放射科住院医师配对中的偏好信号:全国申请人调查。

Dhairya A Lakhani, Mahla Radmard, Armin Tafazolimoghadam, Sahil Patel, Arun Murugesan, Hammad Malik, Jeffery P Hogg, Ziling Shen, David M Yousem, Francis Deng
{"title":"放射科住院医师配对中的偏好信号:全国申请人调查。","authors":"Dhairya A Lakhani, Mahla Radmard, Armin Tafazolimoghadam, Sahil Patel, Arun Murugesan, Hammad Malik, Jeffery P Hogg, Ziling Shen, David M Yousem, Francis Deng","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.08.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Two-tiered preference signaling has been implemented in the radiology residency application system to reduce congestion in the setting of high-volume applications. Signals are an indicator of strong interest that an applicant can transmit to a limited number of programs. This study assessed the impact of program signaling on interview invitations, how applicants strategically used signals based on their application's competitiveness, and applicants' attitudes toward the current signaling system.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey was sent to radiology residency applicants registered with TheRadRoom during the 2024 application cycle. We queried the applicants' background, applications, signal distribution, and interview outcome depending on the type of signal sent. We also asked whether respondents received an interview invitation from a hypothetical \"comparator nonsignaled program\" if they had one additional signal to use. Group differences were assessed using nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 202 applicants completed the survey (28% response rate). Most applied to diagnostic radiology (81%). Nearly all respondents used all six gold (98%) and six silver (96.5%) signals. Interview invitation rates were significantly higher for signaled programs (59.8% ± 27.4%) than nonsignaled (8.5% ± 8.5%); the invitation rate at the comparator nonsignaled programs was 37%. Gold-signaled programs had significantly higher interview rates (67.8% ± 29.3) than silver (51.8% ± 31.3%). Respondents used 49.2% (±21.7%) of their signals for \"likely to match\" programs, 33.1% (±20.9%) for \"aspirational\" programs, and 17.6% (±15.8%) for \"safety\" programs. Most respondents (146; 76%) supported continuing the signaling system for future cycles.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Signaling programs significantly enhanced interview invitation rates, with gold signals being more effective than silver. The applicants used about six total signals for \"likely-to-match\" programs, two for \"aspirational\" programs, and about four for \"safety\" programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":73968,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preference Signaling in the Radiology Residency Match: National Survey of Applicants.\",\"authors\":\"Dhairya A Lakhani, Mahla Radmard, Armin Tafazolimoghadam, Sahil Patel, Arun Murugesan, Hammad Malik, Jeffery P Hogg, Ziling Shen, David M Yousem, Francis Deng\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.08.009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Two-tiered preference signaling has been implemented in the radiology residency application system to reduce congestion in the setting of high-volume applications. Signals are an indicator of strong interest that an applicant can transmit to a limited number of programs. This study assessed the impact of program signaling on interview invitations, how applicants strategically used signals based on their application's competitiveness, and applicants' attitudes toward the current signaling system.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey was sent to radiology residency applicants registered with TheRadRoom during the 2024 application cycle. We queried the applicants' background, applications, signal distribution, and interview outcome depending on the type of signal sent. We also asked whether respondents received an interview invitation from a hypothetical \\\"comparator nonsignaled program\\\" if they had one additional signal to use. Group differences were assessed using nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 202 applicants completed the survey (28% response rate). Most applied to diagnostic radiology (81%). Nearly all respondents used all six gold (98%) and six silver (96.5%) signals. Interview invitation rates were significantly higher for signaled programs (59.8% ± 27.4%) than nonsignaled (8.5% ± 8.5%); the invitation rate at the comparator nonsignaled programs was 37%. Gold-signaled programs had significantly higher interview rates (67.8% ± 29.3) than silver (51.8% ± 31.3%). Respondents used 49.2% (±21.7%) of their signals for \\\"likely to match\\\" programs, 33.1% (±20.9%) for \\\"aspirational\\\" programs, and 17.6% (±15.8%) for \\\"safety\\\" programs. Most respondents (146; 76%) supported continuing the signaling system for future cycles.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Signaling programs significantly enhanced interview invitation rates, with gold signals being more effective than silver. The applicants used about six total signals for \\\"likely-to-match\\\" programs, two for \\\"aspirational\\\" programs, and about four for \\\"safety\\\" programs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73968,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2024.08.009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2024.08.009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:放射科住院医师申请系统采用了两级偏好信号,以减少大量申请时的拥堵情况。信号是一种表示强烈兴趣的指标,申请人可将其传递给数量有限的项目。本研究评估了项目信号对面试邀请的影响、申请人如何根据其申请的竞争力战略性地使用信号,以及申请人对当前信号系统的态度:我们向2024年申请周期内在TheRadRoom注册的放射学住院医师申请者发送了一份调查问卷。我们根据发送信号的类型询问了申请人的背景、申请情况、信号分布和面试结果。我们还询问了受访者,如果他们有一个额外的信号可使用,他们是否收到了一个假定的 "无信号参照程序 "的面试邀请。组间差异采用非参数 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验进行评估:共有 202 名申请人完成了调查(回复率为 28%)。大多数申请者从事放射诊断工作(81%)。几乎所有受访者都使用了全部 6 种金信号(98%)和 6 种银信号(96.5%)。金牌项目的面试邀请率(59.8%±27.4%)明显高于非金牌项目(8.5%±8.5%);非金牌项目的面试邀请率为 37%。金牌项目的面试率(67.8%±29.3)明显高于银牌项目(51.8%±31.3%)。受访者将 49.2%(±21.7%)的信号用于 "可能匹配 "的项目,33.1%(±20.9%)用于 "有抱负 "的项目,17.6%(±15.8%)用于 "安全 "的项目。大多数受访者(146;76%)支持在今后的周期中继续采用信号系统:信号系统大大提高了面试邀请率,金信号比银信号更有效。申请人在 "可能匹配 "项目中总共使用了约 6 个信号,在 "有抱负 "项目中使用了 2 个信号,在 "安全 "项目中使用了约 4 个信号。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Preference Signaling in the Radiology Residency Match: National Survey of Applicants.

