Explore the vast range of titles available.

We sought to evaluate the unique benefits and challenges the virtual recruitment and interviewing platform had on general surgery residency applicants. Applicants who interviewed for a categorical position at our institution during the 2021 and 2022 Match season were contacted to participate in the anonymous online survey focused on applicant behavior related to the virtual interview format. Data were analyzed using chi-square and paired t-tests. A response rate of 56.7 ​% (n ​= ​135) was achieved. Applicants accepted a median of 17 (IQR 13–20) interviews in 2021 and 15 (IQR 11–19) interviews in 2022. More than half (54 ​%) of applicants indicated they applied to more programs, and 53 ​% accepted more interviews, because of the virtual format. The greatest advantages of the virtual interviews as cited by applicants were saving money (96.3 ​%), saving time (49.6 ​%), and avoiding travel risks (43.7 ​%). The top limitations of virtual interviews were less exposure to current residents and faculty (61.5 ​%), to the city or location of the program (58.5 ​%), and difficultly comparing programs (57.8 ​%). The 2022 Match cycle included use of the supplemental application; however, 85 ​% of applicants did not feel that the supplemental improved their overall application. Some applicants (20 ​%) who “signaled” programs did not receive an interview offer from any of the programs they signaled. The transition to virtual interviews saved applicants time and money but limited their exposure. Future efforts to maintain virtual interviews will need to be balanced against the intangible benefit of human interaction and observing a program's culture. •Applicants applied to more programs and accepted more interviews due to the virtual format.•ERAS supplemental application was perceived by 85 ​% of applicants to not improve their overall application.•The Signaling feature was of uncertain utility, as 20 ​% of applicants did not receive an interview offer from any program they signaled.•Virtual interviews saved applicants time and money but limited their exposure.

Background All Canadian Residency Matching Service (CaRMS) R1 interviews were conducted virtually for the first time in 2021. We explored the facilitators, barriers, and implications of the virtual interview process for the CaRMS R1 match and provide recommendations for improvement. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey study of CaRMS R1 residency applicants and interviewers across Canada in 2021. Surveys were distributed by email to the interviewers, and by email, social media, or newsletter to the applicants. Inductive thematic analysis was used for open-ended items. Recommendations were provided as frequencies to demonstrate strength. Close-ended items were described and compared across groups using Chi-Square Fisher’s Exact tests. Results A total of 127 applicants and 400 interviewers, including 127 program directors, responded to the survey. 193/380 (50.8%) interviewers and 90/118 (76.3%) applicants preferred virtual over in-person interview formats. Facilitators of the virtual interview format included cost and time savings, ease of scheduling, reduced environmental impact, greater equity, less stress, greater reach and participation, and safety. Barriers of the virtual interview format included reduced informal conversations, limited ability for applicants to explore programs at different locations, limited ability for programs to assess applicants’ interest, technological issues, concern for interview integrity, limited non-verbal communication, and reduced networking. The most helpful media for applicants to learn about residency programs were program websites, the CaRMS/AFMC websites, and recruitment videos. Additionally, panel interviews were preferred by applicants for their ability to showcase themselves and build connections with multiple interviewers. Respondents provided recommendations regarding: (1) dissemination of program information, (2) the use of technology, and (3) the virtual interview format. Conclusions Perceptions of 2021 CaRMS R1 virtual interviews were favourable among applicants and interviewers. Recommendations from this study can help improve future iterations of virtual interviews.

