Ophthalmology Residency Match in the Covid-19 Era: Applicant and Program Director Perceptions of the 2020–2021 Application Cycle

Venincasa, Michael J.; Steren, Benjamin; Young, Benjamin K.; Parikh, Ankur; Ahmed, Bilal; Sridhar, Jayanth; Kombo, Ninani

doi:10.1080/08820538.2021.1906917

Cited by 20 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, our study did not delineate US allopathic seniors, osteopathic seniors, international medical graduates, and nontraditional residency applicants. In addition, the NRMP reported a record-breaking number of residency applicants across all specialties during the 2020 to 2021 application cycle 18 , as did ophthalmology, which does not participate in the NRMP match process 24 . In the presence of other factors potentially affecting match rates, we cannot necessarily conclude an exclusive relationship between sub-I rotations and match statistics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orthopaedic Surgery Away Rotations

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Away rotations have become a critical factor for a successful orthopaedic surgery residency match. Away rotations significantly improve an applicant's chance of matching into an orthopaedic residency. Away rotations were limited during the 2020 to 2021 academic year because of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the 2021 to 2022 academic year, the American Association of Medical Colleges coalition recommended students only complete 1 rotation outside their home institution, whereas the American Orthopaedic Association Council of Residency Directors argued that multiple rotations should be allowed. We sought to quantify the impact of these restrictions on orthopaedic surgery applicants during the 2020 to 2021 residency application cycle. Methods: An online survey was sent to all applicants applying to the authors' home orthopaedic surgery program. The survey asked respondents to indicate how many away rotations they completed and how many they planned to complete but were unable to complete in the 2020 to 2021 application cycle. Historical match data were obtained from the National Resident Matching Program's publicly accessible Main Residency Match Data and Reports. Results: Survey responses were collected from 650 of 812 applicants (80%) to our program. Over a third of respondents (38.1%) reported completing 3 subinternship rotations during the 2020 to 2021 application cycle. Nearly a quarter of respondents (24.0%) reported completing 4 rotations. Most applicants (50.9%) were unable to complete 5 previously planned rotations because of pandemic-related restrictions, and 25.2% reported an inability to complete 4 rotations. Fewer applicants reported canceling 3 rotations (9.2%), 2 rotations (6.8%), or 1 (7.8%) rotation. Conclusions: Away rotations have been a traditional component of the orthopaedic surgery application process. Restrictions on away rotations in the 2020 to 2021 residency application cycle had affected the number of rotations that applicants were able to complete. However, despite those restrictions, over a third of applicants were able to complete at least 3 rotations. This suggests that the away rotation experience is variable for students and may be multifactorial; however, our study did not investigate the reasons for this. Accordingly, limiting away rotations may support an inequitable environment for medical students applying to orthopaedic surgery, and creating a consensus definition among medical schools, program directors, and orthopaedic chairs of away rotations, their duration, and the maximum number allowed would enhance fairness and reduce inconsistencies. Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJSOA/A376).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orthopaedic Surgery Away Rotations

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(virtual/in-person) interview format will likely continue for future application cycles; a recent cross-sectional study found that if given a choice regarding the future direction for interviews, 73.4% of applicants would prefer to hold interviews virtually or were unsure. 6 Therefore, understanding the resources that applicants use to decide where to apply, interview, and rank is critical to conveying relevant information and fostering effective matches for both programs and applicants. One of our goals was to understand whether applicants used different resources and factors to make decisions at each of the three stages of the application process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In the Mind of the Ophthalmology Residency Applicant: Deciding Where to Apply, Interview, and Rank

Jin

Ahmad

Parikh

et al. 2022

Journal of Academic Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This article characterizes the resources used by ophthalmology residency applicants when deciding where to apply, interview, and rank. Design Cross-sectional, online survey. Participants All applicants to the University of California–San Francisco ophthalmology residency program during the 2019 to 2020 and 2020 to 2021 application cycles. Methods A secure, anonymous, 19-item post-match questionnaire was distributed to participants inquiring about demographic information, match outcomes, and resources used to learn and make decisions about residency programs. Results were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods. Main Outcome Measures Qualitative ranking of resources used to decide where to apply, interview, and rank. Results One hundred thirty-six of 870 solicited applicants responded to the questionnaire, for a response rate of 15.6%. Digital platforms were ranked as more important resources than people (i.e., faculty, career advisors, residents, and program directors) when applicants were deciding where to apply and interview. Digital platforms became far less important when applicants were formulating their rank lists, at which time the program's academic reputation, perceived happiness of residents and faculty, interview experience, and geographic location were more important. When learning about residency programs, 100% of respondents engaged with program Web sites, and the majority engaged with program emails (n=88 [85.4%]), Doximity (n=82 [79.6%]), Reddit (n=64 [62.1%]), Instagram (n=59 [57.3%]), the FREIDA residency program database (n=55 [53.4%]), and YouTube (n=53 [51.5%]). All 13 digital platforms included in the survey were utilized by at least 25% of respondents, largely passively (i.e., reading rather than producing content). Respondents indicated that the most important topics to include on program Web sites were the number of residents accepted per year, current resident profiles, and resident alumni job/fellowship placement. Conclusion Applicants engage heavily with digital media in deciding where to apply and interview but rely heavily on their personal experiences with the program in deciding where to rank. Ophthalmology programs may facilitate recruitment of applicants by optimizing their digital media platforms.

show abstract

“…6 Studies have shown that virtual interviews save on average $3,000 to $8,000 per applicant, with over 90% of applicants reporting having spent less money in the virtual interview process than the in-person process. 4,5,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] This is a particularly important consideration, as studies have also demonstrated that costs associated with in-person interviews can deter applicants from applying to multiple programs or accepting multiple interview offers. 1,6,14 Similarly, in-person interviews also involve significant program costs.…”

Section: Financial and Opportunity Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%