ArticleFamily medicine2026
Reflections on Family Medicine's First Year of Program Signals and Other New ERAS Features.
Article in Family medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Preference Signaling in Family Medicine: Context Matters.Family medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe 2023-2024 Electronic Residency Application Services® (ERAS®) cycle introduced program signals, geographic signals, and a revised experiences section to family medicine residency applications. This study explored how family medicine applicants, program directors (PDs), and medical student faculty advisors perceived the value of these new ERAS features.
methodsWe conducted semistructured interviews with 2024 National Resident Matching Program family medicine applicants, PDs, and advisors, all recruited through the American Academy of Family Physicians Student and Resident Initiatives program. Rapid qualitative analysis identified key themes from interviews.
resultsOf 145 individuals contacted, 10 applicants, 11 PDs, and 10 advisors participated. Three key themes emerged: (1) the need for clearer communication, transparency, and standardized guidance from ERAS and programs; (2) signals were most useful as a tiebreaker, while geographic preferences were perceived as too broad to be meaningful; and (3) applicants were concerned about potential inequities in the new features, particularly for international medical graduates and those with less access to informational resources. Despite initial uncertainty, participants viewed signals as a promising tool for refining the match process. However, they emphasized the need for further data to assess long-term effects on applicant behavior, program selection, and equity.
conclusionsWhile new ERAS features were perceived favorably overall, applicants, PDs, and advisors would like to see increased clarity and consistency in communications and implementation to alleviate applicant stress and ensure equitable and informed decision-making. Future research should explore signal distribution and interview conversion rates to further optimize the 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.