ArticleCureus2023
Implementation of a Chief Resident Selection Process Designed to Mitigate Bias: Lessons Learned.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Structured, merit-based selection of radiology chief residents; a single center experience.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Resident Leadership Roles and Selection.Annals of family medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChief residency selection processes are often opaque and beset by bias, which can result in disparities in who is selected for this important role. As a chief residency can lead to future academic and/or leadership positions, efforts to increase diversity in academic medicine and physician leadership may be aided by an inclusive chief resident (CR) selection process designed to mitigate bias. Objective: To implement and evaluate the acceptability of a CR selection process that is inclusive and designed to mitigate bias. Methods: In the 2021-2022 academic year, we designed and implemented a CR selection process aligned with published strategies known to mitigate bias in academic recruitment. The four-step opt-out CR selection process included a nomination survey, structured interviews, a clinical review, and a holistic review of each candidate. Each step was clearly delineated, assigned a specific number of points, and scored on a designated rubric. The candidates with the highest and second-highest number of points were awarded the two CR positions. Our selection process excluded examination scores and precluded consideration of "fit" between the selected CRs, as these are known sources of potential bias. In January 2023, we surveyed our department to obtain post-implementation feedback and to assess satisfaction with the process, before repeating the process for 2022-2023.
resultsSurvey response rates were 47% (14/30) for residents and 29% (18/63) for departmental faculty. The majority of responding residents (64%) and faculty (100%) were satisfied with the CR selection process, finding it fair and inclusive. Nearly 80% of residents and 100% of faculty wished to repeat the process in 2022-2023. Conclusions: An inclusive CR selection process utilizing strategies to mitigate bias was feasible, and acceptable to residents and faculty. We recommend that residency training programs make efforts to implement CR selection practices that are inclusive and aim to mitigate bias.
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.