Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41089077›Full record

ArticlePRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)2025

Do Residency Signals Actually Signal Intent? Insights From the 2024 Family Medicine National Resident Survey.

Wendy B Barr, Lars E Peterson, Sarah Fleischer, Andrew W Bazemore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Wendy B BarrAmerican Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY | UMass Chan Medical School, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Worcester, MA | Tufts University School of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, Boston, MA.
Lars E PetersonAmerican Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY | Department of Family and Community Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Sarah FleischerAmerican Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY.
Andrew W BazemoreAmerican Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY | Center for Professionalism and Value in Heath Care, Washington, DC.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Family medicine (FM) residencies' growing reliance on the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) has raised concerns about inefficiencies and costs associated with residency selection. In 2023-2024, the Association of American Medical Colleges Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) introduced program signaling and geographic preferences as tools to improve the residency selection process. However, the association between FM residents' use of these tools and their residency choice has not been investigated. Methods: We used data from the 2024 American Board of Family Medicine National Resident Survey (NRS) which is administered to all residents taking the In-Training Examination. Postgraduate year-1 (PGY-1) residents were asked about their match experience and entry into FM. We conducted descriptive and bivariate analyses by resident characteristics. Results: The majority of 5,237 respondents report that they "signaled" the residency program (59%) and geographic area (72%) where they ultimately matched. International medical graduates were less likely to use geographic preferences and were less likely to be currently in a program that they signaled or that aligned with their geographic preference. DOs were more likely to use both tools and more likely to be in a program that had an aligned preference. Residents who entered through SOAP were less likely to have used either tool, but 10% of residents who entered through SOAP signaled their current program. Conclusions: In a study of nearly all PGY-1 FM residents, we found that applicants are using ERAS signals to indicate real program and geographic preferences, suggesting these tools may support better alignment between applicants and programs.

Identifiers

PMID41089077
PMCPMC12517385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.