Effect of virtual interviewing on applicant approach to and perspective of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Subspecialty Fellowship Match

Abstract

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...

Obstetrics and gynecology resident perception of virtual fellowship interviews

“…Our results supplement scant existing though expanding knowledge regarding conceptualization of virtual interview processes within OB/GYN by both applicants and interviewers. A recent study by Lewkowitz et al of Maternal-Fetal Medicine fellowship applicants suggested that OB/GYN residents are likely to accept more virtual interview offers than in-person interview offers given increased ease and convenience, which may have unintended downstream consequences on the ability of certain candidates to be offered interview opportunities [ 5 ]. Results from our study are in line with these findings, and suggest that it may be prudent to trial a system where applicants are limited in terms of number of accepted interviews to ensure that all qualified applicants are given an opportunity to interview at programs of genuine interest.…”

Virtual Residency Interview Experience: The Child Neurology Residency Program Perspective

“…As a result, programs needed to rank an additional 1.9 applicants per position, or 7.9 applicants per position compared to 5.9 in 2020, in order to fill in 2021 [ 10 , 11 ]. The “application inflation” has been seen in other specialties including obstetrics, maternal fetal medicine and dermatology [ 7 , 8 , 12 ] and can disadvantage less competitive applicants, ultimately leading to more unfilled positions nationally.…”

“…Cost, travel distance, and time away from education are factors favoring virtual interviews, while the desire to interact directly with residents and faculty and to assess potential quality of life in a location are factors in favor of in-person interviews [ 6 ]. Removing the barriers of in-person interviewing allows applicants to interview with more programs [ 3 , 7 ]. But of applicants who completed a virtual interview, 17% still incurred the time and expense to travel to the city to visit informally prior to matching [ 4 ].…”

“…For example, it was difficult to adequately convey facilities through a virtual tour [ 5 ]. Program directors often found it difficult to assess an applicant’s “fit” for their program through virtual interviews [ 7 , 8 ]. However, virtual interviews may require less faculty time than in-person interviews [ 2 ].…”

Obstetrics and Gynecology resident perception of virtual fellowship interviews

“…Our results supplement scant existing though expanding knowledge regarding conceptualization of virtual interview processes within OB/GYN by both applicants and interviewers. A recent study by Lewkowitz et al of Maternal Fetal Medicine fellowship applicants suggested that OB/GYN residents are likely to accept more virtual interview offers than in-person interview offers given increased ease and convenience, which may have unintended downstream consequences on the ability of certain candidates to be offered interview opportunities (5). Results from our study are in line with these ndings, and suggest that it may be prudent to trial a system where applicants are limited in terms of number of accepted interviews to ensure that all quali ed applicants are given an opportunity to interview at programs of genuine interest.…”