ArticleBMC medical education2025
Heterogeneity in internal medicine chief residency selection processes and role preparation: an opportunity for improvement.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe chief resident (CR) role is integral to graduate medical education and the administrative, educational, and clinical functions of residency programs. There are limited data on the selection and job training of CRs in internal medicine (IM).
methodsWe used data from a previously published cross-sectional survey of IM CRs from 2018 (Garg M, et al., JAMA Netw Open 5:e223882, 2022).. As there is no publicly available national database of CRs, it was not possible to calculate a total number of eligible participants or select a random sample. Therefore, we employed snowball sampling as well as the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine listserv. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. We used Chi square testing to compare responses across gender, race/ethnicity, and academic versus community programs.
resultsThere were 169 respondents. Response rates were 57% in the snowball sample and 12% for the listserv. Forty-two percent of IM CRs were selected via formal application, compared to 49% selected via informal processes. Chi square testing showed a significant difference in formal versus informal selection by race/ethnicity; Black/African American CRs were more likely to be selected via formal processes compared to white, Hispanic/Latinx, and Asian respondents (p = 0.047). There were 69% who reported receiving some formal job training, with no differences in role preparation by gender, race/ethnicity, or program type.
conclusionsStandardization of selection and job training across IM chief residencies could improve consistency in role preparation, performance, and CRs' experiences as well as supporting equity and diversity in CR selection.
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.