ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2024
Some Perceptions Differ, Match Outcomes Do Not: A Multisite Retrospective Cross-Sectional Comparison of Virtual vs. In-Person Recruitment.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVirtual interviewing for residency provides considerable savings. Its impact on match outcomes remains unclear.
objectiveEvaluate the impact of virtual residency recruitment on program and applicant assessment and match outcomes.
designCross-sectional survey, September 2020-July 2021
participantsFaculty interviewers and 2019 and 2020 PGY-1 classes at three academic internal medicine residencies. MAIN MEASURES: Survey items rating effectiveness of interview format, preference for future interview format, and perceived impact on diversity. KEY
resultsA total of 247/436 faculty (57%) interviewers responded. Faculty perceived that in-person interviews enhanced applicant assessment (3.23 ± 0.38, p < 0.01) and recruitment of the most qualified applicants (p < 0.01) but did not impact recruitment of a racially or gender diverse class (3.03 ± 0.99, p = 0.95 and 3.09 ± 0.76, p = 0.14 respectively). They also did not demonstrate a preference for future interview formats. A total of 259/364 matched applicants responded, corresponding to a 76% response rate in the in-person cohort and a 66% response rate for virtual. Trainees were equally likely to match at their top choice when interviewing virtually vs. in-person (p = 0.56), and racial/ethnic and gender composition of the incoming class also did not differ (p = 0.81 and p = 0.19 respectively). Trainees perceived many aspects of the institution were better assessed in-person, though the impact varied according to assessment domain. Trainees who interviewed in-person preferred in-person formats. Of those who interviewed virtually, 47% preferred virtual and 54% preferred in-person. There were no predictors of virtual preference for future interview formats.
conclusionsFaculty and applicants who experienced virtual recruitment had no preference for future recruitment format. Virtual recruitment had no impact on the racial/gender diversity of matched classes or on applicants matching at their top-ranked institution. Institutions should consider the potential non-inferiority of virtual interviews with financial and other benefits when making decisions about future interview formats.
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.