ArticleATS scholar2024
Pulmonary and Critical Care Fellowship Program Directors' Perspective on the Virtual Interview Process.
Article in ATS scholar, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Since the start of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the residency and fellowship recruitment process has changed significantly with the use of virtual interview (VI) platforms. Pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) candidates reported in a survey that VIs hindered their ability to evaluate their fit within the program. However, the program directors' (PDs') opinion of this process remains unknown. Objective: We aim to provide insight into the PCCM fellowship PDs' perspective regarding the virtual recruitment process since the first class of fellows undergoing this process has now completed 1 year of training. Methods: An anonymous survey was sent to the PDs of PCCM programs participating in the National Resident Matching Program match process in 2020 and 2021. The survey consisted of five sections and 26 closed-ended questions and was distributed via email using the SurveyMonkey platform. The survey was conducted for a total of 6 weeks. A follow-up email to nonrespondents was sent every week. The collected responses were divided into two categories: favoring VIs versus not favoring VIs. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with favoring VIs. Results: The survey was sent to 190 email accounts from the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access System website. Over the course of 6 weeks, 64 respondents participated in the survey, with a response rate of 33.68%. Of 64 respondents, 56 (87.5%) fully completed the survey and 8 (12.5%) partially completed the survey. The final sample size was 59. Thirty-six (61.02%) of the PDs favored VIs for future recruitment, and 23 (38.98%) did not ( Conclusion: In this survey research, we found that the majority of the PCCM fellowship PDs favored a virtual process for future recruitment.
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.