Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35463161›Full record

ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2022

Virtual Residency Interviews: Applicant Perceptions Regarding Virtual Interview Effectiveness, Advantages, and Barriers.

Alexander Domingo, Rebecca E Rdesinski, Amy Stenson, Megan Aylor, John Sullenbarger, Joanna Hatfield, Sara Walker, Shane Hervey, Justin Singer, Adrian Cois and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Resident Recruitment in a New Era.International anesthesiology clinics · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

Alexander Domingois Assistant Professor, Family Medicine.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6325-5607
Rebecca E RdesinskiAll authors are with the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine.
Amy StensonAll authors are with the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine.
Megan AylorAll authors are with the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine.
John SullenbargerAll authors are with the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine.
Joanna HatfieldAll authors are with the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine.
Sara WalkerAll authors are with the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine.
Shane HerveyAll authors are with the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine.
Justin SingerAll authors are with the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine.
Adrian CoisAll authors are with the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine.
Anthony ChengAll authors are with the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Studies of the virtual interview format are needed to inform medical residency program leaders as they plan for future virtual interview seasons. Objective: In the current study, completed in 2021, we sought to assess applicant perspectives of virtual interview effectiveness, advantages, and barriers, including factors that might impact equity and inclusion. Methods: Interviewees applying to 7 residency programs and 2 clinical psychology programs at an academic medical center in the Pacific Northwest completed a post-interview survey. Results: A total of 565 of 1429 interviewees (40%) completed the survey. A vast majority (83%-96%) agreed virtual interviews were effective in each measured domain, except for learning institutional culture (352 of 565, 62%). Many also found information regarding social/living environments inadequate. Participants selected advantages to virtual interviews more frequently than disadvantages. Commonly selected advantages included cost savings, time efficiency, reduced burden of travel, and reduced carbon footprint. Disadvantages included time zone differences, access to an appropriate interview setting, and reliable access to internet. The majority of interviewees (84%, 456 of 542) desired to keep a component of virtual interviews in the future. There were no significant disparities in results based on gender, rural/suburban/urban location, race, or underrepresented minority status. Conclusions: Virtual interviews were perceived as effective, more advantageous than burdensome, and widely acceptable, with no disparities in these findings by included demographic characteristics.

Indexed as

COVID-19Internship and ResidencyHumansMinority GroupsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID35463161
PMCPMC9017272

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.