Red Light or Green? Did Preference Signals Open Doors for EM applicants in the Match?

Kestrel Reopelle,Erin Hoag,Jonathan Karademos,Peter Tomaselli,Carlos Rodriguez,Dimitri Papanagnou,Jeremiah Ojha

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.20373

2024-03-23

Western Journal of Emergency Medicine

Abstract:Author(s): Reopelle, Kestrel; Hoag, Erin; Karademos, Jonathan; Tomaselli, Peter; Rodriguez, Carlos; Papanagnou, Dimitri; Ojha, Jeremiah

emergency medicine

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Don't Get Your Signals Crossed: Preference Signaling in the 2023 Emergency Medicine Match

Kestrel Reopelle,Erin Hoag,Jonathan Karademos,Peter Tomaselli,Carlos Rodriguez,Dimitrios Papanagnou,Jeremiah Ojha

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.20400

2024-03-25

Western Journal of Emergency Medicine

Abstract:Author(s): Reopelle, Kestrel; Hoag, Erin; Karademos, Jonathan; Tomaselli, Peter; Rodriguez, Carlos; Papanagnou, Dimitrios; Ojha, Jeremiah

emergency medicine
Program Signaling in Emergency Medicine: The 2022–2023 Program Director Experience

Alexis E. Pelletier-Bui,Timothy Fallon,Liza Smith,Tania Strout,Michelle Fischer,Mark Olaf,Erin McDonough,Brian Barbas,Michael Cirone,Elizabeth Barrall Werley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.19392

2024-08-29

Western Journal of Emergency Medicine

Abstract:Introduction: Program signaling (PS), which enables residency applicants to signal their preference for a specific program, was introduced in emergency medicine (EM) in the 2022–2023 residency application cycle. In this study we evaluated EM program directors' (PD) utilization of PS in application review and ranking. This study also explores the relationship between program characteristics and number of signals received as well as the relative importance and utilization of signals related to the number of signals received. Methods: This is an institutional review board-approved, cross-sectional study of PDs at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited EM residency programs. We used descriptive statistics to describe the characteristics of residency programs and practices around PS. Measures of central tendency and dispersion summarized continuous variables. We used chi-square analysis or the Fisher exact test for comparisons between groups for categorical variables. Comparisons for continuous variables were made using the t-test for independent samples or analysis of variance. Results: The response rate was 41% (n = 113/277 EM programs). Most programs participated in PS(n = 261/277 EM programs, 94.2%). Mean number of signals received was 60 (range 2–203). Signals received varied based on program characteristics including geographic location and program type, duration, environment, and longevity. Most used PS in holistic review (52.2%), but other uses varied by proportion of applications that were signaled. The importance of PS in application review (mean 2.9; 1–5scale,1= not important, 5 = extremely important) and rank list preparation (2.1) was relatively low compared to other application elements such as standardized letters of evaluation (4.97 for review, 4.90 for ranking). Conclusion: The study provides insights into PS utilization in EM's inaugural year. We have identified patterns of signal use based on program characteristics and number of signals received that can inform signal allocation and utilization on an individual applicant and program level. A more nuanced understanding of signal use can provide valuable insight as the specialty of EM grapples with fluctuations in its applicant numbers and shifting demographics of its applicant pool.

emergency medicine
Sending a Signal: Evaluating the Impact of Program and Geographic Preference Signaling on the Internal Medicine Residency Match

Dustin L Norton,Karl M Richardson,William C Lippert,Jessica Valente,Donna M Williams

