ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2025
Financial Burden of Emergency Medicine Residency Applications: Pre-, During, and Post-Pandemic.
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionApplying to emergency medicine (EM) residency programs is costly. In the past several years, the EM residency application process has undergone multiple changes in recommendations regarding away rotations and interview format, primarily but not solely driven by COVID-19 restrictions. To date, little is known about the financial impact of these changes on EM applicants. This study assesses recent trends and changes in the costs of the EM residency application.
methodsWe analyzed EM applicant survey data from the Texas STAR (Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency) database from 2019-2024. Application cycles were grouped into three time periods: pre-pandemic (2019-2020), pandemic (2021-2022), and post-pandemic (2023-2024). Applicants' self-reported data for application fees, away rotation costs, interview costs, and total expenses were analyzed. We conducted Kruskal-Wallis testing to evaluate differences in expense-related variables across the three time periods. We performed post-hoc analysis using the Dunn test if significant differences were detected.
resultsThis study included 3,495 EM applicants, which represents 8.4% of the total 41,497 Texas STAR survey respondents from 2019-2024. Average per-applicant total costs were $5,412, $2,076, and $3,156 in the pre-, during-, and post-pandemic application cycles. Self-reported total applicant expenses decreased between the pre- and pandemic period and increased from the pandemic and post-pandemic period (P < .01). Applicants had the lowest overall costs in 2021. Away rotation, second look, application costs, interview travel and lodging, and virtual interview costs all reached their lowest levels during the pandemic period (P < .01). In the post-pandemic period, travel and lodging costs were higher than pre- and during pandemic levels, while interview costs remained lower due to the continued use of virtual interviews (P < .01). Applicants from the Western Region of the US saw the highest total costs compared to the Northeast, which saw the lowest.
conclusionThe total expenses reported by medical students applying to EM residency programs were significantly reduced during the pandemic, compared to other years. Some expenses, notably away rotation and second look and application costs, have risen post-pandemic. To help reduce the financial burden of the EM residency process, the continued use of virtual interviews is an opportunity for cost savings.
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.