ReviewUrologic oncology2023
Applicant perceptions of virtual interviews for society of urologic oncology fellowships during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Review in Urologic oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fellow Perceptions of Program Culture Conveyed Through Virtual Interviews: Aligning Perceptions With Reality.Cureus · 2024Article
- Multicenter Study of Optional In-Person Visits to Residency Programs After Virtual Interviews.Journal of graduate medical education · 2023Article
- A Canadian survey of residency applicants' and interviewers' perceptions of the 2021 CaRMS R1 virtual interviews.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Virtual Interviews for Breast Imaging Fellowship During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Perspectives of Program Directors and Applicants.Journal of breast imaging · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 public health emergency forced the conversion of in-person SUO fellowship interviews into virtual interviews. We sought to understand applicant perspectives and preferences related to virtual interviews and whether programs should consider virtual interviews in the future. We distributed a survey to 2020 SUO Fellowship interview participants at 4 SUO urologic oncology fellowship programs. Response items were on a Likert scale scored 1-5 with higher scores indicating greater agreement with the survey item construct. Survey responses were collated and thematic mapping used to describe open text responses. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis of survey and open text results. Fifty-eight SUO fellowship applicants completed the survey. Virtual interviews successfully promoted interaction with SUO fellowship program faculty (mean 4.6, SD 0.6), outlined program research opportunities (mean 4.5, SD 0.7), and proffered opportunities to ask questions about the fellowship (mean 4.7, SD 0.5). Applicants exhibited weakly positive orientation to the adequacy of the virtual format (mean 3.5, SD 1.1). 63% of applicants would prefer a virtual format in the future. Qualitative feedback noted the benefits of virtual interviews were lower cost and reduced time away from residency. SUO fellowship applicants exhibited mixed preferences for virtual and in-person interviews. Although virtual fellowship interviews have benefits such as cost savings and time efficiency, notable weaknesses included challenges observing the culture of the programs. Following the pandemic, SUO fellowship programs may consider virtual interviews but should consider incorporating opportunities for informal interactions between faculty, fellows, and fellow applicants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.