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.67379

2024-08-21

Cureus

Abstract:Background For over a decade, the number of residency applications has surged, a trend known as "application inflation." COVID-19 further intensified this trend, leading the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) to address the issue by introducing a supplemental application in the 2021-2022 cycle, allowing programs to identify applicants with a connection to their program or geographic region. For the 2022-2023 cycle, the number of program signals increased from five to seven. The impact of the supplemental application and the increase in signals on the likelihood of an applicant matching with a program has yet to be evaluated. Methods This retrospective cohort study evaluated the impact of program signaling and geographic preference on the matching likelihood in our internal medicine residency program. Data from MyERAS® and the Supplemental Application for 640 applicants who applied to our large, urban, university-based program in the Southeastern United States during the 2020-2021 and 2022-2023 application cycles were included. Using univariate and multivariate analysis, we examined the correlation between program signal, geographic preference, and final match location. Results Applicants who sent a program signal had nearly three-fold higher odds of matching with our program. Geographic preference was numerically but not statistically associated with higher odds of matching. Both signaling a preference for matching with a program in an urban environment and couples matching correlated with decreased odds of matching with our program. Geography was an important predictor of match location as residing in our AAMC geographic region, our four-state area, and our specific state had increased odds of matching with our program. Conclusions Signaling our program was associated with increased odds of matching with our program. Geographic preferences were less predictive of a match with our program; however, they did predict the likelihood of a match at a program within that region. Future studies are needed to ensure external validity.
What Do Program and Geographic Preference Signals Signal? A Survey of Diagnostic Radiology and Integrated Interventional Radiology Residency Applicants

Ashley Park,Elana B. Smith,Corey Ho,David Gimarc,Charles Resnik,Rydhwana Hossain

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2024.01.044

IF: 5.482

2024-03-17

Academic Radiology

Abstract:Rationale and Objectives As part of the 2022–2023 Diagnostic/Interventional Radiology residency application process, applicants could participate in the ERAS supplemental application, including sending up to six preference signals and three geographic signals. Our goal was to survey Diagnostic Radiology and Integrated Interventional Radiology applicants at two large academic institutions in different geographic locations regarding their perceived impact of program and geographic preference signaling on the application process. Methods An anonymous survey was sent to 282 applicants between two academic medical centers asking about their participation in program and geographic preference signaling as well as their perception on its impact on the application process. Results 105 applicants responded to the survey (37.2% [105/282]). Most applicants (26% [27/102]) received four interviews from signaled programs. When prompted to best describe their sentiments with respect to program signaling (one being most negative and five being most positive), the plurality of applicants reported a positive sentiment of four (36% [37/103]). Applicants that received four to six interviews from signaled programs were significantly more likely to feel positively towards program signaling than those that received one to three interviews (p = 0.01). Geography was the most important deciding factor on which programs to signal for applicants (57% [58/101]). Discussion Our survey results demonstrate that most applicants felt positively towards program signaling and it increased their odds of receiving interviews from preferred programs, which is consistent with the current literature. Conclusion Program and geographic signaling are relatively new features of the ERAS residency application process and therefore, their effects on the match outcome are still in question. However, our study results indicate that they are perceived positively by most applicants and that they boost their chances in finding their ideal match.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
Preference Signaling and the Integrated Plastic Surgery Match: A National Survey Study

Amanda R Sergesketter,Ethan Song,Ronnie L Shammas,William M Tian,Kyle R Eberlin,Jason H Ko,Adeyiza O Momoh,Alison Snyder-Warwick,Brett T Phillips,Amanda R. Sergesketter,Ronnie L. Shammas,William M. Tian,Kyle R. Eberlin,Jason H. Ko,Adeyiza O. Momoh,Brett T. Phillips

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2024.01.011

IF: 3.524

2024-03-30

Journal of Surgical Education

Abstract:Objective Rooted in economics market strategies, preference signaling was introduced to the Plastic Surgery Common Application (PSCA) in 2022 for integrated plastic surgery residency applicants. This study surveyed program and applicant experience with preference signaling and assessed how preference signals influenced likelihood of interview invitations. Design Two online surveys were designed and distributed to all program directors and 2022-2023 applicants to integrated plastic surgery. Opinions regarding the utility of preference signaling were solicited, and the influence of preference signals on likelihood of interview offers was assessed. Setting All integrated plastic surgery programs. Participants All 88 program directors and 2022-2023 applicants to integrated plastic surgery. Results A total of 45 programs and 99 applicants completed the survey (response rates, 54.2% and 34.2%, respectively). Overall, 79.6% of applicants and 68.9% of programs reported that preference signals were a useful addition to the application cycle. Programs reported that 41.4% of students who sent preference signals received interview offers, compared to 84.6% of home students, 64.8% of away rotators, and 7.1% of other applicants; overall, students who signaled were 5.8 times more likely to receive an interview offer compared to students who were not home students and did not rotate or signal. After multivariable adjustment, programs with higher Doximity rankings, numbers of away rotators, and numbers of integrated residents per year received more preference signals (all p < 0.05). Conclusions Applicants and programs report that preference signaling was a useful addition to the integrated plastic surgery application cycle. Sending preference signals resulted in a higher likelihood of interview offers among nonrotators. Preference signaling may be a useful tool to reduce congestion in the integrated plastic surgery application cycle.

