Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37118926›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023

Virtual interviewing in the MedPhys match: Experiences of applicants and programs.

Titania Juang, Angelia Landers, Anna E Rodrigues, Leah Schubert, Kristi R G Hendrickson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Titania JuangDepartment of Radiation Medicine & Applied Sciences, UC San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3307-7050
Angelia LandersDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Anna E RodriguesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Leah SchubertDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Kristi R G HendricksonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6426-1395

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this survey study is to compare the experiences of programs and applicants in the MedPhys Match (MPM) in the 2020-21 match cycle with experiences reported from previous match cycles. The 2020-21 match cycle was unique in that recruitment and interviewing were almost exclusively virtual during the COVID-19 pandemic.

methodsA survey was sent to all applicants and programs registered for the 2020-21 MPM. Survey questions asked about the pre-interview screening, interview, ranking, and post-match stages of the residency match process. Survey data were analyzed using graphical methods and spreadsheet tools.

resultsAdvantages and disadvantages to the virtual interviewing experience were reported by applicants and program directors (PDs). The advantages included reduced cost and greater scheduling flexibility with fewer scheduling conflicts, allowing applicants to consider more programs. These advantages greatly outweighed the disadvantages such as the inability to meet faculty/staff and current residents in person and gauge the feel of the program. PDs recognized the advantages of minimal costs and time savings for applicants. Programs reported it was difficult to convey workplace culture and the physical environment and to gauge personality and interpersonal skills of the applicants.

conclusionThe virtual interviewing environment for residency recruitment in medical physics is strongly preferred by applicants over required in-person interviews. The advantages identified by applicants outweigh the disadvantages, allowing applicants to feel confident in their ranking decisions and overall satisfied with their match results. PDs acknowledge the greater equity of access to interviews for applicants in the virtual environment, however, they are overall less satisfied with their ability to showcase their program's strengths and to assess the personality of applicants. Caution is urged when considering a hybrid interview model to ensure fair assessments that do not depend on whether an applicant chooses to accept an optional in-person interview or site visit.

Indexed as

COVID-19Internship and ResidencyFacultyHumansPandemicsSurveys and Questionnairesmedical physics residencymedphys matchresidency search processvirtual interview

Identifiers

PMID37118926
PMCPMC10243329

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.