating on matching for colon and rectal surgery (CRS) residency applicants have yet to be assessed.

DESIGN

Descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis were employed. Applicants were categorized into 3 groups; Top-tier(TT): applicants rated 100% Excellent/Very Good; Mid-Tier(MT) applicants rated 80-99% Excellent/Very Good; and Non-Top Tier(NTT) applicants rated <80% Excellent/Very Good.

SETTING

University of Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center.

PARTICIPANTS

SLORs submitted to a single colorectal surgery residency in 2019 were analyzed RESULTS: A total of 101 applicants were included, 54 (53.5%) of the applicants were male. 75 (74.2%) applicants who applied to our residency matched into a CRS residency, compared to the national rate of 66%. Of the 101 applicants with SLOR, 54 (53.5%) were categorized as TT, 26 (25.7%) as MT, and 21(20.8%) as NTT. The univariable analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference in research experience (p=0.029) and match status (p=0.01) between applicant tiers. There were no statistically significant differences between applicant-tier and demographics, foreign medical graduates (FMG), H-indices, ABSITE scores, type of residency, preliminary year, completing an unaccredited CRS, and applicants with an additional degree. On multivariable analysis age (OR=0.65; CI=0.48-0.87) and FMG applicants (OR=0.05; CI=0.01-0.44) were inversely associated with successfully matching. Compared to TT applicants, MT (OR=0.07; CI=0.01-0.57) and NTT (OR=0.04; CI=0.01-0.34) applicants were inversely associated with a successful match. Individuals who completed research prior to residency but after medical school was associated with successfully matching (p=0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of MT and NTT ratings is associated with failure to match and may represent an area of concern for CRS programs rather than a tool to discern differences between candidates.

Preference Signaling and Virtual Interviews: The New Urology Residency Match

OBJECTIVE

To define applicant response to the preference signaling program and continuing virtual aspects of the 2022 Urology Residency Match to guide future decisions surrounding this process.

METHODS

We emailed an anonymous, de-identified 20-question, multiple choice survey to all applicants to our institution for the 2022 Urology Residency Match (RedCap). Where appropriate, comparisons were made to already published data collected in an identical manner from applicants to our institution for the 2021 Urology Residency Match.

RESULTS

Of the 418 survey recipients, 155 (37%) responded to our survey. A majority of applicants (83%) thought that preference signaling should remain in future years, and 66% of applicants matched to a program to which they had signaled or where they completed a subinternship. Geographic location of programs was ranked to have the highest impact on choice of programs for preference signaling. Fifty-two percent of 2022 applicants thought that interviews should remain virtual compared with 39% of 2021 applicants (P = .03). Twenty-one percent of 2022 applicants agreed that pre/post-interview socials were well-replicated virtually compared with 10% of 2021 applicants (P = .04).

CONCLUSION

A majority of urology applicants were satisfied with the preference signaling program, suggesting that preference signaling should remain in future matches. A majority of urology applicants now favor the virtual interview platform. While it is gaining greater acceptance among applicants, the virtual platform generally still carries deficiencies. Further research of the urology match process is necessary for continued optimization of the program for all stakeholders.

Preference Signaling Pilot in the Urology Match: Outcomes and Perceptions

OBJECTIVE

To assess the perceptions and outcomes of the A preference signaling (PS) pilot implemented by the Society of Academic Urology (SAU) in the 2021-2022 Urology Match (UM) cycle.

METHODS

5 non-weighted signals were provided to each applicant, and signals were delivered to programs by the AUA to provide an applicant-centered formal and equitable process to express genuine interest in residency programs. Applicant and program perception and behavior was assessed through surveys. Signal distribution, mean, range, and interview offer rates for overall, signaled, and non-signaled programs were calculated.

RESULTS

In the 2021-2022 UM cycle, 566 applicants completed signaling; 2829 total signals were sent to programs with 97% applicant and 100% program participation. Each program received a mean number of 19 signals (range of 1 to 62), and 25% of programs received 49% of all signals. The overall interview-offer rate for the cohort was 12.5% (6,019 interviews held/47,989 applications received); the signaled interview rate was 51% (1,443/2,829), and the non-signaled interview rate was 10% (4,576/45,160) with an approximate 4-fold increase in rate of interview for signaled programs compared to non-signaled programs. There was moderate to high levels of satisfaction from applicants and programs on the overall process. 48% of programs incorporated PS into initial application review.

