Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34792253›Full record

ArticlePaediatric anaesthesia2022

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the 2020 pediatric anesthesiology fellowship application cycle: A survey of program directors.

Matthew DiGiusto, Maria Concetta Lupa, Marco Corridore, Erica L Sivak, Justin L Lockman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Paediatric anaesthesia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Matthew DiGiustoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6203-7402
Maria Concetta LupaDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of North Carolina Children's Hospital, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0547-3758
Marco CorridoreDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Erica L SivakDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9308-6082
Justin L LockmanDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Perelman School of Medicine at The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4792-8717

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic created a situation with an urgent need to produce a virtual system for the 2019-2020 pediatric anesthesiology fellowship cycle. With fellowship interviews beginning in April 2020, there was minimal time for programs to adapt. Each program rapidly developed its own platform, expectations, materials, and process for interviews-all while under the stress of managing the unfolding patient care, financial, and leadership crises of the unfolding pandemic.

aimsThe aim of this survey-based study was to help identify changes compared with previous traditional cycles, obstacles encountered, and program director attitudes toward this, and possible future, virtual application cycles. We separately report the results of an applicant-based survey about the 2020 virtual interview cycle.

methodsA 50-question survey was developed utilizing Qualtrics. An anonymous survey link was sent to all pediatric anesthesiology program directors with an invitation for one program leader (either the program director or assistant/associate program director but not both) from each program to complete the voluntary survey.

resultThirty respondents completed the survey, for a response rate of 50% based on the 60 ACGME-approved pediatric anesthesiology fellowships. Compared to previous traditional cycles, almost half of respondents (14/29, 48.3%) reported no increase in the number of applications received, and a majority of respondents (16/29, 55.2%) reported that they offered the same number of interview spots for the year. The virtual interview process appears to have gone smoothly, as a majority of programs reported they never or rarely had technical problems across a number of different domains. Importantly, the majority of respondents were either somewhat satisfied or extremely satisfied (21/28, 75%) with the overall virtual interview process. Given the choice of preferred interview format going forward, half of the respondents (14/28) would offer a combination of traditional and virtual interviews.

conclusionsThese results demonstrate that virtual interviews are a viable alternative to traditional interviews and can be completed without many technological complications. PDs were overall satisfied with virtual interviews, despite not having appropriate time to plan and coordinate, and would be interested in continuing this option into the future. There are areas where improvements can be made and with appropriate planning could look to mitigate some of the areas where virtual interviews fall short of traditional interviews. In combination with our previously published survey of applicants (Paediatr Anaesth. 2021;31(9):968-976), these data form a more complete picture of virtual interview best practices going forward.

Indexed as

AnesthesiologyCOVID-19Internship and ResidencyChildFellowships and ScholarshipsHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesanesthesiologyCOVID-19educationfellowshipsurveyvirtual interview

Identifiers

PMID34792253
PMCPMC8662147

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.