Alexander Domingo1,2, Rebecca E Rdesinski2,3, Amy Stenson2,4, Megan Aylor2,5, John Sullenbarger2,6, Joanna Hatfield2,7, Sara Walker2,8, Shane Hervey2,9, Justin Singer2,10, Adrian Cois2,11, Anthony Cheng2,12. 1. is Assistant Professor, Family Medicine. 2. All authors are with the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine. 3. is Senior Research Associate, Family Medicine. 4. is Program Director and Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 5. is Program Director and Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Hospital Medicine. 6. is PGY-3 Resident, Psychiatry. 7. is Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 8. is Associate Professor of Psychiatry. 9. is an MS-4 Medical Student. 10. is a PGY-2 Resident, Obstetrics and Gynecology. 11. is a PGY-2 Resident, Emergency Medicine. 12. is Assistant Residency Director and Assistant Professor of Family Medicine.
Abstract
Background: Studies of the virtual interview format are needed to inform medical residency program leaders as they plan for future virtual interview seasons. Objective: In the current study, completed in 2021, we sought to assess applicant perspectives of virtual interview effectiveness, advantages, and barriers, including factors that might impact equity and inclusion. Methods: Interviewees applying to 7 residency programs and 2 clinical psychology programs at an academic medical center in the Pacific Northwest completed a post-interview survey. Results: A total of 565 of 1429 interviewees (40%) completed the survey. A vast majority (83%-96%) agreed virtual interviews were effective in each measured domain, except for learning institutional culture (352 of 565, 62%). Many also found information regarding social/living environments inadequate. Participants selected advantages to virtual interviews more frequently than disadvantages. Commonly selected advantages included cost savings, time efficiency, reduced burden of travel, and reduced carbon footprint. Disadvantages included time zone differences, access to an appropriate interview setting, and reliable access to internet. The majority of interviewees (84%, 456 of 542) desired to keep a component of virtual interviews in the future. There were no significant disparities in results based on gender, rural/suburban/urban location, race, or underrepresented minority status. Conclusions: Virtual interviews were perceived as effective, more advantageous than burdensome, and widely acceptable, with no disparities in these findings by included demographic characteristics.
Background: Studies of the virtual interview format are needed to inform medical residency program leaders as they plan for future virtual interview seasons. Objective: In the current study, completed in 2021, we sought to assess applicant perspectives of virtual interview effectiveness, advantages, and barriers, including factors that might impact equity and inclusion. Methods: Interviewees applying to 7 residency programs and 2 clinical psychology programs at an academic medical center in the Pacific Northwest completed a post-interview survey. Results: A total of 565 of 1429 interviewees (40%) completed the survey. A vast majority (83%-96%) agreed virtual interviews were effective in each measured domain, except for learning institutional culture (352 of 565, 62%). Many also found information regarding social/living environments inadequate. Participants selected advantages to virtual interviews more frequently than disadvantages. Commonly selected advantages included cost savings, time efficiency, reduced burden of travel, and reduced carbon footprint. Disadvantages included time zone differences, access to an appropriate interview setting, and reliable access to internet. The majority of interviewees (84%, 456 of 542) desired to keep a component of virtual interviews in the future. There were no significant disparities in results based on gender, rural/suburban/urban location, race, or underrepresented minority status. Conclusions: Virtual interviews were perceived as effective, more advantageous than burdensome, and widely acceptable, with no disparities in these findings by included demographic characteristics.
Authors: Sirichai Pasadhika; Todd Altenbernd; Richard R Ober; Erin M Harvey; Joseph M Miller Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Satyan K Shah; Sanjeev Arora; Betty Skipper; Summers Kalishman; T Craig Timm; Anthony Y Smith Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Srinivas M Susarla; Edward W Swanson; Sheri Slezak; Scott D Lifchez; Richard J Redett Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Laura A Huppert; Edward C Hsiao; Kerry C Cho; Carina Marquez; Rafia I Chaudhry; James Frank; Sarah E Goglin; Gerald Hsu; Priya Kathpalia; Raman Khanna; Tejaswi Kompala; Madhu N Rao; Bree A Bower; Vanessa Trafas; Lekshmi Santhosh; Brian S Schwartz; Jennifer M Babik Journal: Acad Med Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 7.840
Authors: Ryan W Day; Brigitte M Taylor; Brian K Bednarski; Ching-Wei D Tzeng; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Jeffrey E Lee; Elizabeth G Grubbs Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Arnab Majumder; Shaina R Eckhouse; L Michael Brunt; Michael M Awad; Francesca M Dimou; J Christopher Eagon; Sara Holden; Heather Fone; Jeffrey A Blatnik Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Dhairya A Lakhani; Francis Deng; Charlotte Chung; Mohit Agarwal; Ashley Aiken; Lori A Deitte; Erik H Middlebrooks Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2022-09-09 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Vera P Luther; David A Wininger; Cindy J Lai; Anthony Dao; Maria M Garcia; Whitney Harper; Timothy M Chow; Ricardo Correa; Lindsey J Gay; Lyle Fettig; Bhavin Dalal; Patricia Vassallo; Steven Barczi; Michelle Sweet Journal: Am J Med Date: 2022-07-09 Impact factor: 5.928