Attending Perceptions on the Use of Preference Signaling in the Ophthalmology Residency Application Process

Geoffrey Nguyen, Benjamin Lin, Jayanth Sridhar, Moran R. Levin
{"title":"Attending Perceptions on the Use of Preference Signaling in the Ophthalmology Residency Application Process","authors":"Geoffrey Nguyen, Benjamin Lin, Jayanth Sridhar, Moran R. Levin","doi":"10.1055/s-0043-1775576","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective This article characterizes perspectives of ophthalmologists involved in the residency selection process regarding the potential impact of preference signaling on the ophthalmology residency match. Methods An anonymous online questionnaire generated from SurveyMonkey was approved by the Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology (AUPO) Data Resource Committee for distribution to 391 individuals from the AUPO Departmental Chairs, Program Directors, and Directors of Medical Student Education email listservs in August 2022. Results A total of 96 (24.6%) ophthalmology faculty completed the questionnaire. The majority (n = 76, 79.2%) agreed or strongly agreed that preference signaling should be implemented in the ophthalmology residency application system. Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that preference signaling will allow for more holistic reviews of applications (n = 55, 57.3%), agreed or strongly agreed that it will benefit applicants who do not have connections to home programs or faculty that can reach out to desired programs (n = 81, 84.4%), and agreed or strongly agreed that it will improve the distribution of interviews to applicants (n = 76, 79.2%). Participants agreed or strongly agreed that applicants who have signaled interest in their program will receive preference when offering interviews (n = 59, 61.5%), and those signals will be used as a tiebreaker for similar applications (n = 75, 78.1%). The majority of participants believed that the ideal number of preference signals' applicants should be given three to four signals (n = 35, 36.0%) or five to six signals (n = 29, 30.2%). Conclusion A majority of ophthalmology faculty surveyed support the integration of preference signaling into the ophthalmology residency match.","PeriodicalId":73579,"journal":{"name":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1775576","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Objective This article characterizes perspectives of ophthalmologists involved in the residency selection process regarding the potential impact of preference signaling on the ophthalmology residency match. Methods An anonymous online questionnaire generated from SurveyMonkey was approved by the Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology (AUPO) Data Resource Committee for distribution to 391 individuals from the AUPO Departmental Chairs, Program Directors, and Directors of Medical Student Education email listservs in August 2022. Results A total of 96 (24.6%) ophthalmology faculty completed the questionnaire. The majority (n = 76, 79.2%) agreed or strongly agreed that preference signaling should be implemented in the ophthalmology residency application system. Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that preference signaling will allow for more holistic reviews of applications (n = 55, 57.3%), agreed or strongly agreed that it will benefit applicants who do not have connections to home programs or faculty that can reach out to desired programs (n = 81, 84.4%), and agreed or strongly agreed that it will improve the distribution of interviews to applicants (n = 76, 79.2%). Participants agreed or strongly agreed that applicants who have signaled interest in their program will receive preference when offering interviews (n = 59, 61.5%), and those signals will be used as a tiebreaker for similar applications (n = 75, 78.1%). The majority of participants believed that the ideal number of preference signals' applicants should be given three to four signals (n = 35, 36.0%) or five to six signals (n = 29, 30.2%). Conclusion A majority of ophthalmology faculty surveyed support the integration of preference signaling into the ophthalmology residency match.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
主治医师对眼科住院医师申请过程中使用偏好信号的看法
摘要目的介绍参与住院医师选择过程的眼科医生的观点,探讨偏好信号对眼科住院医师匹配的潜在影响。方法由美国眼科大学教授协会(AUPO)数据资源委员会于2022年8月批准从SurveyMonkey生成的匿名在线问卷,向来自AUPO系主任、项目主任和医学生教育电子邮件服务主任的391名个人分发。结果96名眼科教师(24.6%)完成问卷调查。大多数(n = 76, 79.2%)同意或强烈同意在眼科住院医师申请系统中实施偏好信号。大多数受访者同意或强烈同意偏好信号将允许对申请进行更全面的审查(n = 55, 57.3%),同意或强烈同意它将有利于与家庭项目没有联系的申请人或可以接触到所需项目的教员(n = 81, 84.4%),并同意或强烈同意它将改善对申请人的面试分配(n = 76, 79.2%)。参与者同意或强烈同意,对他们的项目表现出兴趣的申请人将在面试时获得优先权(n = 59,61.5%),这些信号将被用作类似申请的决定性因素(n = 75,78.1%)。大多数参与者认为,理想的偏好信号申请人数量应该是3到4个信号(n = 35, 36.0%)或5到6个信号(n = 29, 30.2%)。结论接受调查的大多数眼科教师支持将偏好信号纳入眼科住院医师匹配。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Erratum: The Big Data Gap: Asymmetric Information in the Ophthalmology Residency Match Process and the Argument for Transparent Residency Data. Self-Reported Perceptions of Preparedness among Incoming Ophthalmology Residents. The Matthew Effect: Prevalence of Doctor and Physician Parents among Ophthalmology Applicants. Gender Representation on North American Ophthalmology Societies' Governance Boards. The Big Data Gap: Asymmetric Information in the Ophthalmology Residency Match Process and the Argument for Transparent Residency Data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1