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":"120 45","pages":""},"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.