Video-based interviewing in medicine: a scoping review.
Climate change
Personnel selection
Video-based interviews
Videoconferencing
Journal
Systematic reviews
ISSN: 2046-4053
Titre abrégé: Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580575
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 05 2022
16 05 2022
Historique:
received:
30
04
2021
accepted:
11
04
2022
entrez:
16
5
2022
pubmed:
17
5
2022
medline:
20
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Coronavirus 2019 pandemic necessitated a rapid uptake of video-based interviewing within the personnel selection process in healthcare. While video-based interviews have been evaluated previously, we identified a gap in the literature on the implementation of video-based interviews and how they compare to their face-to-face counterparts. A scoping review was conducted to consolidate the available literature on the benefits and limitations of video-based interviews and to understand the perceived barriers associated with transitioning away from face-to-face interviews. A search strategy, developed in concert with an academic health sciences librarian, was run on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Central. The search was performed on March 31, 2020, and updated on February 21, 2021. Studies that implemented and evaluated the impact of video-based interviewing in healthcare were included in our study. Review articles and editorials were excluded. Forty-three studies were included in our scoping review, of which 17 were conference abstracts and 26 were peer-reviewed manuscripts. The risk of bias was moderate or high in most studies, with only four studies having a low risk of bias. Both financial costs and opportunity costs associated with the selection process were reported to be improved with video-based interviewing, while no studies explored the impact on environmental costs. Technical limitations, which were not prevalent, were easily managed during the interview process. Overall, video-based interviews were well received by both applicants and interviewers, although most participants still reported a preference for face-to-face interviews. While video-based interviewing has become necessary during the Coronavirus 2019 era, there are benefits from a financial, opportunistic, and environmental point of view that argue for its continued use even after the pandemic. Despite its successful implementation with minimal technical issues, a preference still remains for face-to-face interviews. Reasons for this preference are not clear from the available literature. Future studies on the role of nonverbal communication during the video-based interview process are important to better understand how video-based interviewing can be optimized. This scoping review was registered with Open Science Framework.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The Coronavirus 2019 pandemic necessitated a rapid uptake of video-based interviewing within the personnel selection process in healthcare. While video-based interviews have been evaluated previously, we identified a gap in the literature on the implementation of video-based interviews and how they compare to their face-to-face counterparts.
METHODS
A scoping review was conducted to consolidate the available literature on the benefits and limitations of video-based interviews and to understand the perceived barriers associated with transitioning away from face-to-face interviews. A search strategy, developed in concert with an academic health sciences librarian, was run on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Central. The search was performed on March 31, 2020, and updated on February 21, 2021. Studies that implemented and evaluated the impact of video-based interviewing in healthcare were included in our study. Review articles and editorials were excluded.
RESULTS
Forty-three studies were included in our scoping review, of which 17 were conference abstracts and 26 were peer-reviewed manuscripts. The risk of bias was moderate or high in most studies, with only four studies having a low risk of bias. Both financial costs and opportunity costs associated with the selection process were reported to be improved with video-based interviewing, while no studies explored the impact on environmental costs. Technical limitations, which were not prevalent, were easily managed during the interview process. Overall, video-based interviews were well received by both applicants and interviewers, although most participants still reported a preference for face-to-face interviews.
CONCLUSIONS
While video-based interviewing has become necessary during the Coronavirus 2019 era, there are benefits from a financial, opportunistic, and environmental point of view that argue for its continued use even after the pandemic. Despite its successful implementation with minimal technical issues, a preference still remains for face-to-face interviews. Reasons for this preference are not clear from the available literature. Future studies on the role of nonverbal communication during the video-based interview process are important to better understand how video-based interviewing can be optimized.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
This scoping review was registered with Open Science Framework.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35578367
doi: 10.1186/s13643-022-01959-8
pii: 10.1186/s13643-022-01959-8
pmc: PMC9108136
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
94Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017 Jun;156(6):1091-1096
pubmed: 28116996
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2014 May 1;71(9):697-701
pubmed: 24733131
Syst Rev. 2020 Sep 25;9(1):219
pubmed: 32977852
J Grad Med Educ. 2020 Dec;12(6):737-744
pubmed: 33391598
Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Oct;134 Suppl 1:9S-15S
pubmed: 31568035
Acad Radiol. 2020 Sep;27(9):1316-1322
pubmed: 32563558
Med Educ. 2013 Aug;47(8):801-10
pubmed: 23837426
AEM Educ Train. 2019 Mar 14;3(3):226-232
pubmed: 31360815
J Am Coll Surg. 2020 Dec;231(6):670-678
pubmed: 32950602
Iowa Orthop J. 2018;38:9-15
pubmed: 30104919
J Surg Educ. 2017 Jan - Feb;74(1):167-172
pubmed: 27425434
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Med Teach. 2021 Mar;43(3):253-271
pubmed: 33496628
J Grad Med Educ. 2015 Sep;7(3):331-3
pubmed: 26457134
J Surg Educ. 2019 Mar - Apr;76(2):420-426
pubmed: 30219521
AEM Educ Train. 2019 May 20;3(3):259-268
pubmed: 31360819
Can Med Educ J. 2021 Jun 30;12(3):8-18
pubmed: 34249187
Ann Surg Oncol. 2020 Sep;27(9):3103-3106
pubmed: 32613367
Ann Surg Oncol. 2020 Dec;27(Suppl 3):911-915
pubmed: 32424589
Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Feb;109(2):155-9
pubmed: 24496418
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
Int J Med Educ. 2016 Apr 03;7:102-8
pubmed: 27039029
Acad Med. 2019 Oct;94(10):1489-1497
pubmed: 30870151
BMJ. 2008 Aug 07;337:a288
pubmed: 18687727
Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Apr;28(4):1908-1915
pubmed: 33244739
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 17;380(3):209-211
pubmed: 30650319
Acad Med. 2019 Oct;94(10):1513-1521
pubmed: 31335814
J Urol. 2012 Apr;187(4):1380-4
pubmed: 22341282
Implement Sci. 2010 Jan 04;5:1
pubmed: 20047652
AEM Educ Train. 2017 Jan 19;1(1):60-69
pubmed: 30051011
Acad Med. 2019 Oct;94(10):1506-1512
pubmed: 30893064
Acad Med. 2019 Oct;94(10):1498-1505
pubmed: 31219811
J Grad Med Educ. 2013 Sep;5(3):503-5
pubmed: 24404318