surgery,education, scientific disciplines
814 Results and Opinions on the Implementation of a Preference Signaling System in Neurosurgical Residency Applications

Soren Jonzzon,Steven G. Roth,Benjamin Lee,Lucas P. Carlstrom,Christopher Salvatore Graffeo,Lola Blackwell Chambless

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000002809_814

IF: 5.315

2024-04-01

Neurosurgery

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: The 2022-2023 neurosurgery residency application cycle employed an optional preference signaling system that indicated a focused interest in a particular program. During this first iteration, applicants could signal interest in up to eight participating programs. METHODS: A survey consisting of 28 questions pertaining to the signaling process was distributed via email to all neurosurgery applicants participating in the 2022-2023 cycle. Results were compiled, and descriptive statistics were used to generate results. RESULTS: Of the 361 total applicants, 82 (22.7%) completed the survey; 84.1% attend a US MD program, 1.2% a DO program, 12.2% are international medical graduates, and 2.4% are post-graduates. The mean number of programs applied to was 78 (range 21-116 (all). The median number of interviews received was 17 (range 0 to 57). Notably, 14.6% of individuals signaled their home programs, and 63.4% signaled at least one externship program. 90.2% of applicants utilized all eight signals. Applicants averaged 3.5 interviews from programs they signaled, and 15.6% of applicants matched at a program they signaled. Sixty-five percent of applicants were unsatisfied with the application process, but 53.1% indicated preference signaling should continue. Regarding the number of available signals, 43.75% felt eight was appropriate, 32.5% felt it was too few, 13.75% thought it was too many, and 10% were indifferent. CONCLUSIONS: Preference signaling was implemented in the 2022-2023 applicant cycle to improve interview efficiency and equity. Applicant opinions were mixed about this first iteration. Two consistently noted themes were the desire for improved home and away rotation signaling standardization and the perceived lack of impact on match outcome.

surgery,clinical neurology
Preference Signaling Survey of Program Directors–After the Match

Krishna V. Suresh,Oscar Covarrubias,Frederick Mun,Dawn M. LaPorte,Amiethab A. Aiyer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5435/jaaos-d-23-00579

IF: 4

2024-02-25

Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

Abstract:The 2022 to 2023 orthopaedic residency cycle implemented a preference signaling program (PSP), allowing applicants to send "signals" to up to 30 programs to demonstrate their genuine interest. With the conclusion of the 2022 to 2023 cycle, the primary purpose of this study was to analyze program director (PD) perceptions of the PSP after the match cycle and provide a retrospective evaluation of the effects of the PSP on the orthopaedic resident selection process.

surgery,orthopedics
The Impact of Signaling in Diagnostic Radiology Residency

Catalina Jaramillo,Daniel Ocazionez,Stephen Jones,Xu Zhang,Emma Ferguson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2024.09.010

2024-09-19

Abstract:Signaling in the US Residency MATCH process allows medical students to indicate preference for specific programs. In diagnostic radiology, "Gold" and "Silver" signals significantly increase the chances of securing interviews from targeted programs. Specialty advisors should strategically evaluate applicant competitiveness and program desirability to optimize signal placement. Methods: This study included fourth-year medical students and US or Canadian medical school graduates applying for the 2024 Match. Participants completed a survey on signaling use, interview invitations, and the resources and advice received. Results: Interview invitations for programs with gold, silver, and non-signaled programs were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and generalized estimating equation models. Conclusion: Signaling significantly increases the likelihood of receiving interviews in diagnostic radiology, emphasizing the importance of strategic signal placement. Further research is needed to assess its overall impact on the MATCH process.
Deciphering a Changing Match Environment in Emergency Medicine and Identifying Residency Program Needs

