Residency Program Directors' Views on Research Conducted During Medical School: A National Survey

Trends in authorship in the Journal of Cutaneous Pathology, 1981-2020

BACKGROUND

The increase in authors per scientific article in many different medical and scientific disciplines has raised concerns over ethical authorship. Trends in authorship in dermatopathology are unknown.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of a random sample of 200 articles from the Journal of Cutaneous Pathology (1981-2020).

RESULTS

The number of authors per article increased by an estimated 96% between 1981 and 2020 (2.7-5.3), while the relative citation ratio decreased by an estimated 56% during the same period (1.19-0.52). Higher author counts were not associated with higher relative citation ratios (p = 0.2349) or analytic study designs (p = 0.2987). Higher relative citation ratios were associated with analytic study designs (p = 0.0374).

CONCLUSIONS

There has been significant growth in authorship credit at the journal without a corresponding increase in research impact or study rigor. Remedial measures to stem authorship inflation and promote more impactful studies may be necessary.

How Does Lacking a Home Program Impact Otolaryngology Applicants?

OBJECTIVES

To compare otolaryngology interview and match outcomes between applicants with and without home residency programs.

METHODS

Otolaryngology applicants from US allopathic medical schools during the 2019-2023 cycles who responded to the Texas Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency (STAR) survey were identified. Students were stratified based upon whether their medical school had an affiliated otolaryngology residency program. The primary outcomes were number of interviews and match rate. Wilcoxon-rank sum and χ2 testing was used to assess associations between home program status and interview and match outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 633 fourth-year medical students applying to otolaryngology during the 2019-2023 application cycles, 89 had no home program (NHP) and 544 had a home program (HP). Applicants with NHP completed significantly more away rotations than applicants with a HP (2.2 vs. 1.5; p < 0.01). There was no difference in mean number of applications submitted between applicants with NHP and applicants with a HP. However, applicants with a HP received a significantly greater number of interviews (14.7 vs. 11.8; p < 0.01), attended more interviews (12.4 vs. 11.3; p = 0.02), attended a lower percentage of their offered interviews (84.4% vs. 95.8%), and had a higher match rate (81.8% vs. 70.8%; p = 0.02) than applicants with NHP. Applicants with NHP interviewed at (1.9 vs. 1.3; p < 0.01) and matched at (33.7% vs. 23.9%; p = 0.048) significantly more away rotation institutions than applicants with a HP.

CONCLUSION

Applicants with NHP received fewer interviews and had lower match rates. Away rotations may be especially important for applicants with NHP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 2024.

Perceptions and Expectations Regarding the Step 1 Score Change Among Surgical and Non-Surgical Program Directors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

There are currently no studies examining differences in perceptions and expected impact of the Step 1 score change to pass/fail between surgical and non-surgical program directors (PDs). We conducted a systematic review in May 2023 of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and PSYCInfo to evaluate studies examining PDs' perspectives regarding the Step 1 score change. We performed random-effects meta-analyses to determine differences in perspectives among surgical and non-surgical PDs. Surgical PDs (76.8% [95% CI, 72.1%-82.0%], I2 = 52%) reported significantly greater rates of disagreement with the score change compared to non-surgical (65.1% [95% CI, 57.9%-73.1%], I2 = 69.7%) (P = .01). Surgical PDs also reported significantly greater rates of agreement that the score change will increase the difficulty in objectively comparing applicants (88.1% [95% CI, 84.6%-91.7%], I2 = 16.4%), compared to non-surgical (81.0% [95% CI, 75.6%-86.8%], I2 = 72.6%) (P = .04). There was less heterogeneity among non-surgical PDs (88.7% [95% CI, 86.2%-91.2%], I2 = 0%), compared to surgical (84.7% [95% CI, 79.0%-90.8%], I2 = 67.3%), regarding expected increases in emphasis on Step 2, although the difference in rates of agreement was not statistically significant. Overall, there is significant heterogeneity in the literature regarding expected changes in the residency application review process. Most PDs reported significant disagreement with the score change, greater expected difficulty in objectively evaluating applicants, and greater emphasis on Step 2, with surgical PDs reporting greater rates of disagreement, greater expected difficulty, and heterogeneity regarding expected increases in emphasis on Step 2, compared to non-surgical. Additionally, there is significant heterogeneity in the overall literature regarding expected changes in the residency application review process. Further research is needed to establish evidence-based guidelines that improve the overall residency application process for all stakeholders.

Importance of residency applicant factors based on specialty and demographics: a national survey of program directors

BACKGROUND

With the transition away from traditional numerical grades/scores, residency applicant factors such as service, research, leadership, and extra-curricular activities may become more critical in the application process.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the importance of residency application factors reported by program directors (PDs), stratified by director demographics and specialty.

