ArticleCJEM2022
Experiences, perspectives, and advice for using virtual interviews in post-graduate trainee selection: a national survey of CCFP (EM) program directors.
Article in CJEM, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
objectiveDue to the COVID pandemic, restrictions were put in place mandating that all residency interviews be transitioned to a virtual format. Canadian CCFP(EM) programs were among the first to embark on this universal virtual interview process for resident selection. Although there have been several recent publications suggesting best practice guidelines for virtual interviews in trainee selection, pragmatic experiences and opinions from Program Directors (PDs) are lacking. This study aimed to elicit the experiences and perspectives of CCFP(EM) PDs after being amongst the first to conduct universal virtual interviews in Canada.
methodsA 17-item online survey was created and distributed to all CCFP(EM) PDs (n = 17). It explored the virtual interview format employed, perceived advantages and disadvantages of a virtual configuration, confidence in determining a candidate's rank order, and PD preference for employing a virtual interview format in the future. It also elicited practical advice to conduct a smooth and successful virtual interview day.
resultsThe survey response rate was 76.5% (13/17). Nine respondents (69.2%) agreed that the virtual interview format enabled them to confidently determine a candidate's rank order. With respect to preference for future use of virtual interviews, 23.1% agreed, 38.5% disagreed and 38.5% neither agreed nor disagreed. Inductive thematic analysis of free text responses revealed themes related to virtual interview advantages (time, financial, and resource costs), disadvantages (difficulty promoting smaller programs, getting a 'feel' for candidates and assessing their interpersonal skills), and practical tips to facilitate virtual interview processes.
conclusionOnce restrictions are lifted, cost-saving advantages must be weighed against suggested disadvantages such as showcasing program strengths and assessing interpersonal skills in choosing between traditional and virtual formats. Should virtual interviews become a routine part of resident selection, the advice suggested in this study may be considered to help optimize a successful virtual interview process.
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.