ArticleCureus2024
Holistic Review of Applicants by the United States Postgraduate Training Programs Is Not Associated With the Percentage of Female Residents.
Article in Cureus, 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Given the underrepresentation of female physicians in most specialties and the aim of holistic review in residency applications to improve the diversity of matriculating resident physicians in the United States (US) postgraduate medical training programs, we examined the association between holistic review and female resident representation among US postgraduate training programs. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of US postgraduate training programs to inquire about their use of holistic review for resident applications (independent variable). The primary outcome was the percentage of female residents in each program, which was obtained along with other program-level characteristics from the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access (FREIDA) catalog in April 2023. We limited the analysis to the 10 specialties with the most training spots in 2022, including anesthesiology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, neurology, obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedic surgery, pediatrics, psychiatry, and surgery (general). We also examined the interactions between holistic review and specialty and the percentage of female faculty using model comparison and simple slopes analyses. Results Of the 3,364 total programs surveyed from the 10 specialties, 222 (6.6%) responded. Responders and nonresponders had similar program-level characteristics, including program type (e.g., university, community), specialty, and reported minimum board examination scores. Of the 222 responders, 179 (80.6%) reported performing holistic review. The percentage of female residents was 49.0% (interquartile range 37.5 to 66.7) in the no holistic review group and 47.8% (35.4 to 65.0) in the holistic review group (median difference 0.9%, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 8.3). Furthermore, there was no evidence of interaction between holistic review and either the specialty or the percentage of female faculty on the outcome of the percentage of female residents. Conclusions Holistic review of residency applications in this limited sample of US postgraduate training programs was not associated with the percentage of female residents. The role of holistic review in addressing the imbalance of male and female physicians in the healthcare workforce, particularly between specialties, remains unknown.
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.