Perspectives Regarding Virtual Interviewing for Dermatology Residency in the United States: A Survey of Applicants, Residents, Faculty, and Program Directors in the 2022-2023 Application Cycle

T. Norman, Jana Guenther, Marie D. Lafeir, Scott Worswick
{"title":"Perspectives Regarding Virtual Interviewing for Dermatology Residency in the United States: A Survey of Applicants, Residents, Faculty, and Program Directors in the 2022-2023 Application Cycle","authors":"T. Norman, Jana Guenther, Marie D. Lafeir, Scott Worswick","doi":"10.25251/skin.8.4.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Despite the widespread adoption of virtual interviewing for dermatology residency in the United States (US), there are limited data on the perspectives of those affected.\nObjectives: Characterize the viewpoints regarding virtual interviewing of applicants, residents, and faculty who participated in the 2022-2023 US dermatology residency application cycle.\nMethods: Two anonymized surveys were created: one for applicants and the other for programs (residents, program directors, and other faculty). The program survey was distributed through the US Dermatology Program Director listserv in January 2023. The applicant survey was distributed through email in April 2023.\nResults: There were 336 respondents: 135 applicants, 63 program directors, 77 other faculty, and 61 residents. Overall, the largest proportion favored virtual-only interviewing (39%), followed by some combination of in-person and virtual interviews (28%) and in-person–only interviewing (20%). There was no significant difference between preferences of applicants and program directors (P=0.13). The respondents’ most supported changes for future application cycles were limiting the number of programs to which an applicant can apply (34%), limiting the number of interviews an applicant can accept (30%), and providing funding for applicants with demonstrated need (13%).\nLimitations: Our study may be limited by the response rates, estimated to be 21% for applicants and 45% for program directors. \nConclusion: Given the range of preferences, we would not advocate for requiring virtual-only interviewing at this time for our specialty. Instead, reforms should prioritize the respondents’ most supported changes for future application cycles.","PeriodicalId":22013,"journal":{"name":"SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25251/skin.8.4.6","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

Background: Despite the widespread adoption of virtual interviewing for dermatology residency in the United States (US), there are limited data on the perspectives of those affected. Objectives: Characterize the viewpoints regarding virtual interviewing of applicants, residents, and faculty who participated in the 2022-2023 US dermatology residency application cycle. Methods: Two anonymized surveys were created: one for applicants and the other for programs (residents, program directors, and other faculty). The program survey was distributed through the US Dermatology Program Director listserv in January 2023. The applicant survey was distributed through email in April 2023. Results: There were 336 respondents: 135 applicants, 63 program directors, 77 other faculty, and 61 residents. Overall, the largest proportion favored virtual-only interviewing (39%), followed by some combination of in-person and virtual interviews (28%) and in-person–only interviewing (20%). There was no significant difference between preferences of applicants and program directors (P=0.13). The respondents’ most supported changes for future application cycles were limiting the number of programs to which an applicant can apply (34%), limiting the number of interviews an applicant can accept (30%), and providing funding for applicants with demonstrated need (13%). Limitations: Our study may be limited by the response rates, estimated to be 21% for applicants and 45% for program directors.  Conclusion: Given the range of preferences, we would not advocate for requiring virtual-only interviewing at this time for our specialty. Instead, reforms should prioritize the respondents’ most supported changes for future application cycles.
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
关于美国皮肤科住院医师虚拟面试的观点:对 2022-2023 年申请周期的申请人、住院医师、教师和项目主任的调查
背景:尽管美国皮肤科住院医师培训广泛采用虚拟面试,但有关受影响者观点的数据却很有限:描述参与 2022-2023 年美国皮肤科住院医师申请周期的申请人、住院医师和教师对虚拟面试的看法:制作了两份匿名调查问卷:一份针对申请者,另一份针对项目(住院医师、项目主任和其他教师)。项目调查于 2023 年 1 月通过美国皮肤病学项目主任列表服务器发布。申请人调查于 2023 年 4 月通过电子邮件发送:共有 336 名受访者:135 名申请人、63 名项目主任、77 名其他教师和 61 名住院医师。总体而言,最大比例的受访者倾向于只进行虚拟面试(39%),其次是面谈与虚拟面试相结合(28%)和只进行面谈(20%)。申请人和项目主任的偏好没有明显差异(P=0.13)。受访者最支持在未来申请周期中进行的改革是限制申请人可申请的项目数量(34%)、限制申请人可接受的面试次数(30%)以及为有明确需求的申请人提供资助(13%):我们的研究可能受到回复率的限制,据估计,申请人的回复率为 21%,项目主任的回复率为 45%。结论:考虑到各种偏好,我们不主张目前在本专业中要求只进行虚拟面试。相反,改革应优先考虑受访者最支持的未来申请周期的变化。
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
期刊最新文献
Off-Label Uses of Upadacitinib Stability of Long-Term Therapeutic Responses to Tralokinumab in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis What Do Clinicians Mean When Submitting a Biopsy as “Rule Out Eczema” Deucravacitinib in Plaque Psoriasis: Maintenance of Response Over 4 Years in the Phase 3 POETYK PSO-1, PSO-2, and LTE Trials Zosteriform Atrophoderma of Pasini and Pierini: A Case Report
×
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