Literature DB >> 29710103

Association of Mentor-to-Program Contact and Applicant Rank Disclosure With Vitreoretinal Fellowship Applicant's Final Match Outcome in 2016 and 2017.

Steven M Christiansen1,2, James M Osher1,2, Christopher D Riemann1,2.   

Abstract

Importance: Communication between applicants, mentors, and training programs is common before the residency and fellowship match. Few studies have examined the association of prematch communication on final match outcomes.
Objectives: To report various characteristics of the vitreoretinal surgery fellowship match and to examine the association of mentor-to-program communication and applicant disclosure of their number 1 ranking with the probability of matching number 1. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study of the 2016 and 2017 vitreoretinal surgery fellowship matches, an online survey examined (1) number of applications submitted, (2) number of programs ranked, (3) rank order of final match, (4) total application and interview-related costs, (5) mentor-to-program contact, (6) applicant disclosure of number 1 ranking, and (7) mentor disclosure of number 1 ranking. A link to an anonymous online survey was sent to 198 matched fellows (105 fellows from the 2016 match and 93 from the 2017 match). Main Outcomes and Measures: Survey responses regarding the vitreoretinal surgery fellowship application process.
Results: The survey was sent to 198 matched fellowship applicants, and 152 (77%) completed the survey. Of the 105 matched applicants in 2016, 21 (20%) were women. Of the 93 matched applicants in 2017, 24 (26%) were women. Matched applicants applied to a mean (SD) of 34 (17) programs (range, 1-85) and ranked a mean (SD) of 12 (4) programs (range, 1-27). Of 152 applicants, 66 (43%) matched at their number 1 ranked program, 23 (15%) matched number 2, and 21 (14%) matched number 3. The mean (SD) total cost was $5500 ($2776) (range, $500-$13 500). Two-sided χ2 testing found no association (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.34-1.4; P = .33) between mentor-to-program contact and the probability of applicants matching at their number 1 ranked program. Matched applicants who revealed their number 1 ranking either personally or via a mentor matched at a program ranked lower (more desirable) on their rank list (mean match ranking, 2.8) compared with those who did not reveal their number 1 ranking (mean match ranking, 4.2; 95% CI, 0.2-2.5; P = .01). Applicant disclosure of their intention to rank a program number 1, either personally or via a mentor, was associated with matching number 1 (odds ratio, 2.6; range, 1.1-6.0; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Vitreoretinal fellowship applicants who disclosed their number 1 ranking, either personally or via a mentor, were associated with improved match outcomes compared with their cohorts who did not make such disclosures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29710103      PMCID: PMC6145776          DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.1107

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol        ISSN: 2168-6165            Impact factor:   7.389


  22 in total

1.  Recruitment behavior and program directors: how ethical are their perspectives about the match process?

Authors:  P J Carek; K D Anderson; A V Blue; B E Mavis
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 1.756

2.  The integrity of the dermatology National Resident Matching Program: results of a national study.

Authors:  Jennifer A Sbicca; Emily S Gorell; Matthew H Kanzler; Alfred T Lane
Journal:  J Am Acad Dermatol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 11.527

3.  Factors important in laryngology fellow and laryngology fellowship selection.

Authors:  Katherine C Yung; Mark S Courey
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2015-07-07       Impact factor: 3.325

4.  Orthopedic surgery fellowships: the effects of interviewing and how residents establish a rank list.

Authors:  Matthew C Niesen; Jeffrey Wong; Edward Ebramzadeh; Sophia Sangiorgio; Nelson Fong SooHoo; James V Luck; Jeffrey Eckardt
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.390

5.  More Transparency Is Needed to Curb Excessive Residency Applications.

Authors:  Francis Deng; Jenny X Chen; Austin Wesevich
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 6.893

6.  A Proposal to Address the Increasing Number of Residency Applications.

Authors:  William J Hueston
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 6.893

7.  Postinterview communication between military residency applicants and training programs.

Authors:  Temple A Ratcliffe; Steven J Durning; Anupam B Jena; Thomas Grau; Anthony R Artino; Vineet M Arora; Karen E Hauer; Nicole Borges; Nancy Oriol; D Michael Elnicki; Mark J Fagan; Heather E Harrell; Dario M Torre; Meryl Prochaska; David O Meltzer; Shalini Reddy
Journal:  Mil Med       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 1.437

8.  Postinterview communication with residency applicants: a call for clarity!

Authors:  Gary N Frishman; Kristen A Matteson; Jessica L Bienstock; Karen E George; Tony Ogburn; Phillip N Rauk; Peter F Schnatz; Lee A Learman
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-07-25       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  Asking for a commitment: violations during the 2007 match and the effect on applicant rank lists.

Authors:  H Gene Hern; Brian Johnson; Harrison J Alter; Charlotte P Wills; Eric R Snoey; Barry C Simon
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2015-02-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.