METHOD

A questionnaire was electronically distributed to 4241 residency PDs in 23 specialties during spring 2022 and included questions on PD demographics and 22 residency applicant factors, including demographics, academic history, research involvement, and extracurricular activities. Responses were measured using a Likert scale for importance. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square and Fisher exact test analysis were performed.

RESULTS

767 questionnaires were completed (19% response rate). Across all specialties, the factor considered most important was the interview (99.5%). When stratified by specialty, surgical PDs were more likely to characterize class rank, letters of recommendation, research, presenting scholarly work, and involvement in collegiate sports as extremely important/very important (all p < 0.0001). In contrast, primary care PDs favored the proximity of the candidate's hometown (p = 0.0002) and community service (p = 0.03). Mean importance of applicant factors also differed by PD age, gender, and ethnicity.

CONCLUSION

We have identified several residency application factors considered important by PDs, stratified by their specialty, demographics, and previous experiences. With the transition away from numerical grades/scores, medical students should be aware of the factors PDs consider important based on their chosen specialty. Our analysis may assist medical students in understanding the application and match process across various specialties.

Perspectives from two recent medical school graduates on exposure to pathology during undergraduate medical education: A narrative inquiry

The field of pathology is facing an inflection point where the demand for pathology services is not being met by a corresponding rise in recruitment into the field. Many of the myths about the field of pathology have been dispelled elsewhere, but there have not been many formal accounts of the experience medical students' face when finding their path to pathology. Because of challenges in the visibility of pathology as a specialty and not simply a subject required for United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1, students tend to fall into one of two categories: early differentiators or late discoverers. Here, we provide anecdotal accounts of these two paths at institutions with different curricular designs and provide a first-hand account of the challenges we faced and opportunities discovered in our journeys to pathology. Based on these experiences, we offer suggestions for ways to address some of the issues medical students must navigate when trying to explore pathology in curricula not built for such exploration.

The Importance of Research Experience With a Scoreless Step 1: A Student Survey at a Community-Based Medical School

PURPOSE

As of January 26, 2022, the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USLME) step 1 exam went from a scored test to pass-fail step 1 (PFS1). The authors were interested in surveying medical students at a community-based medical school to observe their perceptions of the importance of student research given this recent change.

METHOD

A Qualtrics survey was disseminated to medical students (years 1-4) via school emails. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test to assess Likert scale scores, and narrative comments were grouped as qualitative feedback. Survey dissemination and analysis of data were both conducted at a large community-based medical school.

RESULTS

The survey sampled 104 students categorized into pre-clerkship (PC) and clerkship (CL) years, with a response rate of 33%. A contradiction was found, as indicated by the higher number (p = 0.047) of clerkship students interested in Primary Care/Family medicine residency compared to pre-clerkship students at 41% and 59%, respectively. Whereas participants who indicated they are interested in pursuing a competitive specialty for residency were 51% of pre-clerkship students over 41% of clerkship students (p = 0.047). Additionally, given the assessment change to pass/fail, students did in fact believe that residencies would now view research as a higher assessed component than before (79% pre-clerkship and 72% clerkship). However, a minority of students said that they increased their research efforts (41% and 47%). Most students supported the research opportunity improvements proposed in our survey.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to make the step 1 exam pass/fail may have alleviated some stress related to performance but may have increased the perception of the importance of other components in a student's residency application. Our survey highlights how medical students at a community-based medical school perceive this change and how it has affected their research efforts.

Impact of Gap Years Following Medical School Graduation on Resident Research Productivity in Ophthalmology

Background  Gap years following medical school graduation have become more common, but research into their tangible career benefit is lacking. Examining the impact of gap years on resident scholarly productivity in ophthalmology may provide insight generalizable to all specialties. Objective  To evaluate whether a gap year following medical school graduation significantly predicts scholarly productivity during ophthalmology residency. Methods  In December 2021, residents were recorded from 110 publicly available American ophthalmology residency program webpages. They were included if educational history was listed on publicly accessible academic and social media profiles. Residents were then stratified into gap year and nongap year cohorts. Publication data were recorded from Scopus and PubMed. Pearson's chi-square, independent sample t -tests, and multivariable regression were performed. Results  A total of 1,206 residents were analyzed, with 1,036 (85.9%) residents taking no gap year and 170 (14.1%) residents with at least one gap year. Gap year residents were predicted to have increase in the likelihoods of publishing at least one, two, or five total articles during residency, in addition to at least one article in a high-impact journal. There was no significant relationship between gap years and publications with senior authors affiliated with either the resident's medical school or residency program. Conclusion  Residents taking gap years following graduation may publish more during residency, but these publications are not associated with senior authors at their institutions. Future investigations should continue to evaluate the significance of gap years in medical education.