Literature DB >> 31977301

Survey of Canadian urology programs: Which aspects of the Canadian Residency Matching Service (CaRMS) application are the most important?

David-Dan Nguyen1, Jason Y Lee2, Trustin Domes3, Mohamed El-Sherbiny4, Sero Andonian4, Julie Franc-Guimond5, Julien Letendre5, Paul Perrotte5, Naeem Bhojani5.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: For medical students, determining which aspects of the Canadian Residency Matching Service (CaRMS) application are the most important when applying to residency programs can be challenging. Due to the lack of current and reliable information on the selection criteria of Canadian urology residency programs, we surveyed each program about which criteria are the most important when selecting future residents in order to provide medical students with more transparency and programs with a better idea of how their criteria compare to those of others.
METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to all 13 Canadian urology residency programs (both program directors and selection committee members). It asked respondents to rate each aspect of the application on a five-point Likert scale. Following a 100% response rate from program directors, the same survey was sent to selection committee members. A numeric mean score was calculated for each individual aspect surveyed to create an overall rank list of the components. Independent samples t-tests (two groups) were used to compare the scores of program directors vs. program committee members and of francophone programs vs. anglophone programs.
RESULTS: Forty-three urologists involved in the application process answered. The three most important aspects were rotation performance at the respondent's institution (4.95±0.21), quality of reference letters from a urologist (4.60±0.62), and interview performance (4.49±0.63). There were no statistically significant differences between program directors and committee members for mean score of any aspect surveyed. Compared to anglophone programs, francophone programs gave statistically more significant importance to French proficiency (p<0.001) and pre-clinical academic performance (p=0.0272), while giving less importance to English proficiency (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Canadian urology residency programs are similar in that they rank "clinical performance during a rotation at their school" as the most important selection criteria when choosing a future urology trainee. Graduate degrees, career plans, and reference letters from non-urologists have less impact when choosing future urology residents. Francophone schools and anglophone schools differ in the importance of language proficiency and preclinical grades as selection criteria for urology residency. This study will provide future urology applicants with more information and transparency when applying to urology programs in Canada and be of use to urology residency programs that must now publish their selection criteria.

Year:  2020        PMID: 31977301     DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.6191

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J        ISSN: 1911-6470            Impact factor:   1.862


  8 in total

1.  Virtual "matchmaking" without visiting electives: Overview of the early U.S. experience and potential applications to the 2021 Canadian urology match.

Authors:  David-Dan Nguyen; Chanan R Reitblat; Juan J Andino; Félix Couture; Wilson Sui; Eugene B Cone; Boris Gershman; George E Haleblian; Martin N Kathrins; Ruslan Korets; Kate H Kraft; Paul Perrotte; Kristen R Scarpato; Ajay Singla; Jason Y Lee; Naeem Bhojani
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2021-04       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Development, implementation, and uptake of a novel Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) residency recruitment committee strategy in the era of COVID-19.

Authors:  Emily Nham; Ravi Kumar; Kristen McAlpine; Christine Seabrook; Marika Valle; Isabel Menard; James Watterson; Matthew Roberts
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2022-06       Impact factor: 2.052

3.  Should Canadian urology adopt structured reference letters for residency matching?

Authors:  David-Dan Nguyen; Justin Y H Chan; Sero Andonian; Nader Fahmy; Julien Letendre; Paul Perrotte; Jason Y Lee; Naeem Bhojani
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2022-06       Impact factor: 2.052

4.  Matching to urology during the COVID-19 pandemic and with the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada electives diversification policy: Survey of the 2021 urology Canadian Residency Matching Service applicants.

Authors:  David-Dan Nguyen; Keith F Rourke; Adam Gabara; Edward D Matsumoto; Naeem Bhojani; Trustin Domes
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2022-06       Impact factor: 2.052

5.  Survey of Saudi urology program directors: What do you look for in a candidate?

Authors:  Fahad A Alyami; Mana A Almuhaideb; Meshari A Alzahrani; Abdulaziz M Althunayan; Raed M Almannie
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2021-07-14

6.  Criteria for selection to anesthesia residency programs: a survey of Canadian anesthesia program directors.

Authors:  Kacper Niburski; Natalie Buu
Journal:  Can Med Educ J       Date:  2021-09-14

7.  New virtual CaRMS: perspectives from residency programs.

Authors:  Anne Xuan-Lan Nguyen; Ian Clark; Karim F Damji; Patrick Hamel; Marie-Lyne Bélair; Émilie Goodyear; Isabelle Hardy
Journal:  Can J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 2.592

8.  Impact of Early Exposure to Simulation Program on Undergraduate Medical Students' Interest in Urology.

Authors:  Tomokazu Kimura; Kosuke Kojo; Masanobu Shiga; Ichiro Chihara; Atsushi Ikeda; Shuya Kandori; Takahiro Kojima; Junji Haruta; Hiroyuki Nishiyama
Journal:  J Med Educ Curric Dev       Date:  2021-05-31
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.