ArticleCJEM2021
Resident recruitment in the COVID-19 era: factors influencing program ranking by residents applying to a family medicine-emergency medicine training program.
Article in CJEM, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The more things change the more they stay the same: Factors influencing emergency medicine residency selection in the virtual era.AEM education and training · 2023Article
- A Canadian survey of residency applicants' and interviewers' perceptions of the 2021 CaRMS R1 virtual interviews.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic has created numerous unique challenges for the recruitment of prospective trainees. Cancellation of visiting electives and in-person interviews created challenges for programs to showcase elements that have been shown to influence applicants' program selection, including geographical considerations and program collegiality. Novel strategies have been recommended and employed to facilitate candidate recruitment, but it is unclear how influential such strategies are on candidates' program ranking. It is also unclear what factors influence program selection among CCFP(EM) candidates. We sought to evaluate the impact of novel recruitment strategies on applicants' ranking of the University of Ottawa CCFP(EM) program and determine factors which were most influential in applicants' first-choice program selection.
methodsAn online survey was distributed to all candidates (n = 127) who applied to the University of Ottawa CCFP(EM) program. The survey instrument included 33 items. Respondents were asked to rate on a 3-point scale how influential specific recruitment strategies were on their ranking of our program and the influence of different training factors on their selection of first-choice program.
resultsThe survey response rate was 27% (34/127). Recruitment strategies rated as most positively influential included virtual one-on-one meetings with program directors (100%), virtual Q&A sessions (77.8%), virtual communication with chief residents (73.3%), and a mailed personalized recruitment package (72.2%). The top factors influencing applicants' first-choice program selection included: collegiality between faculty and residents (96.4%); level of responsibility given to residents (96.4%); support within the program (96.4%); and procedural opportunities within the program (96.3%).
conclusionFacilitating virtual personal interaction with program leadership is highly influential in how CCFP(EM) candidates rank programs. CCFP(EM) candidates value characteristics of a training program over the geographical location and available amenities. Program leaders should consider these findings when recruiting prospective candidates.
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.