Jack H Ruddell1, Adam E M Eltorai1, Andrew S Mark1,2, Sasha Raman1, Cassandra M Sams3,4. 1. Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 2. Division of Pediatric Imaging, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Hasbro Children's Hospital, Rhode Island Medical Imaging, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 593 Eddy St., Providence, RI, 02903, USA. 3. Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. cassandra.sams@lifespan.org. 4. Division of Pediatric Imaging, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Hasbro Children's Hospital, Rhode Island Medical Imaging, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 593 Eddy St., Providence, RI, 02903, USA. cassandra.sams@lifespan.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pediatric radiology fellowship web pages convey practical information and provide an opportunity to impress upon visitors the mission and principles that are core to the program. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the study was to assess pediatric radiology fellowship program websites and identify potential areas for improvement because applications and enrollment have been steadily declining since 2013. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 41 websites of pediatric radiology fellowship programs for 17 criteria. We classified programs by region, size and separate web page status. We compared the met criteria using the Kruskal-Wallis and two-sided t-test, accounting for any unequal variances and distributions. RESULTS: Of the websites evaluated, the average content score was 42.3%, meeting only 7.2±2.9 of the 17 criteria. Programs in the Northeast were associated with higher online comprehensiveness (P=0.034), as were programs with a separate website for pediatric radiology (P<0.001). We also noted a higher number of positions offered per year than there were fellows enrolled (2.73±2.3 versus 1.39±2.3; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The future of diverse pediatric radiology fellowship training opportunities is increasingly influenced by the availability and transparency of fellowship program and training attributes online. With an average content score of 42.3% across the examined fellowship websites, it is evident that there is room for improvement in the information provided by the pediatric radiology fellowship programs, particularly with respect to providing alumni information and job dispositions, listing current fellows whom applicants may contact regarding the program, and including realistic call and other work expectations of fellows.
BACKGROUND: Pediatric radiology fellowship web pages convey practical information and provide an opportunity to impress upon visitors the mission and principles that are core to the program. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the study was to assess pediatric radiology fellowship program websites and identify potential areas for improvement because applications and enrollment have been steadily declining since 2013. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 41 websites of pediatric radiology fellowship programs for 17 criteria. We classified programs by region, size and separate web page status. We compared the met criteria using the Kruskal-Wallis and two-sided t-test, accounting for any unequal variances and distributions. RESULTS: Of the websites evaluated, the average content score was 42.3%, meeting only 7.2±2.9 of the 17 criteria. Programs in the Northeast were associated with higher online comprehensiveness (P=0.034), as were programs with a separate website for pediatric radiology (P<0.001). We also noted a higher number of positions offered per year than there were fellows enrolled (2.73±2.3 versus 1.39±2.3; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The future of diverse pediatric radiology fellowship training opportunities is increasingly influenced by the availability and transparency of fellowship program and training attributes online. With an average content score of 42.3% across the examined fellowship websites, it is evident that there is room for improvement in the information provided by the pediatric radiology fellowship programs, particularly with respect to providing alumni information and job dispositions, listing current fellows whom applicants may contact regarding the program, and including realistic call and other work expectations of fellows.
Authors: Ryan W Arnold; Marilyn J Goske; Dorothy I Bulas; Ellen C Benya; Jun Ying; Jonathan H Sunshine Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Peter F Svider; Amar Gupta; Andrew P Johnson; Giancarlo Zuliani; Mahdi A Shkoukani; Jean Anderson Eloy; Adam J Folbe Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Daniel M DePietro; Ryan M Kiefer; Jonas W Redmond; Jason C Hoffmann; Scott O Trerotola; Gregory J Nadolski Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: David R Hansberry; Jonathan Bornstein; Nitin Agarwal; Kristen E McClure; Sandeep P Deshmukh; Suzanne Long Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 5.532