Daniel M DePietro1, Ryan M Kiefer2, Jonas W Redmond3, Jason C Hoffmann4, Scott O Trerotola3, Gregory J Nadolski3. 1. Department of Radiology and Division of Interventional Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: daniel.depietro@uphs.upenn.edu. 2. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Radiology and Division of Interventional Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Radiology and Division of Interventional Radiology, NYU Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, New York.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To characterize and compare the experiences of matched applicants and program directors (PDs) participating in the first large-scale integrated interventional radiology (IR) residency match. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Survey questionnaires were distributed nationally to integrated IR applicants who matched in the 2017 Match cycle and PDs. Both groups were questioned regarding their experiences with the application, interview, rank, and match processes as well as applicant-specific and PD-specific information. Summary and descriptive statistics were applied to responses, and comparison of Likert scale responses was performed by two-sample t test. RESULTS: Sixty-one matched applicants (51.3%) and 34 PDs (55.7%) responded to the survey. Regarding the match process, applicants believed United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score (P = .002) and connection to a program's geographic location (P = .006) were significantly more important than PDs did, whereas PDs ranked grades (P = .049), class rank (P = .011), academic awards (P = .003), additional degrees (P < .001), and USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skills score (P < .001) as significantly more important factors than applicants did. Additional information regarding demographic data, medical school experiences in IR, application strategies, interview experiences, rank lists, the intern year, and match results are reported. CONCLUSIONS: The completion of the first large-scale integrated IR match represents a paradigm shift in the way in which IR practitioners are recruited and trained. This study provides valuable benchmark data and analysis that can be used to improve efforts to match the best-fitting applicants into the integrated IR residency and improve future match cycles for applicants and PDs alike.
PURPOSE: To characterize and compare the experiences of matched applicants and program directors (PDs) participating in the first large-scale integrated interventional radiology (IR) residency match. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Survey questionnaires were distributed nationally to integrated IR applicants who matched in the 2017 Match cycle and PDs. Both groups were questioned regarding their experiences with the application, interview, rank, and match processes as well as applicant-specific and PD-specific information. Summary and descriptive statistics were applied to responses, and comparison of Likert scale responses was performed by two-sample t test. RESULTS: Sixty-one matched applicants (51.3%) and 34 PDs (55.7%) responded to the survey. Regarding the match process, applicants believed United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score (P = .002) and connection to a program's geographic location (P = .006) were significantly more important than PDs did, whereas PDs ranked grades (P = .049), class rank (P = .011), academic awards (P = .003), additional degrees (P < .001), and USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skills score (P < .001) as significantly more important factors than applicants did. Additional information regarding demographic data, medical school experiences in IR, application strategies, interview experiences, rank lists, the intern year, and match results are reported. CONCLUSIONS: The completion of the first large-scale integrated IR match represents a paradigm shift in the way in which IR practitioners are recruited and trained. This study provides valuable benchmark data and analysis that can be used to improve efforts to match the best-fitting applicants into the integrated IR residency and improve future match cycles for applicants and PDs alike.