The Carbon Footprint and Cost of Virtual Residency Interviews

Abstract

Background The shift from in-person to virtual residency interviews may impact greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) and costs but the direction and amount of this change is not yet clear. Objective To estimate GHGE and financial impacts of virtual interviews among applicants and programs. Methods In 2020-2021 we sent a postinterview survey to 1429 applicants from 7 residency programs and 1 clinical psychology program at 1 institution. The survey collected origin of travel and transit type if in-person interviews had been held and excluded responses if the applicant would not have participated in an in-person interview, or if travel type or original city was missing. We used the International Civil Aviation Organization calculator to estimate flight-related GHGE in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) and Google Maps to estimate ground travel, with a standard CO2e per mile. Flight, hotel, and airport taxi costs were estimated using Expedia.com, Hotels.com, Uber, and Lyft. We aggregated these data and calculated median and interquartile ranges (IQRs) for applicant GHGE and cost savings, and assumed no cost or GHGE from virtual interviews. We used Wilcoxon signed rank sum tests to compare in-person 2019-2020 and virtual 2020-2021 GME program interview budgets. Results The survey response rate was 565, or 40% of applicants; 543 remained after the exclusion criteria were applied. Reduction in applicant travel due to virtual interviews led to median estimated GHGE savings of 0.47 (IQR 0.30-0.61) MTCO2e and $490 (IQR $392-$544) per applicant, per interview. Programs savings ranged from $7,615 to $33,670 for the interview season. Conclusions Virtual interviews in 8 GME programs were associated with lower estimated GHGE and costs, for applicants and programs, compared with in-person interviews.

Environmentally sustainable gastroenterology practice: Review of current state and future goals

“…37 During the COVID-19 pandemic, many US fellowship programs transitioned to virtual interviews, resulting in a median estimated reduction of 0.47 metric tons of CO 2 emissions per applicant per interview, 98% of which can be attributed to decreased air travel. 38 Moreover, virtual interviews offered time and cost savings for both applicants and programs, with approximate savings of $490 per applicant per interview and program savings ranging from $7615 to $33,670. 38 However, it is important to consider the downsides of virtual interviews, such as a lack of personal interaction and familiarity with the institution and the neighborhood.…”

“…38 Moreover, virtual interviews offered time and cost savings for both applicants and programs, with approximate savings of $490 per applicant per interview and program savings ranging from $7615 to $33,670. 38 However, it is important to consider the downsides of virtual interviews, such as a lack of personal interaction and familiarity with the institution and the neighborhood. Virtual interviews may also limit the program director's ability to gauge an applicant's interpersonal and behavioral skills.…”

Association of Academic Physiatrists Residency and Fellowship Program Directors’ Resident Recruitment Subcouncil Position Paper on Residency Recruitment

“…Programs and applicants alike have recognized the cost savings from virtual processes, along with a reduction in the carbon footprint produced by past recruitment cycles. 12 These practices reflect the broader movement in graduate medical education toward improving equity by reducing costs and time burden for applicants, and better diversifying the future physician workforce.…”

“…The increasing debt burden of graduating medical students includes thousands of dollars for applications and travel to in-person interviews, placing those with financial constraints at a significant disadvantage. Programs and applicants alike have recognized the cost savings from virtual processes, along with a reduction in the carbon footprint produced by past recruitment cycles 12 . These practices reflect the broader movement in graduate medical education toward improving equity by reducing costs and time burden for applicants, and better diversifying the future physician workforce.…”