Tiffany Murano,Moshe Weizberg,Bo Burns,Laura R Hopson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2022.11.58060

2023-01-16

Abstract:Introduction: The Match in emergency medicine (EM) is historically competitive for applicants; however, the 2022 residency Match had a large number of unfilled positions. We sought to characterize the impact of and response to the Match on programs and determine programs' needs for successful recruitment strategies. Methods: We conducted a web-based survey of EM residency program leadership during March-April 2022. Program characteristics were generated from publicly available data, and descriptive statistics were generated. We analyzed free-text responses thematically. Results: There were 133/277 (48%) categorical EM residency programs that responded. Of those, 53.8% (70/130) reported a negative impression of their Match results; 17.7% (23/130) positive; and the remainder neutral (28.5%; 37/130). Three- and four-year programs did not differ in their risk of unfilled status. Hybrid programs had a higher likelihood of going unfilled (odds ratio [OR] 4.52, confidence interval [CI] 1.7-12.04) vs community (OR 1.62, CI 0.68-3.86) or university programs (0.16, 0.0-0.49). Unfilled programs were geographically concentrated. The quality of applicants was perceived the same as previous years and did not differ between filled and unfilled programs. Respondents worried the expansion of EM residency positions and perceptions of the EM job market were major factors influencing the Match. They expressed interest in introducing changes to the interview process, including caps on applications and interviews, as well as a need for more structural support for programs and the specialty. Conclusion: This survey identifies impacts of the changed match environment on a broad range of programs and identifies specific needs. Future work should be directed toward a deeper understanding of the factors contributing to changes in the specialty and the development of evidence-based interventions.
The Power of Preference Signaling: A Monumental Shift in the Orthopaedic Surgery Application Process

Jacob C Sorenson,Patrick M Ryan,Joel G Dennison,Russell A Ward,Douglas S Fornfeist

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-24-00335

2024-08-30

Abstract:Introduction: Orthopaedic surgery has consistently been one of the most competitive specialties in the US residency selection process. This is due in part to the steady upward trend in average applications received per program and average applications submitted per applicant, which is of growing concern. With the implementation of the Preference Signaling Program, the total number of applications has now dropped for the first time in many years, indicating signaling may improve the application process. The hypothesis is that signaling has led to a decrease in applications sent by applicants and a decrease in applications received by programs. Methods: A 7-question survey regarding their interview and match statistics was sent to orthopaedic surgery residency programs that participated in the Electronic Residency Application Service during the 2023-2024 application cycle. A response from the program director/administrator was then recorded. Results: Our program search yielded 159 programs with 106 respondents (66.7%). 82 programs (78.8%) solely interviewed applicants who signaled their program. 92.7% of current interns signaled the program where they matched, and 88 programs (84.6%) matched only applicants who signaled. 95 programs (89.6%) revealed that implementing signaling has improved the application process. Conclusion: Most of the programs only interviewed applicants who also signaled, and nearly all matched orthopaedic surgery applicants from the 2022-2023 cycle signaled their matching program. Orthopaedic surgery applicants should consider only applying to 30 programs and using all 30 available signals. Applicants should also be more confident knowing that beyond the 30 signals they use, there is limited support to say that they will receive an interview outside of these 30 applications. Orthopaedic surgery programs will also now have the ability to allocate more time to applicants most interested in their program, given the reduction of applications.
Understanding clerkship experiences in emergency medicine and their potential influence on specialty selection: A qualitative study

Rosemarie Diaz,Sarah Balgord,Nicole Klekowski,Alexandra S Farthing,Sylvia Guadalupe Escolero,Korynne DeCloux,John C Burkhardt,Adrianne N Haggins,Laura R Hopson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.10932

