More Signal, Less Noise: The Electronic Residency Application Program Supplemental Application in Radiology Match

Outcomes of the Internal Medicine Supplemental Application: Preliminary Data on the 2022-2023 Match

INTRODUCTION

Preference signaling (program signals and geographic preference divisions) was introduced as a component of the supplemental application for internal medicine applicants applying to programs within the United States (USA) during the 2021-22 cycle. These signals were intended to address application inflation by allowing applicants to express interest in and increase their likelihood of receiving interviews from their top programs. There is little published data, however, to describe the impact of preference signaling on the likelihood of receiving interviews from a program. This study thus sought to analyze, in a small subset of US applicants, whether preference signals were associated with a higher likelihood of obtaining a residency interview.

METHODS

A survey was distributed in March 2023 to US MD seniors from the four allopathic medical schools in North Carolina who applied to categorical internal medicine residency programs during the 2022-23 application cycle. The survey was developed by the research team to provide respondents with the opportunity to report data from the electronic residency application service (ERAS) application and provide data on interviews received, actions taken throughout the application season, and outcomes of the National Residency Match Program (NRMP) using a combination of free response and multiple choice questions.

RESULTS

Forty-seven out of a total of 85 contacted (55%) applicants completed some or all of the survey. Of those who completed the entirety of the survey, 39 (82.98%) completed the supplemental portion of the application and the available preference signaling. Applicants in this study were 2.95 (Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.20 - 3.97, p<0.01) times as likely to receive an interview invitation from a program if they used a program signal. Applicants were 1.75 (odds ratio, 95% CI 1.38 - 2.21, p<0.01) times as likely to receive an interview invitation from a program in an indicated geographic preference division. Forty-seven percent (95% CI 31 - 64%) matched to a program they had sent a program signal to, and 97% (95% CI 78 - 100%) matched to a program in an indicated geographic preference division.

CONCLUSIONS

The program signals and geographic preference division components of the supplemental application increased the likelihood of receiving an interview invitation but did not have a clear impact on match outcomes. Further research with larger sample sizes will be necessary to determine how these signals actually modify the outcomes of the NRMP.

Improving Transparency in the Residency Application Process: Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of residency applications create challenges for applicants and residency programs to assess if they are a good fit during the residency application and match process. Applicants face limited or conflicting information as they assess programs, leading to overapplying. A holistic review of residency applications is considered a gold standard for programs, but the current volumes and associated time constraints leave programs relying on numerical filters, which do not predict success in residency. Applicants could benefit from increased transparency in the residency application process.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to determine the information applicants find most beneficial from residency programs when deciding where to apply, by type of medical school education background.

METHODS

Match 2023 applicants voluntarily completed an anonymous survey through the Twitter and Instagram social media platforms. We asked the respondents to select 3 top factors from a multiple-choice list of what information they would like from residency programs to help determine if the characteristics of their application align with program values. We examined differences in helpful factors selected by medical school backgrounds using ANOVA.

RESULTS

There were 4649 survey respondents. When responses were analyzed by United States-allopathic (US-MD), doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO), and international medical graduate (IMG) educational backgrounds, respondents chose different factors as most helpful: minimum United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) or Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) Step 2 scores (565/3042, 18.57% US-MD; 485/3042, 15.9% DO; and 1992/3042, 65.48% IMG; P<.001), resident hometown region (281/1132, 24.82% US-MD; 189/1132, 16.7% DO; and 662/1132, 58.48% IMG; P=.02), resident medical school region (476/2179, 22% US-MD; 250/2179, 11.5% DO; and 1453/2179, 66.7% IMG; P=.002), and percent of residents or attendings underrepresented in medicine (417/1815, 22.98% US-MD; 158/1815, 8.71% DO; and 1240/1815, 68.32% IMG; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

When applying to residency programs, this study found that the factors that respondents consider most helpful from programs in deciding where to apply differ by educational background. Across all educational groups, respondents want transparency around standardized exam scores, geography, and the racial or ethnic backgrounds of residents and attendings.

Resident Perspective of the Virtual Diagnostic Radiology Residency Interview Process: A National Survey From the Association of Program Directors in Radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess differences in first-year radiology resident perception of the match process and early satisfaction with residency programs between those who matched in 2020 versus 2021, the first virtual application cycle after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 33-question survey was distributed to first-year diagnostic radiology residents at programs throughout the United States through the Association of Program Directors in Radiology. Responses were collected in June of 2022 from residents who matched in 2020 and in July of 2022 from residents who matched in 2021. Questions were designed to assess applicant demographics, outcomes and attitudes towards the interview process. Comparison was made between the two cohorts.

RESULTS

Of the 2231 matched residents in the 2020 and 2021 match years, 108 residents (4.8%) received, responded, and met inclusion criteria for the survey. Forty-three of 46 (92.5%) respondents that matched in 2020 interviewed in-person compared to one of 60 (1.7%) that matched in 2021 (p < 0.0001). There was no difference in satisfaction of match results, current training programs, work culture, satisfaction with facilities, and depiction of residency structure. Applicants from the 2021 cohort were more likely to express concerns about interview hoarding, having enough time to ask questions on interview days, and ability to accurately present themselves in interviews but were more likely to favor virtual interviews for future cycles.

CONCLUSION

The virtual interview process is perceived neutrally or positively by most early diagnostic radiology residents and produced similar satisfactory results compared to applicants that interviewed in person. Attention should be given to concerns of those who matched virtually if the virtual interview process is to be continued.

Virtual Interviewing for Radiology Residency: Pluses, Minuses, and A Review of the Literature

This article reviews current medical literature to assess the benefits and drawbacks of virtual interviews for radiology residencies as well as the downstream effects of these changes, best practices, and potential future recruitment methods. Topics covered include the effects of remote recruitment in promoting accessibility and applicant diversity and equality as well as fiscal, environmental, and time savings in combination with technical challenges, the complications of over application, challenges in assessment of program culture and location, impact on morale, and hidden financial and emotional costs. Learnings from other medical specialties are highlighted in addition to the process of signaling, guidelines for conducting and participating in virtual interviews, and matters for future consideration.