ArticleJournal of surgical education2023
Navigating the Ophthalmology & Urology Match with a Significant Other.
Article in Journal of surgical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Burning Matches: Arguments for Improving the Match Process for Physician Trainee Couples.Journal of graduate medical education · 2023Article
- Impact of applicant and program factors on preference signaling outcomes in otolaryngology.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMedical students with a significant other in medical school face challenges when applying for residency as they attempt to match in proximity to their partner. The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) offers a Couples Match to aid such applicants. This system is not available for ophthalmology and urology because these specialties utilize match systems outside the NRMP and have an early match timeline. The purpose of this study is to analyze usage of the Couples Match and assess ophthalmology and urology applicant viewpoints on the Couples Match system. DESIGN &
settingFirst, NRMP data on the Couples Match from 1987 to 2021 was reviewed. Second, an online survey was sent to 559 ophthalmology and 321 urology applicants to The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in the 2021 match cycle.
participants342 ophthalmology and urology applicants (39% response rate).
resultsThere is increased usage of the Couples Match over time. In response to the survey, 89% of participants agreed that a Couples Match should be implemented in their specialty. 107 (31%) had a significant other in medicine. 78% of 68 respondents whose significant other also applied in 2021 reported that they would have used the Couples Match had it been available. 21% of those with a significant other considered not applying to ophthalmology or urology because there was no Couples Match. There are mixed responses regarding whether the early match timeline is beneficial to couples. Female applicants were more likely to report hesitancy about mentioning a significant other during the application process.
conclusionsThe Couples Match is highly desired by applicants to ophthalmology and urology, and the lack of such a system is a deterrent to pursuing these fields. Future studies will help elucidate how the match system can be leveraged to aid individuals applying with a significant other.
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.