Eric J Formeister1, Mark S Courey2, Katherine C Yung3. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 2. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Eugen Grabscheid Voice Center, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, New York. 3. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Laryngology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Evaluate program director and recent trainee perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of the laryngology Match. STUDY DESIGN: Web-based survey study. METHODS: A Web-based survey study was distributed to program directors and recent laryngology trainees to evaluate perceptions of the laryngology Match. A 15-item questionnaire with free-form, Likert, and multiple selection answers was emailed to 115 recent/current trainees and 22 laryngology directors. RESULTS: Fifty-nine percent (13/22) of the program directors and 47% (54/115) of the recent trainees responded to the survey. There were significant increases in the number of programs applied to, interview offers received, and interviews attended by laryngology trainees who applied after adoption of the Match compared to those who applied prior to the Match. Seventy-one percent (22/31) of applicants after 2012 participated in the Match; those who did not accepted positions outside of the Match. Ninety-five percent (21/22) who applied through the Match successfully matched. Two-thirds of recent trainees and three-quarters of directors believe the Match process primarily benefits the applicant. The number of candidates interviewed per program approximately doubled from three to six after institution of the Match. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, both program directors and recent or current laryngology trainees have a positive perception of the laryngology match process. The Match process increased the number of applicants and interviews per year, which both directors and trainees believe increases an applicant's chance at successfully matching. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA. Laryngoscope, 127:2818-2822, 2017.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Evaluate program director and recent trainee perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of the laryngology Match. STUDY DESIGN: Web-based survey study. METHODS: A Web-based survey study was distributed to program directors and recent laryngology trainees to evaluate perceptions of the laryngology Match. A 15-item questionnaire with free-form, Likert, and multiple selection answers was emailed to 115 recent/current trainees and 22 laryngology directors. RESULTS: Fifty-nine percent (13/22) of the program directors and 47% (54/115) of the recent trainees responded to the survey. There were significant increases in the number of programs applied to, interview offers received, and interviews attended by laryngology trainees who applied after adoption of the Match compared to those who applied prior to the Match. Seventy-one percent (22/31) of applicants after 2012 participated in the Match; those who did not accepted positions outside of the Match. Ninety-five percent (21/22) who applied through the Match successfully matched. Two-thirds of recent trainees and three-quarters of directors believe the Match process primarily benefits the applicant. The number of candidates interviewed per program approximately doubled from three to six after institution of the Match. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, both program directors and recent or current laryngology trainees have a positive perception of the laryngology match process. The Match process increased the number of applicants and interviews per year, which both directors and trainees believe increases an applicant's chance at successfully matching. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA. Laryngoscope, 127:2818-2822, 2017.