Objective: Two-tiered preference signaling has been implemented in the radiology residency application system to reduce congestion in the setting of high-volume applications. Signals are an indicator of strong interest that an applicant can transmit to a limited number of programs. This study assessed the impact of program signaling on interview invitations, how applicants strategically used signals based on their application's competitiveness, and applicants' attitudes toward the current signaling system.

Methods: A survey was sent to radiology residency applicants registered with TheRadRoom during the 2024 application cycle. We queried the applicants' background, applications, signal distribution, and interview outcome depending on the type of signal sent. We also asked whether respondents received an interview invitation from a hypothetical "comparator nonsignaled program" if they had one additional signal to use. Group differences were assessed using nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank test.

Results: A total of 202 applicants completed the survey (28% response rate). Most applied to diagnostic radiology (81%). Nearly all respondents used all six gold (98%) and six silver (96.5%) signals. Interview invitation rates were significantly higher for signaled programs (59.8% ± 27.4%) than nonsignaled (8.5% ± 8.5%); the invitation rate at the comparator nonsignaled programs was 37%. Gold-signaled programs had significantly higher interview rates (67.8% ± 29.3) than silver (51.8% ± 31.3%). Respondents used 49.2% (±21.7%) of their signals for "likely to match" programs, 33.1% (±20.9%) for "aspirational" programs, and 17.6% (±15.8%) for "safety" programs. Most respondents (146; 76%) supported continuing the signaling system for future cycles.

Conclusion: Signaling programs significantly enhanced interview invitation rates, with gold signals being more effective than silver. The applicants used about six total signals for "likely-to-match" programs, two for "aspirational" programs, and about four for "safety" programs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
BERTs, Bias, and Babel's Tower in radiology. Has anyone seen our Chief? Female Representation in Integrated Interventional Radiology Residency: Trends, Underrepresentation, and Modest Growth Over Five Years. It's time to retire "you guys" from professional conversations. Screening for Percutaneous Lung Cryoablation Adverse Event Risk: A Single Center Comparative Analysis to Surgical Risk Estimates.
×
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