Impact of Applicant Signaling for Otolaryngology Interviews.
residency interviews
signaling
surgical education
Journal
The Laryngoscope
ISSN: 1531-4995
Titre abrégé: Laryngoscope
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8607378
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Jul 2024
15 Jul 2024
Historique:
revised:
16
06
2024
received:
27
03
2024
accepted:
26
06
2024
medline:
15
7
2024
pubmed:
15
7
2024
entrez:
15
7
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To assess applicant opinions regarding program signaling and to understand the effect of 25 signals on interview outcomes during the 2023-2024 otolaryngology residency cycle. A 36-item anonymous online survey regarding signaling was sent to applicants who had applied to an otolaryngology residency program at a single institution. Participant demographics, performance in medical school, number of interviews received in relation to signals sent, and applicant perceptions regarding preference signaling were assessed. Eighty-one applicants participated with a response rate of 30%. Students applied to a median of 64 programs. Approximately 84.4% of interview offers came from programs which the participants signaled. Participants were 5.4 times more likely to get an interview from a program they signaled over programs they did not signal (F = 31.73, p < 0.001). The most common factors that influenced which programs were chosen by candidates were: location (94.9%), departmental reputation (80.8%), and experience on a sub-internship rotation (69.2%). Overall, 73.0% of participants found signaling helpful and 82.0% agreed that signaling should continue. Understanding the implications of a high-signaling application process in otolaryngology is crucial. Twenty-five signals led to 84% of interview offers coming from signaled programs and this was the most important variable associated with interview invitations. Location was the most prevalent factor when deciding where to signal. Signaling was well reviewed by most applicants. NA Laryngoscope, 2024.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.
Références
Association of American Medical Colleges. Supplemental ERAS application guide. 2021. Accessed: December 2023 https://students-residents.aamc.org/media/12326/download.
Chang CWD, Pletcher SD, Thorne MC, Malekzadeh S. Preference signaling for the otolaryngology interview market. Laryngoscope. 2021;131(3):E744‐E745. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.29151.
Melcher ML, Wapnir I, Ashlagi I. May the interview be with you: signal your preferences. J Grad Med Educ. 2019;11(1):39‐40. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-19-00002.1.
Pletcher SD, Chang CWD, Thorne MC, Malekzadeh S. The otolaryngology residency program preference signaling experience. Acad Med. 2022;97(5):664‐668. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004441.
Pletcher SD, Chang CWD, Thorne MC, et al. Interview invitations for otolaryngology residency positions across demographic groups following implementation of preference signaling. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(3):e231922. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.1922.
Standiford TC, David Chang CW, Thorne MC, Malekzadeh S, Pletcher SD. Impact of preference signaling on residency interview distribution among otolaryngology‐head and neck surgery applicants. J Surg Educ. 2023;80(2):170‐176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2022.09.023.
Zarate Rodriguez JG, Caldwell KE, Donald CM, Wise PE, Awad MM. Preference signaling for general surgery residency: how should applicants use signaling? J Surg Res. 2024;293:580‐586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2023.09.023.
Carpinito GP, Badia RR, Khouri RK, et al. Preference signaling and virtual interviews: the new urology residency match. Urology. 2023;171:35‐40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.09.028.
Deckey DG, Lin E, Gerhart CRB, Brinkman JC, Patel KA, Bingham JS. Decoding the signals: an analysis of preference signaling in the 2023 orthopaedic surgery residency match. JB JS Open Access. 2023;8(3):e23.00052. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.23.00052.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata‐driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377‐381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.
NRMP. Charting Outcomes™: demographic characteristics of applicants in the Main Residency Match® and SOAP®. 2023. Public.tableau.com. Accessed: December 2023 https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/national.resident.matching.program/viz/NRMPDemographics3_0/TableofContents.
Chang CWD, Thorne MC, Malekzadeh S, Pletcher SD. Two‐year interview and match outcomes of otolaryngology preference signaling. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023;168(3):377‐383. https://doi.org/10.1177/01945998221121312.
Program NRM. Results and Data. Main Residency Match. National Resident Matching Program; 2020.
National Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee. Results of the 2022 NRMP Program Director Survey. Washington, DC: National Resident Matching Program; 2022.
National Resident Matching Program. Exploring the Relationship between Program Signaling & Interview Invitations across Specialties. 2024. https://www.aamc.org/data‐reports/students‐residents/report/supplemental‐eras‐application‐data‐and‐reports
Leopold Z, Rajagopalan A, Mikhail M, et al. Preference signaling in the 2022 urology residency match – the applicant perspective. Urology. 2022;170:33‐37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.09.009.
Mulcahy CF, Terhaar SJ, Boulos S, Lee E, Zapanta PE. Did more otolaryngology residency applicants match at their home institutions in 2021? Investigating the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2022;131(12):1375‐1380. https://doi.org/10.1177/00034894211073198.
Benjamin WJ, Lenze NR, Yalamanchi P, et al. Impact of applicant and program factors on preference signaling outcomes in otolaryngology. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2023;8(2):401‐408. https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.1025.