Amporn Atsawarungruangkit1, Jirat Chenbhanich2, Tanit Phupitakphol2, George Dickstein2,3. 1. Department of Medicine, MetroWest Medical Center, Framingham, MA, 01702, USA. a.atsawarungruangkit@mwmc.com. 2. Department of Medicine, MetroWest Medical Center, Framingham, MA, 01702, USA. 3. Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, 02111, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Based on the location of training programs, internal applicants and local applicants were defined as applicants who attended the same training institution and trained in local areas (i.e., state, division, and region), respectively. While being an internal applicant does influence fellowship matching success for some specialties, gastroenterology fellowship program directors do not rank this consideration in the top half of their priority list. There is no published evidence about the frequency that internal applicants and local applicants match in US gastroenterology training program. AIM: To find the proportion of gastroenterologists who were internal applicants and local applicants during the graduation years 2010-2019. METHODS: Online search in Doximity was conducted to obtain postgraduate training information of gastroenterologists with the graduation years 2010-2019. Programs were classified into nine divisions and four regions per United States Census Bureau. We used confidence level 95% and margin of error 2% to calculate sample size. RESULTS: In total, 1489 physicians (N = 1489) were included. The proportion of internal applicants was 39.56% of the sample size. The proportions of gastroenterologists who attended IM residency programs in the same state, same division, and same region were 53.06, 60.64, and 71.93%, respectively. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of gastroenterologists were either internal applicants or local applicants. Further research is necessary to better understand the reasons behind these trends and whether the bias against external or geographically distant fellowship candidates is intended or unintended, as these data have broad implications for GI fellowship candidate residency program and geography choices.
BACKGROUND: Based on the location of training programs, internal applicants and local applicants were defined as applicants who attended the same training institution and trained in local areas (i.e., state, division, and region), respectively. While being an internal applicant does influence fellowship matching success for some specialties, gastroenterology fellowship program directors do not rank this consideration in the top half of their priority list. There is no published evidence about the frequency that internal applicants and local applicants match in US gastroenterology training program. AIM: To find the proportion of gastroenterologists who were internal applicants and local applicants during the graduation years 2010-2019. METHODS: Online search in Doximity was conducted to obtain postgraduate training information of gastroenterologists with the graduation years 2010-2019. Programs were classified into nine divisions and four regions per United States Census Bureau. We used confidence level 95% and margin of error 2% to calculate sample size. RESULTS: In total, 1489 physicians (N = 1489) were included. The proportion of internal applicants was 39.56% of the sample size. The proportions of gastroenterologists who attended IM residency programs in the same state, same division, and same region were 53.06, 60.64, and 71.93%, respectively. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of gastroenterologists were either internal applicants or local applicants. Further research is necessary to better understand the reasons behind these trends and whether the bias against external or geographically distant fellowship candidates is intended or unintended, as these data have broad implications for GI fellowship candidate residency program and geography choices.
Keywords:
Education; Fellowship matching; Internal candidate; Local candidate; Training
Authors: Elizabeth E Uhlenhake; Bruce R Smoller; Hillary R Elwood; Sara C Shalin; Jerad M Gardner Journal: J Cutan Pathol Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 1.587