Interview Type and Signal Preferences of Interview Applicants to a Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Residency Program: A Pilot Study.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2025-02-25 DOI:10.1097/PHM.0000000000002722
Eduard Tiozzo, Lance Reccoppa, Gemayaret Alvarez, Tricia A Prince, Andrew L Sherman, Leslie Morse, Kerstin Yu, Diana Molinares
{"title":"Interview Type and Signal Preferences of Interview Applicants to a Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Residency Program: A Pilot Study.","authors":"Eduard Tiozzo, Lance Reccoppa, Gemayaret Alvarez, Tricia A Prince, Andrew L Sherman, Leslie Morse, Kerstin Yu, Diana Molinares","doi":"10.1097/PHM.0000000000002722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>This study examined preferences in interview type and signals among applicants interviewed by a non-surgical residency program during the 2023-2024 application cycle. A Qualtrics survey was sent to 88 interview applicants of a university-based Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R) residency program. Main outcomes included interview type preference the applicants had with our PM&R program only and their interview type preference with multiple PM&R programs, and preferred number of signals. A resulting 38% of applicants completed the survey. The responders (n = 33) had a similar sex and race distribution compared to all interview applicants. Regarding preferred interview type for our single program, 42% favored in-person, while 40% favored virtual. Those geographically closer to our program had similar interview-type preferences compared to participants from other regions. For multiple program interviews, 52% preferred hybrid, 24% virtual, and 15% in-person format. For signal preferences, 70% of the applicants preferred more than five program signals. The program signaling preference was similar between those with more versus less interviews, for which the cut-off of 10 interviews during the 2023-2024 application cycle was used. Overall, respondents did not have a preferred interview format with a single program, strongly preferred the hybrid format when considering multiple programs, and preferred more program signals.</p>","PeriodicalId":7850,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000002722","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: This study examined preferences in interview type and signals among applicants interviewed by a non-surgical residency program during the 2023-2024 application cycle. A Qualtrics survey was sent to 88 interview applicants of a university-based Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R) residency program. Main outcomes included interview type preference the applicants had with our PM&R program only and their interview type preference with multiple PM&R programs, and preferred number of signals. A resulting 38% of applicants completed the survey. The responders (n = 33) had a similar sex and race distribution compared to all interview applicants. Regarding preferred interview type for our single program, 42% favored in-person, while 40% favored virtual. Those geographically closer to our program had similar interview-type preferences compared to participants from other regions. For multiple program interviews, 52% preferred hybrid, 24% virtual, and 15% in-person format. For signal preferences, 70% of the applicants preferred more than five program signals. The program signaling preference was similar between those with more versus less interviews, for which the cut-off of 10 interviews during the 2023-2024 application cycle was used. Overall, respondents did not have a preferred interview format with a single program, strongly preferred the hybrid format when considering multiple programs, and preferred more program signals.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
423
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation focuses on the practice, research and educational aspects of physical medicine and rehabilitation. Monthly issues keep physiatrists up-to-date on the optimal functional restoration of patients with disabilities, physical treatment of neuromuscular impairments, the development of new rehabilitative technologies, and the use of electrodiagnostic studies. The Journal publishes cutting-edge basic and clinical research, clinical case reports and in-depth topical reviews of interest to rehabilitation professionals. Topics include prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of musculoskeletal conditions, brain injury, spinal cord injury, cardiopulmonary disease, trauma, acute and chronic pain, amputation, prosthetics and orthotics, mobility, gait, and pediatrics as well as areas related to education and administration. Other important areas of interest include cancer rehabilitation, aging, and exercise. The Journal has recently published a series of articles on the topic of outcomes research. This well-established journal is the official scholarly publication of the Association of Academic Physiatrists (AAP).
期刊最新文献
A Rare Ganglionic Cyst of Medial Collateral Ligament of Knee: A Visual Vignette. The Effect of Wearable Robot-Assisted Gait Training on Balance and Walking Ability in Subacute Stroke Patients. Unilateral Abdominal Wall Atrophy Due to Intercostal Nerve Injury Following Rib Fractures: A Rare Clinical Presentation. 2024 AJPM&R Reviewers. Choosing Wisely in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation: Developing Canadian Recommendations for Resource Stewardship.
×
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