Since the Match was established in 1952, residency interviews in the United States were conducted in person. This abruptly changed in May 2020, when the Coalition for Physician Accountability mandated that programs conduct interviews virtually for the 2020-2021 application season. While the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) recommended virtual interviews in 2024, it is not known whether residency programs conducted virtual, hybrid, or in-person interviews in the application cycle that followed. A list of United States (US) residency programs from 23 specialties was compiled using the AAMC Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) Directory website. Interview format (virtual, hybrid, or in-person) for each program in the 2024-2025 application cycle was determined from correspondence with program coordinators, program websites, and specialty-specific databases. Pearson's Chi-squared test was performed to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in interview formats across specialties. A total of 4863 residency programs across 23 specialties were found on the ERAS Directory. Researchers successfully determined interview formats for 4014 (82.5%) of these programs. The majority (2989, 74.5%) conducted virtual interviews, while others opted for in-person (700, 17.4%) and hybrid (325, 8.1%) interviews. In-person interviews were most favored by otolaryngology (86.3%), plastic surgery (85.2%), neurosurgery (84.5%), orthopaedic surgery (70.3%), and thoracic surgery (56.0%). Most programs from other specialties held virtual interviews. These inter-specialty differences were statistically significant ( < 2.2 x 10 ). While most US residency programs conducted virtual interviews for Match 2025, many surgical subspecialties returned to in-person interviews. This census may inform stakeholders as they consider the future of residency interviews in years to come.

Orthopaedic surgery has become increasingly competitive over the years, with the COVID-19 pandemic creating additional challenges for applicants and programs. To promote an equitable match experience, the American Orthopaedic Association (AOA) introduced a formal preference signaling (PS) system into the 2022-2023 application cycle. PS allows applicants to indicate their heightened interest in specific programs, which improves the likelihood of receiving an interview and ultimately matching at their desired residency program. The objective of this anonymous survey is to assess applicants' opinions and perspectives toward PS in orthopaedic surgery prior to the 2022-2023 match results. Additionally, we sought to evaluate the signaling strategies being utilized by applicants. An anonymous 22-question survey was distributed to applicants of an orthopaedic surgery residency program (34.2 % response rate). Responses were collected after the application submission deadline but before the match lists and results were available. This survey included questions germane to demographics, signal utilization, signaling reasons and strategies, and opinions toward PS. Descriptive statistics were calculated utilizing R (version 4.2.1) and RStudio. Most respondents (96.1 %) participated in PS, and 96.7 % utilized all 30 signals. Signaling encouraged 24.2 % of applicants to apply to fewer programs. In accordance with guidelines, 83.2 % of respondents signaled each away rotation program; however, only 53 % signaled their home program. Applicants commonly signaled 1-10 \"reach\" and \"safety\" programs each. and were the most important reasons for signaling, whereas was the least. A program's social presence and virtual interview option did not influence many applicants' decisions for signaling. Most applicants believe that the COVID-19 pandemic and pass/fail licensure examinations influenced PS adoption. Sixty-seven of 149 respondents (45 %) claimed that applicants and programs benefit equally from PS, while 41 % believe programs benefit more. Nearly half (40.94 %) knew  or about PS. During the inaugural introduction of PS in orthopaedic surgery, nearly every applicant utilized all 30 signals, prioritizing factors like family proximity and perceived operative experience over program prestige. This shift reflects the importance of geographic location and presumed training quality. Despite unfamiliarity toward PS, personalized signaling strategies were implemented, accompanied by a slight decrease in application volumes. The 30 allotted signals in orthopaedic surgery may serve as an informal application cap due to the necessity of signaling a program for an interview invite. However, improved educational efforts are needed to enhance the understanding and maximize the benefits of PS for both applicants and programs.

