Ethical violations and discriminatory behavior in the MedPhys Match

Self Cite

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to gauge the experiences of applicants and program directors (PDs) in the Medical Physics (MedPhys) Match (MPM) and to determine the most important characteristics and factors that influence decisionmaking for applicants and programs when screening, interviewing, and ranking in the MPM. Opinions were also solicited from applicants and PDs on the status of medical physics residencies and the selection process, such as the availability of residency positions and satisfaction with the match process.Methods: A survey was sent to all applicants registered for the 2015-2018 MPM and to all PDs registered for the 2015-2017 MPM. Survey questions asked about the pre-interview screening, interview, and ranking stages of the residency match process. Survey data were analyzed using graphical methods and spreadsheet tools.Results: An increasing percentage of applicants are female and/or hold a PhD as their highest degree. The over all number of interview invitations per applicant has increased, leading some applicants to decline interviews with the top reasons being cost of travel and scheduling conflicts. The top considerations for applicants in ranking programs were residency program/institution reputation, program structure/organization, and facilities/equipment available. The primary considerations identified by PDs for ranking applicants included impressions from the interview, personality fit, and clinical potential. While two-thirds of applicants agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that a residency position was difficult to obtain, roughly onethird of PDs agree that the current residency placement rate is a problem. Conclusion:Four years of survey data on the experiences of applicants and PDs participating in the MPM is useful to future participants navigating the residency match system. It is hoped that the data will be helpful to inform improvements and to enhance understanding of the residency match system and how it shapes our profession.

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Me Th Odsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The MedPhys match survey: Search criteria and advice for programs and applicants

Hendrickson

Juang

Rodrigues

et al. 2021

Self Cite

“…A survey of MPM participants was developed to evaluate discriminatory behavior and ethical violations within the residency interview and match process and to gather data on the interview and match experiences of residency applicants and program directors (PDs). Quantitative and qualitative results from the first 4 years of the MPM (2015–2018) have been previously published 6,7 . In this paper, new results from the 2020−21 MPM cycle (hereon referred to as the 2021 MPM cycle for brevity) using a slightly modified survey tool are compared to previously reported experiences, comparing experiences with onsite interviews to the virtual interviewing environment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Virtual interviewing in the MedPhys match: Experiences of applicants and programs

Juang

Landers

Rodrigues

et al. 2023

Self Cite

The purpose of this survey study is to compare the experiences of programs and applicants in the MedPhys Match (MPM) in the 2020-21 match cycle with experiences reported from previous match cycles. The 2020-21 match cycle was unique in that recruitment and interviewing were almost exclusively virtual during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A survey was sent to all applicants and programs registered for the 2020-21 MPM.Survey questions asked about the pre-interview screening,interview, ranking, and post-match stages of the residency match process. Survey data were analyzed using graphical methods and spreadsheet tools. Results: Advantages and disadvantages to the virtual interviewing experience were reported by applicants and program directors (PDs). The advantages included reduced cost and greater scheduling flexibility with fewer scheduling conflicts, allowing applicants to consider more programs. These advantages greatly outweighed the disadvantages such as the inability to meet faculty/staff and current residents in person and gauge the feel of the program. PDs recognized the advantages of minimal costs and time savings for applicants. Programs reported it was difficult to convey workplace culture and the physical environment and to gauge personality and interpersonal skills of the applicants. Conclusion:The virtual interviewing environment for residency recruitment in medical physics is strongly preferred by applicants over required in-person interviews. The advantages identified by applicants outweigh the disadvantages, allowing applicants to feel confident in their ranking decisions and overall satisfied with their match results. PDs acknowledge the greater equity of access to interviews for applicants in the virtual environment, however, they are overall less satisfied with their ability to showcase their program's strengths and to assess the personality of applicants. Caution is urged when considering a hybrid interview model to ensure fair assessments that do not depend on whether an applicant chooses to accept an optional in-person interview or site visit.

Navigating the medical physics education and training landscape

Loughery

Starkschall

Hendrickson

et al. 2017

PurposeThe education and training landscape has been profoundly reshaped by the ABR 2012/2014 initiative and the MedPhys Match. This work quantifies these changes and summarizes available reports, surveys, and statistics on education and training.MethodsWe evaluate data from CAMPEP‐accredited program websites, annual CAMPEP graduate and residency program reports, and surveys on the MedPhys Match and Professional Doctorate degree (DMP).ResultsFrom 2009–2015, the number of graduates from CAMPEP‐accredited graduate programs rose from 210 to 332, while CAMPEP‐accredited residency positions rose from 60 to 134. We estimate that approximately 60% of graduates of CAMPEP‐accredited graduate programs intend to enter clinical practice, however, only 36% of graduates were successful in acquiring a residency position in 2015. The maximum residency placement percentage for a graduate program is 70%, while the median for all programs is only 22%. Overall residency placement percentage for CAMPEP‐accredited program graduates from 2011–2015 was approximately 38% and 25% for those with a PhD and MS, respectively. The disparity between the number of clinically oriented graduates and available residency positions is perceived as a significant problem by over 70% of MedPhys Match participants responding to a post‐match survey. Approximately 32% of these respondents indicated that prior knowledge of this situation would have changed their decision to pursue graduate education in medical physics.ConclusionThese data reveal a substantial disparity between the number of residency training positions and graduate students interested in these positions, and a substantial variability in residency placement percentage across graduate programs. Comprehensive data regarding current and projected supply and demand within the medical physics workforce are needed for perspective on these numbers. While the long‐term effects of changes in the education and training infrastructure are still unclear, available survey data suggest that these changes could negatively affect potential entrants to the profession.