Background Travel restrictions amidst the COVID-19 pandemic reshaped interviewing for fellowships into a predominantly virtual process. How this impacts Obstetrics and Gynecology (OB/GYN) resident approaches to fellowship application and Match navigation is largely unknown. Methods We performed a cross-sectional survey study of fourth year OB/GYN residents in the United States who participated in at least one virtual fellowship interview in 2020. We collected information regarding demographics, application strategy, perceived strengths and weaknesses of virtual interviews, and confidence with rank list creation. Descriptive statistics were used for categorical variables and responses pre- and post-Match were compared using Fisher’s exact test. Results Seventy-five out of an estimated 490 applicants (~ 15% response rate) completed the survey. Of the respondents, 65.3% felt they interviewed at more programs virtually than they would anticipate completing in person, but perceived less confidence in having the necessary information (n = 45, 60%) or understanding the culture of programs (n = 59, 78.7%) to create a rank list. Cost savings were the main benefit of virtual interviews (n = 50, 66.7%), and inability to get a true “feel” for a program was the biggest limitation (n = 43, 57.3%). A majority (46.7%) advocate for a future hybrid interview process. Conclusions OB/GYN residents pursuing fellowship reported interviewing at more programs during the virtual season, but had less confidence with rank list creation. Cost savings benefits are weighed against difficulty getting a “feel” for programs virtually. Most would advocate for a future hybrid interview process.

BACKGROUND: The 2020 application cycle for the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Specialty Fellowship Match was the first to be exclusively virtual. OBJECTIVE: Our study was designed to compare approaches and perspectives of the MFM fellowship candidates who applied with virtual interviews with those of the current Maternal-Fetal Medicine fellows, who applied with in-person interviews in 2017, 2018, or 2019. STUDY DESIGN: A survey was developed by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Fellowship Affairs Committee to ascertain applicant approaches to and perspectives of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Fellowship Match and was disseminated after 2020 Maternal-Fetal Medicine interviews ended and completed before Fellowship Match Day. Participants were contacted by means of active Listservs maintained by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Current fellows were instructed to complete the survey using their experiences on the application cycle in which they successfully matched. Those who elected to participate entered their survey responses through the electronic link; answers were recorded in a secure Research Electronic Data Capture database. Outcomes were compared between those who applied during the virtual 2020 Maternal-Fetal Medicine interview cycle and those that applied during the in-person interview cycles in 2017, 2018, or 2019. RESULTS: Of the 140 completed surveys, 46 people participated in the 2020 Maternal-Fetal Medicine Match and were categorized as "virtual applicants," whereas the remaining 94 people participated in the 2017 (n=28), 2018 (n=33), or 2019 (n=33) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Match and were categorized as "in-person applicants." The overall distribution of number of programs to which each applicant applied differed between groups (P=.02); for example, nearly 75% of virtual applicants applied to at least 25 fellowship programs, compared with less than 50% of in-person applicants. Although the number of interviews received was similar between virtual and in-person applicants, virtual applicants were significantly less likely to cancel scheduled interviews (n=18 [39.1%] vs n=68 [72.3%]; P<.001). There were also differences between virtual and inperson applicants in terms of overall cost of the fellowship intervention process and total days away from work for interviewing (P<.001 for both). In particular, nearly two-thirds of virtual applicants reported spending less than $1000 in the Maternal-Fetal Medicine fellowship application process, compared with the nearly two-thirds of in-person applicants who reported spending more than $5000. Among the 46 virtual applicants, nearly 80% reported the experience was better or slightly better than expected, and none reported the experience was slightly worse or worse than expected. Nearly two-thirds of the virtual applicants reported that, compared with their in-person residency interviews, they received a comparable representation of Maternal-Fetal Medicine fellowship programs and could effectively assess their "fit" during interviews (60.9% and 63.0%, respecti...

Background: Travel restrictions amidst the COVID-19 pandemic reshaped interviewing for fellowships into a predominantly virtual process. How this impacts Obstetrics & Gynecology (OB/GYN) resident approaches to fellowship application and Match navigation is largely unknown.Methods: We performed a cross-sectional survey study of fourth year OB/GYN residents who participated in at least one virtual fellowship interview in 2020. We collected information regarding demographics, application strategy, perceived strengths and weaknesses of virtual interviews, and confidence with rank list creation. Descriptive statistics were used for categorical variables and responses pre- and post- match were compared using Fisher’s exact test. Results: 75 out of an estimated 490 applicants (~15% response rate) completed the survey. 65.3% felt they interviewed at more programs virtually than they would anticipate completing in person, but perceived less confidence in having the necessary information (n=45, 60%) or understanding the culture of programs (n=59, 78.7%) to create a rank list. Cost savings were the main benefit of virtual interviews (n=50, 66.7%), and inability to get a true “feel” for a program was the biggest limitation (n=43, 57.3%). A majority (46.7%) advocate for a future hybrid interview process. Conclusions: OB/GYN residents pursuing fellowship reported interviewing at more programs during the virtual season, but had less confidence with rank list creation. Cost savings benefits are weighed against difficulty getting a “feel” for programs virtually. Most would advocate for a future hybrid interview process.

Perspective: a culture of respect, part 2: creating a culture of respect. Acad Med 2012;87 (7):853-8.

INTRODUCTION: Incarcerated individuals requiring obstetric and gynecologic care make up the fastest-growing population in U.S. carceral settings. Research suggests that these patients' reproductive health needs are complex and disparate compared to the general population because of multiple forms of structural oppression. Little is known about the current state of ob-gyn resident education on providing reproductive health care to incarcerated patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered by email to program leaders at U.S. obstetrics and gynecology residency programs between August and September of 2022. RESULTS: Program directors or assistant program directors at 101 out of 269 contactable programs (38%) completed the survey. Among respondent programs, the majority (81%) have opportunities for residents to see incarcerated patients in a clinical setting, but only a minority (23%) of programs have mandatory didactic content on providing care to these patients. When asked about the most significant barriers to offering didactic content, 71% of respondents indicated that the lack of faculty expertise on the topic is at least moderately significant, followed by other competing curricular requirements (63%). Most respondents (82%) indicated that the inclusion of such didactic content during obstetrics and gynecology residency is at least moderately valuable. CONCLUSION: There is a glaring gap in formal resident education on providing obstetric–gynecologic care to incarcerated patients, even though residents are actively treating these patients. Although residency program leaders believe that training residents to care for this population is important, most programs are not equipped to do so because of the existence of various barriers.