CONCLUSIONS

Preference signaling was demonstrated to be feasible and successful in providing a novel applicant-directed, formal, equitable and credible structured process for applicants to express genuine interest in programs. Additionally, programs were able to incorporate PS into their interview selection and recruitment process.

COVID-19 Increased Residency Applications and How Virtual Interviews Impacted Applicants

Background

The number of residency applications submitted by medical students has risen at an alarming rate, causing increased cost of applications and subsequent interview travel. These both contribute to increased cost for medical students. In light of these concerns, specialty governing bodies have proposed ideas to fight these trends including, application limits, interview limits, using a preference signaling system, and continuing virtual interviews. During the Covid-19 pandemic, all residency interviews were performed virtually, essentially making travel expenses negligible. However, this created a new concern with regards to assessing program and applicant compatibility, as compared to in-person interactions and did nothing to combat the increases in application numbers. Therefore, we want to critically assess the effects of virtual interviews on number of applications submitted, number of interview invites received, and number of interviews attended. We also aim to analyze how applicants viewed the virtual process.

Methods

600 medical students were eligible to participate. 456 students from years 2018-2020 were eligible to be surveyed following the NRMP match. 144 students were eligible to be surveyed following 2021 NRMP match. The survey was distributed to medical school graduates just prior to graduation and asked how many programs each student applied to, how many interview invites they received, and how many interviews they attended. The 2021 survey also asked, “How did virtual interviews affect your interview experience?” The quantitative results were compared with student's t-test and qualitative results are presented below. 

Results

The average number of programs each applicant applied to increased from 35.4 to 47.7 (p-value=0.002) when residency interviews switched from in-person to virtual. However, interview invites received and interviews attended did not change (16.8 vs 16.3, p-value=0.91, 11.8 vs 12.7, p-value=0.18). There were 188 participants in the in-person interview group (response rate=41.2%) and 128 participants in the virtual interview group (response rate=83.3%). The standard deviation and range also increased for number of applications, number of interview invites received, and number of interviews attended. 

There were 123 responses to the free response question. 36 had a positive experience, 44 were neutral, 47 were negative. The positive themes included 15 noted less expenses, 18 noted more convenient/less time, and 18 were able to attend more interviews. Negative themes included, 38 noted difficulty assessing program fit, 19 wanted to see the program or city in person, eight had increased interest in home/local programs, six found it difficult to make connections or stand out. 

Conclusion

Sixty-three percent of students reported a positive or neutral experience with virtual interviews. Students applied to more programs when interviews were virtual, but did not receive more interview invites or attend more interviews. These results suggest that virtual interviews are sufficient to conduct residency interviews, however the number of applications continues to rise with no increase in the number interview invites received or number of interviews attended. The increase in the standard deviation and range for all three variables may point to some applicants being able to get more invites and attend more interviews leaving less available spots for other applicants. 

Current Views on the New United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Pass/Fail Format: A Review of the Literature

INTRODUCTION

Residency programs have historically used numerical Step 1 scores to screen applicants, making it a career-defining, high-stakes examination. Step 1 scores will be reported as pass/fail starting in January 2022, fundamentally reshaping the residency application review process. This review aimed to identify opinions of physicians and medical students about the new format, identify arguments in support of or against the change, and determine the implications of this change on the residency selection process.

METHODS

A comprehensive PubMed review was performed in May 2021 to identify articles that discussed the new Step 1 format. Non-English and duplicate articles were excluded. Data collected from each article included publication year, specialty, subjects, and key findings.

RESULTS

A total of 81 articles were included, 26 of which discussed the impact of the new format within surgical fields (32.1%). Remaining articles discussed the implications within the medical community as a whole (n = 33, 40.7%) and nonsurgical fields (n = 22, 27.2%). Studies suggest Program Directors will rely on Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores, medical school reputation, applicant familiarity, Dean's letters, recommendation letters, and research in lieu of numerical Step 1 scores. In addition, concerns have been raised that the new format will disadvantage international, osteopathic, and minority applicants while increasing stress surrounding Step 2 CK.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the medical community, there are concerns that Step 2 CK will be used to substitute Step 1 and that resident diversity will diminish due to the new Step 1 format. Holistic candidate consideration will be increasingly important.

Authorship Gender Composition in Urology Literature From 2015 Through 2020

OBJECTIVE

To describe the current landscape of first and last female authorship in urology journals relative to the journals' impact factor. We hypothesized that women would have a smaller proportion of publications in journals with higher impact factors.

