Nicholas J Farber1, Christopher J Neylan2, Amy Kaplan2, Eric A Singer2, Sammy E Elsamra2. 1. Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Division of Urology, New Brunswick, NJ. Electronic address: nfarber@gmail.com. 2. Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Division of Urology, New Brunswick, NJ.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand the frequency and nature of postinterview communication as it relates to the rules and regulations of the American Urological Association Urology Residency Match, as well as the impact of such communication on the outcomes of the match. METHODS: An anonymous, electronic survey questionnaire was sent to all applicants to a single urology residency training program during the 2017 American Urological Association match cycle. The survey was administered 1 month after the release of match results and queried applicants regarding their experiences with postinterview communication. RESULTS: Of 231 surveys sent, 78 were returned completed for a 34% response rate. Among respondents, 47 (60%) reported receiving postinterview communication from at least one residency program, 20 (26%) were asked to reveal where they would be ranking a program on their rank list, and 15 (19%) reported that postinterview communication caused them to rank a program higher than initially planned, or to keep the program ranked at #1 if currently ranked there. Postinterview communication via telephone was associated with significantly increased odds of matching at the contacting program (odds ratio 20.0, 95% confidence interval 2.12-188.66, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Postinterview communication between applicants and urology residency programs is prevalent, with numerous violations of the rules of the match. Prohibited communication may impact the rank lists of urology applicants.
OBJECTIVE: To understand the frequency and nature of postinterview communication as it relates to the rules and regulations of the American Urological Association Urology Residency Match, as well as the impact of such communication on the outcomes of the match. METHODS: An anonymous, electronic survey questionnaire was sent to all applicants to a single urology residency training program during the 2017 American Urological Association match cycle. The survey was administered 1 month after the release of match results and queried applicants regarding their experiences with postinterview communication. RESULTS: Of 231 surveys sent, 78 were returned completed for a 34% response rate. Among respondents, 47 (60%) reported receiving postinterview communication from at least one residency program, 20 (26%) were asked to reveal where they would be ranking a program on their rank list, and 15 (19%) reported that postinterview communication caused them to rank a program higher than initially planned, or to keep the program ranked at #1 if currently ranked there. Postinterview communication via telephone was associated with significantly increased odds of matching at the contacting program (odds ratio 20.0, 95% confidence interval 2.12-188.66, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Postinterview communication between applicants and urology residency programs is prevalent, with numerous violations of the rules of the match. Prohibited communication may impact the rank lists of urology applicants.
Authors: Alexandra M Arguello; Bridgette Love; Brent A Ponce; Gerald McGwin; Joshua C Patt; Michael D Johnson; S Elizabeth Ames; Raffi Avedian; Monica Kogan Journal: JB JS Open Access Date: 2022-03-04