Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34247905›Full record

ReviewUrologic oncology2023

Applicant perceptions of virtual interviews for society of urologic oncology fellowships during the COVID-19 pandemic.

John L Gore, Sima P Porten, Jeffrey S Montgomery, Robert J Hamilton, Maxwell V Meng, Wade J Sexton, Sarah P Psutka

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

John L GoreDepartment of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: jlgore@uw.edu.
Sima P PortenDepartment of Urology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Jeffrey S MontgomeryDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Robert J HamiltonDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Maxwell V MengDepartment of Urology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Wade J SextonDepartment of Genitourinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL.
Sarah P PsutkaDepartment of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA.
Seattle Cancer Care Alliance · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USMoffitt Cancer Center · USPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre · CAUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19Internship and ResidencyFellowships and ScholarshipsHumansMedical OncologyPandemicsSurveys and Questionnairesgraduate medical educationinterviewresearch trainingurologic oncology

Identifiers

PMID34247905
PMCPMC9760099
OpenAlexW3179635546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.