OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the capacity of a holistic review process in comparison with non-holistic approaches to facilitate mission-driven recruitment in residency interview screening and selection, with particular attention to the promotion of race equity for applicants underrepresented in medicine (URM). METHODS: Five hundred forty-seven applicants to a psychiatry residency program from US allopathic medical schools were evaluated for interview selection via three distinct screening rubrics-one holistic approach (Holistic Review; HR) and two non-holistic processes: Traditional (TR) and Traditional Modified (TM). Each applicant was assigned a composite score corresponding to each rubric, and the top 100 applicants in each rubric were identified as selected for interview. Odds ratios (OR) of selection for interview according to URM status and secondary outcomes, including clinical performance and lived experience, were measured by analysis of group composition via univariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Relative to Traditional, Holistic Review significantly increased the odds of URM applicant selection for interview (TR-OR: 0.35 vs HR-OR: 0.84, p < 0.01). Assigning value to lived experience and de-emphasizing USMLE STEP1 scores contributed to the significant changes in odds ratio of interview selection for URM applicants. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional interview selection methods systematically exclude URM applicants from consideration without due attention to applicant strengths or potential contribution to clinical care. Conversely, holistic screening represents a structural intervention capable of critically examining measures of merit, reducing bias, and increasing URM representation in residency recruitment, screening, and selection.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the capacity of a holistic review process in comparison with non-holistic approaches to facilitate mission-driven recruitment in residency interview screening and selection, with particular attention to the promotion of race equity for applicants underrepresented in medicine (URM). METHODS: Five hundred forty-seven applicants to a psychiatry residency program from US allopathic medical schools were evaluated for interview selection via three distinct screening rubrics-one holistic approach (Holistic Review; HR) and two non-holistic processes: Traditional (TR) and Traditional Modified (TM). Each applicant was assigned a composite score corresponding to each rubric, and the top 100 applicants in each rubric were identified as selected for interview. Odds ratios (OR) of selection for interview according to URM status and secondary outcomes, including clinical performance and lived experience, were measured by analysis of group composition via univariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Relative to Traditional, Holistic Review significantly increased the odds of URM applicant selection for interview (TR-OR: 0.35 vs HR-OR: 0.84, p < 0.01). Assigning value to lived experience and de-emphasizing USMLE STEP1 scores contributed to the significant changes in odds ratio of interview selection for URM applicants. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional interview selection methods systematically exclude URM applicants from consideration without due attention to applicant strengths or potential contribution to clinical care. Conversely, holistic screening represents a structural intervention capable of critically examining measures of merit, reducing bias, and increasing URM representation in residency recruitment, screening, and selection.
Authors: Moises Gallegos; Adaira Landry; Al'ai Alvarez; Dayle Davenport; Martina T Caldwell; Melissa Parsons; Michael Gottlieb; Sreeja Natesan Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2022-05-10
Authors: Asale Hubbard; Andrew Sudler; Jean-Marie E Alves-Bradford; Nhi-Ha Trinh; Anne D Emmerich; Christina Mangurian Journal: Psychiatr Clin North Am Date: 2022-05-14