2024-02-09

Abstract:Objectives: The specialty of emergency medicine (EM) is experiencing a significant decrease in student interest. In addition, women are historically underrepresented within the specialty at all levels of training and practice. We sought to understand how clinical experiences and perceptions of EM influence specialty selection by medical students, particularly women. Methods: Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, we analyzed semistructured interviews with senior medical students who considered EM as a specialty. We used purposive sampling to recruit from diverse learning environments and represent a variety of experiences. Participants reflected on their specialty selection process and experiences in EM including their perceived acceptance in the work environment. Results: Twenty-five medical students from 11 geographically diverse schools participated. A total of 68% (17/25) identified as women. The majority (21/25, 84%) planned on applying to EM residency. We identified four major themes: (1) distressing interpersonal interactions with patients and the ED care team negatively affect students; (2) EM culture includes behaviors that are perceived as exclusionary; (3) beliefs about the attributes of an ideal EM physician and the specialty itself have a gendered nature; and (4) ease of access to mentors, representation, and early exposure to EM environment increased interest in specialty. Conclusions: Our participants express that EM causes challenges for students to accept the norms of behavior in the field, which is an essential element in joining a group and professional identity formation. In addition, we raise concern that gendered perceptions and language may send exclusionary environmental cues that may negatively impact recruitment of a diverse physician workforce.
The Impact of Signaling on the 2022 to 2023 Orthopaedic Residency Application Cycle: A Survey of Incoming Residents

Rae Tarapore,Mark D Wieland,Brett Haislup,Casey Imbergamo,Brian McCormick,Wilfrido Castillo,Henry Boucher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.23.00135

2024-02-15

JBJS Open Access

Abstract:Background: During the 2022 to 2023 orthopaedic surgery residency application cycle, "signaling" was added, allowing applicants to communicate strong interest to 30 programs of their choosing. This study's purpose was to evaluate signaling's impact on the 2022 to 2023 application cycle. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to applicants who applied to a single residency program. We evaluated how many interviews the average applicant received, what proportion of interviews came from programs they had signaled, and what percentage of applicants matched at a program they had signaled. We stratified data by American Orthopaedic Association status, United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and Step 2 scores, research items, sex, and race. Results: This survey was distributed to 611 applicants, with 124 (20.3%) responding to the survey. Ninety-five respondents (76.6%) matched. The percentage of applicant interviews that came from signaled programs was 78.7%. Ninety-one percent of matched applicants matched at a program they signaled. Sixty-three percent of matched applicants performed an away rotation at their matched programs. Forty-five percent of applicants felt that signaling incentivized reducing the programs they applied to, and applicants gave signaling a high favorability rating of 4/5. Applicants with Alpha Omega Alpha status received more interviews per application (0.18 ± 0.11 vs. 0.10 ± 0.10, p < 0.001) and more interviews from programs they did not signal (74% of interviews from signaled programs vs. 90% of interviews from signaled programs, p < 0.001). Higher Step 1 and Step 2 scores were associated with more interviews per application (Step 1: 0.16 ± 0.12 vs. 0.12 ± 0.08, p = 0.032) (Step 2: 0.16 ± 0.11 vs. 0.12 ± 0.09, p = 0.032). Conclusion: Orthopaedic residency applicants received most of their interviews from programs that they signaled, with an overwhelming majority matching at signaled program. Alpha Omega Alpha status and high USMLE scores were associated with more interviews granted per application, regardless of signaling status. Signaling seems to be a favorable option for orthopaedic applicants. Data from future application cycles will help further evaluate signaling's impact on the orthopaedic match.
Advising special population emergency medicine residency applicants: a survey of emergency medicine advisors and residency program leadership

Alexis E. Pelletier-Bui,Caitlin Schrepel,Liza Smith,Xiao Chi Zhang,Adam Kellogg,Mary Ann Edens,Christopher W. Jones,Emily Hillman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02415-8

