The Urology Match and Postinterview Communication

Farber, Nicholas; Neylan, Christopher J.; Kaplan, Amy; Singer, Eric A.; Elsamra, Sammy

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2018.03.057

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Survey questions were patterned after previous publications on peri-interview communication from a variety of specialties to allow for better comparison. [5][6][7] Survey responses were anonymous, and participants' voluntary completion of the survey implied consent. A qualitative analysis was performed for descriptive statistics.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Survey items included the frequency and nature of interview and postinterview communication with otolaryngology residency programs, as well applicants' attitudes toward communication specifically in the postinterview period. Survey questions were patterned after previous publications on peri‐interview communication from a variety of specialties to allow for better comparison 5–7 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[2][3][4] For this reason, the frequency and nature of peri-interview communication between applicants and residency programs has been studied across various specialties. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Otolaryngology is a highly competitive specialty with a limited number of available residency positions compared to the number of applicants. Therefore, an evaluation of peri-interview communication in the otolaryngology Match is warranted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the creation of the NRMP, MPA, and COC violations of the agreements and reports of false statements of commitment from both parties are still reported 2–4 . For this reason, the frequency and nature of peri‐interview communication between applicants and residency programs has been studied across various specialties 5–12 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Peri‐Interview Communication in the Otolaryngology Residency Match: The Applicant Perspective

Masciello

Malekzadeh

2020

The Laryngoscope

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives/Hypothesis To evaluate peri‐interview communication in the otolaryngology Match from the applicant's perspective. Study Design Cross‐sectional survey study. Methods A survey link was emailed to 401 otolaryngology residency applicants from the 2019 Match cycle. Survey items queried peri‐interview communication practices and applicants' attitudes toward communication in the postinterview period. Data were collected anonymously. Qualitative analysis was performed for descriptive statistics. Responses from female and male participants were compared using Fisher exact tests. Results The survey yielded a 44% (56% male, 44% female) response rate and a 100% completion rate. Of applicants, 18% were told they were ranked to match, and 19% were asked how highly they planned to rank a given program. Interview questions regarding marital status and plans for children were asked to 38% and 12%, respectively. The majority (75%) believe peri‐interview communication should be allowed. Most (65%) participants felt obligated to inform top program(s) of their high rank; however, only 45% of applicants found this to be stressful. Peri‐interview communication may have altered the rank list for 10% of applicants. Of applicants, 96% created their final rank list based on where they most wanted to match rather than where they would most likely match. Conclusions National Resident Matching Program peri‐interview communication violations occur in the otolaryngology Match at similar rates when compared to other specialties. Although peri‐interview communication can cause significant stress, the majority of otolaryngology residency applicants believe peri‐interview communication should be allowed and do not believe it alters applicants' rank lists. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 131:28–32, 2021

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Peri‐Interview Communication in the Otolaryngology Residency Match: The Applicant Perspective

Masciello

Malekzadeh

2020

The Laryngoscope

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[3][4][5][6] Prior studies in and outside of ophthalmology have reported that PIC initiated by an applicant may have little to no impact on that applicant's rank list position. [7][8][9] Both applicants and PDs report experiencing unethical behaviors or match violations during the course of sending or receiving PIC; applicants report feeling pressured to reveal their rank list, being asked to rank a program first to be ranked in return, being deliberately misled by their ranking, and being contacted by phone (a Urology Match violation), 3,5,[10][11][12] whereas many PDs experienced dishonesty by applicants falsely stating they would rank the PD's program first. 7,10 The NRMP and SF Match are brief and vague with respect to their match rules regarding PIC, with the NRMP's code of conduct only instructing programs to respect an applicant's privacy and confidentiality, and to refrain from coercive questions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of Post-Interview Communication in the Ophthalmology Match and Its Impact on Program Directors' Ranking of Applicants

Cui

Behunin

Wingert

2020

Journal of Academic Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The aim of this study is to investigate the prevalence of post-interview communication (PIC) during the ophthalmology residency match process and its impact on program directors' (PD's) ranking of applicants. Design Prospective cross-sectional survey. Methods An anonymous, online survey was emailed to the PD of each ophthalmology residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Results Fifty-four percent (63/116) of PDs completed the survey. Eighty-five percent (54/63) of PDs received PIC from applicants or applicants' faculty mentors during the 2018 to 2019 application cycle; 62% (39/63) received PIC regarding >25% of applicants interviewed. Although 41% (26/63) of PDs reported they would likely rank an applicant higher due to PIC endorsement from a faculty mentor known to the PD, only 3% (2/63) believed that applicants who did not have a faculty mentor conduct PIC on their behalf were disadvantaged. Fourteen percent (9/63) of PDs reported they would likely rank an applicant higher due to PIC endorsement from a faculty mentor unknown to the PD, and 3% (2/63) reported they would likely rank an applicant higher as a result of PIC from the applicant. Conclusion There is a high prevalence of PIC during the ophthalmology residency match process. The potential impact of PIC on PDs' ranking of applicants varies according to whether the PIC is from a faculty member known to the PD, a faculty member unknown to the PD, or the applicant. This may disadvantage applicants without faculty mentors known to PDs.

show abstract

Contemporary Assessment of Match Violations within Urology: an Opportunity for Ethical Leadership

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Urology Match and Postinterview Communication

Cited by 10 publications

References 10 publications

Peri‐Interview Communication in the Otolaryngology Residency Match: The Applicant Perspective

Peri‐Interview Communication in the Otolaryngology Residency Match: The Applicant Perspective

Prevalence of Post-Interview Communication in the Ophthalmology Match and Its Impact on Program Directors' Ranking of Applicants

Contemporary Assessment of Match Violations within Urology: an Opportunity for Ethical Leadership

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About