Background During the 2020–21 residency interview season, interviews were conducted through virtual platforms due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study is to assess the general perceptions of applicants, residents and attendings at a single, large, metropolitan orthopaedic residency with regards to the video interview process before and after the interview season. Methods Surveys were sent to all orthopaedic applicants, residents, and attendings before the interview season. Applicants who received interviews and responded to the first survey (46) and faculty who responded to the first survey (28) were sent a second survey after interviews to assess how their perceptions of video interviews changed. Results Initially, 50% of applicants (360/722) and 50% of faculty and residents (28/56) responded before interview season. After interviews, 55% of interviewees (25/46) and 64% of faculty and residents (18/28) responded. Before interviews, 91% of applicants stated they would prefer in-person interviews and 71% were worried that video interviews would prevent them from finding the best program fit. Before interviews, 100% of faculty and residents stated they would rather conduct in-person interviews and 86% felt that residencies would be less likely to find applicants who best fit the program. Comparing responses before and after interviews, 16% fewer applicants ( p  = 0.01) perceived that in-person interviews provide a better sense of a residency program and faculty and residents’ perceived ability to build rapport with interviewees improved in 11% of respondents ( p  = 0.01). However, in-person interviews were still heavily favored by interviewees (84%) and faculty and residents (88%) after the interview season. Conclusions In-person interviews for Orthopaedic Surgery Residency are perceived as superior and are preferred among the overwhelming majority of applicants, residents, and interviewers. Nevertheless, perceptions toward video interviews improved in certain domains after interview season, identifying potential areas of improvement and alternative interview options for future applicants.

Objectives To comparatively assess otolaryngology residency applicant perspectives on virtual versus in‐person interviews and identify associations between perceived application success and interview preferences during the 2023–2024 application cycle using a cross‐sectional survey‐based study from nationwide otolaryngology residency applicants to a single institution. Methods Applicants to an otolaryngology residency program completed a 36‐item survey comparing their experience participating in virtual and in‐person interviews. Demographics, medical school performance, and application cycle progress data were collected and analyzed for associations between application success and interview preferences. Participants' overall opinion of virtual interviews was calculated by summing their Likert‐scale responses, with higher scores (maximum 30) indicating a greater preference for the virtual interview. Results A total of 81 applicants, 30% of those invited, completed the survey. An average of 41.1% (SD 18.6%) of respondents' total interviews were in‐person. Opinions on the virtual interview were mixed (mean total score of 15.2 (SD 5.2)). Despite only 25.6% preferring virtual interviews, 62.9% supported their continued availability. Those with a higher interview yield were more likely to have a more positive opinion of virtual interviews (OR 1.05, p = 0.0002). Conclusion While applicants had mixed sentiments regarding the virtual interview, most indicated that the option for virtual interviews should continue to be available for otolaryngology programs. Participants with a higher interview yield preferred the virtual interview, suggesting applicants' preferences are partly informed by their overall feelings of success during the application cycle. Level of Evidence 3. In light of continuing changes to graduate medical education interview approaches, this cross‐sectional survey‐based study comparatively assesses otolaryngology residency applicant perspectives on virtual versus in‐person interviews, and identifies associations between perceived application success and interview preferences. The results indicate that while applicants had mixed sentiments regarding the virtual interview, most indicated that the option for virtual interviews should continue to be available for otolaryngology programs. Participants with a higher interview yield preferred the virtual interview, suggesting applicants' preferences are partly informed by their overall feelings of success during the application cycle.

The residency application process is a critical time for medical students. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted changes to the residency recruitment procedures with the conversion of interviews to a virtual format. For medical school advisors guiding students on an all-virtual residency application process brought uncertainty to their advising practices. Thus, this study aimed to identify advising practices during the 2021 virtual application cycle. We administered an IRB-exempt national survey through the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine to 186 internal medicine core/co-/associate/assistant clerkship directors and sub-internship directors representing 140 Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited U.S./U.S.-territory-based medical schools in spring 2021. The 23-question survey was designed and pilot-tested by faculty-educators and leaders with expertise in undergraduate medical education. Data analysis included paired t- and z-tests and thematic analysis of open-ended questions. The institutional response rate was 67% (93/140) and individual rate 55% (103/186). Half of the respondents felt prepared/very prepared (40% and 13% respectively) for their advising roles. Compared to pre-pandemic cycles, respondents advised a typical student in the middle-third of their class at their institution to apply to more residency programs (mean 24 programs vs 20, p < 0.001) and accept more interviews (mean 14 interviews vs 12, p < 0.001). Sixty-three percent (64/101) of respondents spent more time on student advising; 51% (51/101) reported more students asked them for informal advice. Fifty-nine percent (60/101) of respondents reported their advisees were able to assess a residency program 'somewhat well;' 31% (31/101) expressed that residency recruitment should remain entirely virtual in the future. The transition to virtual residency recruitment due to COVID-19 prompted advising practices that may have contributed to application inflation and increased advising workload. Future studies should explore longitudinal outcomes of virtual interviews on student success to guide best practices in how to advise students during residency recruitment.