METHODS

Eighteen urology journals were divided into groups based on impact factor accordingly: from 33.2 to 6.2 were classified as high (European Urology, Nature Reviews Urology, The Journal of Urology, BJU International, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, and The Journal of Sexual Medicine), from 5.8 to 5.0 as medium (Asian Journal of Andrology, European Urology Focus, Sexual Medicine Reviews, Bladder Cancer, Prostate and World Journal of Urology), and from 4.8 to 2.2 as low (Urologic Oncology, Journal of Endourology, Neurourology and Urodynamics, Urology, Journal of Pediatric Urology and Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery). A computer script was designed using Python to search PubMed and record first and last author of publications between 2015 and 2020. Gender was determined by Gender-Api (https://gender-api.com). Names with an accuracy of <90% were excluded. Type of peer-review and scope of each journal were also analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using Matlab.

RESULTS

A total of 37,413 first and 28,414 last authors were identified during the study period. Overall, women represented 21% (8,029/37,413) of first and 15% (4,232/28,414) of last authors. Women were significantly less published in high impact journals compared to both medium and low impact journals (P <.001 in all). Among all journals, articles with female first authors were more likely to have a female last author (OR: 2.72, CI: 2.5-2.9, P <.001). Subspecialty journals had more female last authors than general journals (P <.05), and female representation increased if reviews were double-blinded (P <.001). Over the last 6 years, there has been a significant increase in female senior authorship among all journals (P = .045).

CONCLUSION

The proportion of female authorship was significantly lower in higher impact urology journals. While the underlying cause is likely multifactorial, this finding highlights a gender discrepancy that may impact women's ability to achieve career goals in academic medicine when compared to their male counterparts.

Disparate Responses in Match Outcome across Competitive Surgical Subspecialties to Pandemic Era Constraints: An Analysis of Impacts of Minimal Auditions

OBJECTIVE

The Covid-19 pandemic eliminated nearly all visiting sub-internships. We seek to uncover match rate disparities across plastic surgery, otolaryngology, urology, and neurosurgery subspecialties with respect to in-person appraisals. These data aim to highlight the common practices as well as subtle differences that each subspecialty may be displaying in selecting their respective residency candidates.

DESIGN

We accessed publicly available online spreadsheets between March 24 to 27 specific to the following surgical subspecialties: plastic surgery, otolaryngology, neurosurgery, and urology. We collected available information including the matched applicants' medical school, the institution at which they matched, and whether they had previous communication with their matched program. This data was then used to record whether the applicant matched at their home institution.

SETTING

N/A PARTICIPANTS: N/A RESULTS: There was a statistically significant increase in the number of plastic surgery and otolaryngology applicants who matched at their home programs during the 2020 to 2021 application cycle. 12.1% and 17.2% of plastic surgery applicants matched at their home program in the 2018 to 2019 and 2019 to 2020 application cycles, compared to 25.0% during the 2020 to 2021 application cycle (p = 0.0345). Overall, 23.4% and 22.2% of otolaryngology applicants matched at their home program in the 2018 to 2019 and 2019 to 2020 application cycles, compared to 31.3% during the 2020 to 2021 application cycle (p = 0.0482). Neurosurgery and urology applicants did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in home match rates during the 2020 to 2021 application cycle (p = 0.164 and p = 0.105, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Covid-19 related restrictions in the 2020 to 2021 match cycle led residency programs to utilize novel selection mechanisms to evaluate applicants. Without visiting sub-internships during the 2020 to 2021 match cycle, some programs appear to have intentionally favored candidates with whom they were previously acquainted. The significantly higher number of international medical graduates and non-senior medical graduates among neurosurgery and urology residencies, respectively, likely washed out the home matching effect among these specialties but does not discount the importance of in-person appraisals.

Evaluating the Whole Applicant: Use of Situational Judgment Testing and Personality Testing to Address Disparities in Resident Selection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Urology program directors are faced with increasing numbers of applications annually, making holistic review of each candidate progressively more difficult. Efforts to streamline evaluation using traditional cognitive metrics have fallen short as these do not predict overall resident performance. Situational judgment tests (SJTs) and personality assessment tools (PATs) have been used in business and industry for decades to evaluate candidates and measure non-cognitive attributes that better predict subsequent performance. The purpose of this review is to describe what these assessments are and the current literature on the use of these metrics in medical education.

