ArticleAmerican journal of medicine open2024
Current Communication Practices Between Internal Medicine Subspecialty Fellowship Applicants and Program Directors: A National Survey.
Article in American journal of medicine open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: As fellowship applications increasingly transition to virtual interviews, the role of social media in this process remains uncertain. This study explores internal medicine subspecialty program directors' (PDs) perspectives on current communication practices, including the use of social media and email, between applicants and programs. Method: A national survey was conducted among U.S. internal medicine subspecialty fellowship PDs from November to December 2023. The survey collected demographic information about PDs, program-level information, and their views on using social media platforms (Twitter/X and Instagram) and email for program promotion and application review. Results: Out of 297 PDs who responded (18.5% response rate), 52% were male, 69% identified as White/Caucasian, majority from age group 46-50 years. The subspecialties with the highest representation were infectious disease (15%), pulmonology and critical care (14%), and cardiology (12%). Among respondents, 41% used Twitter/X and 24% used Instagram for program promotion. A smaller fraction reviewed applicants through these platforms for interview invitations (14% via Twitter/X and 7% via Instagram). PDs reported receiving an average of 35 letters of intent emails and calling 36% of applicants for interviews. Conclusions: This study is the first to assess the value PDs place on social media and email in the fellowship application review process across various internal medicine subspecialties. While social media is a valuable tool for program promotion and engagement, traditional email outreach remains crucial in the interview selection process.
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.