ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology
The Impact of COVID-19 on Radiation Oncology Residency Applicant Away Rotations, Interviews, and Rank Lists: A Comparison Between the 2020 Match and 2021 Match.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology. 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.
- No difference in subsequent trainee satisfaction associated with in-person exposure prior to remote interviews.Medical education online · 2022Article
- Virtual Interviews in Postgraduate Medical Education Recruitment: Is There a Future Post-Pandemic?Journal of graduate medical education · 2022Article
- General surgery applicants report the impact of virtual interviews on their rank list and match.Global surgical education : journal of the Association for Surgical Education · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe COVID-19 pandemic modified the Residency Match process for fourth-year medical students. In-person away rotations were discouraged, interviews were virtual, and traditional factors used to rank programs were absent. Here, we compare survey results administered to both the 2020 and 2021 Match applicants to assess the influence of the pandemic on the radiation oncology (RO) Match process.
methodsAn institutional review board-approved prospective cross-sectional study was conducted. The 2020 and 2021 RO Match applicants at a large RO program were invited to participate. Descriptive summary statistics were assessed.
resultsThe 2020 and 2021 Matches each had 76 applicants complete the survey with response rates of 54% and 57%, respectively. The 2 groups were predominantly white, cisgender male, single, and without children. Whereas 11% of 2020 applicants did not complete away rotations, 45% of 2021 applicants did not. For 2021 Match applicants, 65% of away rotations were performed virtually, whereas 51% were not for medical school credit. Of the applicants, 84% were satisfied with virtual interviews and 72% felt cost savings were worth not having in-person interviews. Whereas 49% of Match 2020 applicants spent >$5000 in interview costs, 0% of the Match 2021 applicants did so, with 45% spending <$100. Postinterview communications from programs increased during the pandemic from 36% to 42% in 2020 Match and 2021 Match, respectively. Although program culture was the most common factor influencing 2021 Match applicants program rankings, half of applicants did not gain a sense of program culture during virtual interviews.
conclusionsWe found 2021 Match applicants completed fewer away rotations, were satisfied with virtual interviews/reduced costs, and did not gain a sense of program culture through virtual rotations/interviews despite it being the most important ranking factor reported. This study supports further exploration of virtual away rotations and virtual interviews moving forward beyond the pandemic.
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.