IF: 3.263

2020-12-01

BMC Medical Education

Abstract:Abstract Background The objective of this study was to determine the advising and emergency medicine (EM) residency selection practices for special population applicant groups for whom traditional advice may not apply. Methods A survey was distributed on the Council of Residency Directors in EM and Clerkship Directors in EM Academy listservs. Multiple choice, Likert-type scale, and fill-in-the-blank questions addressed the average EM applicant and special population groups (osteopathic; international medical graduate (IMG); couples; at-risk; re-applicant; dual-accreditation applicant; and military). Percentages and 95% confidence intervals [CI] were calculated. Results One hundred four surveys were completed. Of respondents involved in the interview process, 2 or more standardized letters of evaluation (SLOEs) were recommended for osteopathic (90.1% [95% CI 84–96]), IMG (82.5% [73–92]), dual-accreditation (46% [19–73]), and average applicants (48.5% [39–58]). Recommendations for numbers of residency applications to submit were 21–30 (50.5% [40.7–60.3]) for the average applicant, 31–40 (41.6% [31.3–51.8]) for osteopathic, and > 50 (50.9% [37.5–64.4]) for IMG. For below-average Step 1 performance, 56.0% [46.3–65.7] were more likely to interview with an average Step 2 score. 88.1% [81.8–94.4] will consider matching an EM-EM couple. The majority were more likely to interview a military applicant with similar competitiveness to a traditional applicant. Respondents felt the best option for re-applicants was to pursue the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) for a preliminary residency position. Conclusion Advising and residency selection practices for special population applicants differ from those of traditional EM applicants. These data serve as an important foundation for advising these distinct applicant groups in ways that were previously only speculative. While respondents agree on many advising recommendations, outliers exist.

education & educational research,education, scientific disciplines
Exploring Recent Changes to the New Urology Residency Match

Armando Alvarez-Suarez,Spencer Shain,Juan Sebastian Rodriguez-Alvarez,Carlos Munoz-Lopez,Andre F Miranda,Steven J Hudak,Steven C Campbell,Molly E Dewitt-Foy,Justin Han,Roger K Khouri Jr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000645

2024-06-28

Abstract:Introduction: This study assesses the effects of the recent changes to the urology residency match process. Methods: We emailed an anonymous, multiple-choice survey to each candidate who applied to any of our 3 urology programs for the 2024 Urology Residency Match. Results: Of the 433 candidates invited, 146 (33.7%) completed the survey. Of the 133 respondents who matched, 38.3% matched where they did an away subinternship (sub-I), 20.3% matched with their home program, and 91.0% matched with a program where they sent a preference signal (PS); only 8 respondents (6.0%) matched with a program where they did not complete a sub-I or send a PS. Of the 4 candidates who did not take Step 2 before submitting their application, only 1 matched. The 126 applicants who completed 3 or more sub-Is, including the home sub-I, had a higher match rate (95.2%) than the 20 applicants who completed 1 or 2 (65.0%, P < .0005). Disclosing any geographic preferences was associated with a decreased probability of matching (relative risk = 0.89, P < .05). Conclusions: Taking Step 2 before submitting applications and completing 3 or more sub-Is were both correlated with a higher match rate. Geographic signaling was correlated with a lower match rate. There was little benefit to applying to programs outside of those where the applicant had completed a sub-I or sent a PS. Future candidates should consider these findings early in the application process. These findings should be taken into consideration when making future changes to the application process.
Use of Signaling in Family Medicine Residency Interviewing

Gretchen Irwin,Kari Nilsen,Tessa Rohrberg,Kari Nilsen,Miranda A. Moore

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22454/fammed.2024.678799

2024-04-12

Family Medicine

Abstract:Background and Objectives: Although signals have been used in the residency application process by other specialties, family medicine residency directors have not previously participated. With applicant signal information available for the first time in the 2023–2024 application cycle, the current study describes family medicine residency program directors’ intended use of signals and provides benchmarking descriptive data that may help inform best practices and future studies. Methods: A total of 691 of the 745 family medicine program directors in US family medicine residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education were surveyed. We used ꭓ2 and Pearson correlation analyses to examine how program directors of family medicine residency programs intended to use signaling and their perceived impact of signaling on the residency interviewing process. Results: Most program directors indicated that applicant signals would assist them in deciding who to invite for an interview and would be a positive factor in a holistic review process. However, program directors also noted that rotation experience or geographic ties would be more powerful inducements to interview or rank a specific candidate. Program directors did not indicate a belief that signals would decrease interview season stress or workload. Conclusions: Signals may play an important role in the residency application process for family medicine in 2023–2024. While signals are not anticipated to decrease application workload or stress, a signal may be an important mechanism for a specific applicant to distinguish themselves with a program.

medicine, general & internal,primary health care
Mixed Signals: Navigating the Obstetrics and Gynecology Signaling Initiative

Alexandria C. