ArticleBMC medical education2025
Maternal-fetal medicine fellow experience in the first year of training compared to interview expectations based on interview modality.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVirtual interviews for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) fellowship have been feasible and successful with significant cost and time savings. However, there are concerns about an applicant's ability to accurately evaluate a program virtually. The objective of this study was to evaluate MFM fellows' experience in their fellowship training program at the completion of their first year compared to their expectations of the program based on their interview, comparing fellows who interviewed in-person to those who interviewed virtually.
methodsA novel cross-sectional online survey was distributed to all first-year MFM fellows in the final class to undergo in-person interviews (2021), as well as those who were the first to interview virtually (2022) at accredited programs in the United States. Participants were asked whether their interview experience provided an accurate representation of their program, whether their interview experience allowed them to accurately assess their "fit," how their expectation of the program prior to starting compared to their actual experience in their first year of training, and their overall satisfaction. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis were performed to compare groups.
resultsWe received 48 responses in 2021, (37.5% response rate) and 48 responses in 2022 (36.1% response rate). There was no difference between the in-person and virtual groups in agreement that the interview experience provided an accurate representation of the program (p = 0.41). While there was a trend toward more fellows from the in-person group strongly agreeing that their interview experience allowed them to accurately assess their "fit" with the program as compared to the virtual group, there was no significant difference in ability to assess fit between groups (p = 0.06). There was no difference in expectation of the program prior to starting compared to the actual experience in the first year of fellowship (p = 0.18) or overall satisfaction with the fellowship program (p = 0.95).
conclusionsMFM fellows' expectations of their fellowship program matched their experience in the first year of training whether the fellow interviewed virtually or in person. These data suggest that virtual interviews are as effective as in-person interviews in providing realistic expectations of the program and thus support ongoing exclusive virtual interviews in our subspecialty.
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.