RECENT FINDINGS

SJTs relative to PATs have more original research. Data suggests that SJTs decrease bias, increase diversity, and may be predictive of performance in residency. PATs are also emerging with data to support use with ability to assess fit to program and certain traits identified more consistently among high-performing residents and correlation to performance on ACGME milestones. PATs may be more coachable than SJTs. SJTs and PATs are emerging as techniques to supplement the current resident application review process. Early evidence supports their use in undergraduate medical education as does some early preliminary results in graduate medical education.

The R Frank Jones Urology Interest Group: An Intentional and Strategic Pipeline Program to Increase Diversity in Urology

OBJECTIVE

To address the low numbers of urologists who are ethnically and racially underrepresented in medicine (URiM), the nonprofit organization Urology Unbound developed the R. Frank Jones Urology Interest Group (RFJUIG), a pipeline program that provides mentorship, research opportunities, and professional development for URiM students.

METHODS

Students complete a questionnaire as part of the registration process for the RFJUIG. This questionnaire collects demographic information and asks about their experience pursuing urology and goals for participation in the program.

RESULTS

At the end of 2020, sixty-six students (60% Black and 21% Latinx) were registered members of the RFJUIG. The majority of the members identify as immigrants or first-generation Americans, originating from at least 10 different countries. While most members reported early interest in the field, only 11% had a friend or family with a connection to urology. In the 2021 urology match, thirty-one out of thirty-nine applicant members successfully matched into a urology residency position.

CONCLUSION

Intentional and strategic pipeline programs increase the recruitment of URiMs in urology. Thus far, the RFJUIG successfully provided 79% of its applicant members with the tools needed to successfully match into urology.

Characterizing Standardized Letters of Recommendation in Urology Residency Applications

OBJECTIVE

To identify the current formats of standardized letters of recommendation (SLORs) and evaluate their characteristics, the distribution of applicants' ratings, correlation between SLOR domain ratings and conventional application metrics, and potential biases.

METHODS

We evaluated all applications submitted to our residency program for the 2020-2021 urology match. Two main formats of SLOR were identified. We extracted application characteristics and SLOR domain ratings.

RESULTS

Ninety SLORs from 82 applicants were reviewed. Applicants were highly rated among top tiers in both formats. Some correlations were observed between domain ratings and application metrics such as Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge scores, and percentage of Honors in core clinical clerkships. No statistically significant differences were found between female and male applicants in terms of domain ratings. Alpha Omega Alpha members received higher ratings in "urology resident potential," "academic urologist potential," and "performance as a sub-intern" domains. Applicants from top 40 US medical schools performed better as sub-interns, and were more likely to be ranked higher. Letters from home institutions were associated with higher ratings in several domains. In-person vs virtual interactions received similar ratings except for "communication".

CONCLUSION

While it is promising to observe such number of SLORs submitted for the first time in urology, the current formats could benefit from further refinement in their structures and domains to distinguish between highly qualified urology applicants more efficiently. Given the transition in Step 1 score reporting to pass/fail outcome, the need for a reliable urology-specific SLOR will be critical.

The Virtual Urology Residency Match Process: Moving Beyond the Pandemic

OBJECTIVES

To define applicant response to the 2021 Urology Residency Match Process in the COVID-19 Pandemic and to extrapolate lessons to optimize the urology resident selection process after the pandemic.

METHODS

We emailed an anonymous, de-identified 22-question, multiple choice survey to all applicants to our institution for the 2021 Urology Residency Match, including a summary of the study with a survey link (RedCap).

RESULTS

Of the 398 survey recipients, 144 responded (36%). Even if the match process were not limited by COVID-19, 39% of applicants thought interviews should remain in virtual format, 23% said "no," and 30% said "not sure." Nearly all applicants (97%) thought all interview offers should be released on the same day. Regarding the early match, 84% thought this should remain. When asked what factors had the most impact on rank lists, faculty and resident interviews were overwhelmingly favored. Open houses and resident "happy hours" were less important. Most applicants agreed that the faculty and resident interviews and informational talks were adequately replicated on the virtual platform. A majority of applicants (65%) spent under $2000 for the application cycle.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically changed the urology match process. The faculty and resident interviews remained the most important factors in program ranking, and most applicants agreed those were adequately replicated in the virtual format. A plurality of applicants felt that the interview process should remain virtual in a post-COVID-19 environment. The virtual application cycle reduced the cost of applying to residency.