Background In the United States, Obstetrics and Gynecology residency interviews are instrumental in assessing the compatibility between medical student applicants and residency programs during the match process. Applicant perceptions of Obstetrics and Gynecology residency culture are a key component in determining how they rank residency programs. In 2020, residency interviews transitioned to a virtual format, and little is known about how applicants evaluated program culture during this first round of universal virtual interviews. Medical students in the United States commonly use Reddit, a popular social media platform, to discuss residency programs and share interview experiences. We explored Obstetrics and Gynecology applicants’ considerations regarding residency program culture during the first universal virtual interview season in 2020–2021 by analyzing posts on a Google spreadsheet accessed through Reddit. Methods In 2022, we imported 731 posts from the “2020-21 OB GYN Residency Applicant Spreadsheet” Google spreadsheet posted to the 2020–2021 Residency Interview Spreadsheet megathread on the r/medicalschool subreddit to NVivo 12(QSR International, Burlington, MA), a qualitative analysis software program. Three investigators used qualitative inductive techniques to code and identify themes. Results Applicants used visual, verbal and behavioral cues during virtual Obstetrics and Gynecology residency interviews to understand three components of the workplace culture: prioritization of diversity, equity and inclusion, social environment, and resident workload. Conclusions Obstetrics and Gynecology residency programs convey information about their culture during virtual interviews through the behavior, appearances and responses of residents and interviewers to applicant questions. To ensure they accurately represent their culture to applicants, programs should consider educating residents and faculty around the implications of interview-day conduct.

Background When it comes to scheduling interviews, medical students may wonder if they need a strategy to increase their likelihood of matching. Previous studies examined the temporal effects of the residency interview on overall match rate; however, there are additional factors that affect the match process, including board examination scores and letters of recommendation. Only few studies have examined the effect interview time of day has on match success. The current study examines the impact date and time of interview during the interview season have on candidates’ respective interview scores. Methods Interview data over a three-year period (i.e., three interview cycles) was examined at a PGY-1-3, ACGME-accredited EM residency program in Philadelphia. Date of interview and time of day of interview (i.e., morning versus afternoon) was examined. A linear regression analysis was performed to determine if there is a statistically-significant difference in overall interview scores based on date during the interview season and time of day. Results There is no statistically-significant effect of time of day or date on residency interview scores. Conclusions Our findings are congruent with other studies on the temporal effects of residency interviews on overall match rate. Findings should provide reassurance to students scheduling interviews, as time slots have not been found to have a significant relationship with overall interview score. Future studies should more holistically analyze the residency application process.

The interview is one of the most important factors in selecting candidates for general surgery residency. There is significant research on best practices for conducting interviews. Blinded interviews and standardized questions improve interview utility and accuracy; however, their utilization in surgical residency programs is unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine the current practices of surgery residency programs in the interview process and the application of established best practices. An online survey consisting of 26 questions was distributed to program directors of accredited surgery residency programs in the United States and Canada. Overall, 108 responses (40%) were received. The vast majority of programs (90%) reported basing at least 25% of their final ranking on the interview score. Only 22 (20%) programs reported using some form of blinding for their interviewers. Five programs (5%) reported using standardized interview questions. Few residency programs use blinded interviews or standardized questions. This may indicate a gap between research findings and practice and may represent an area for improvement in the resident selection process.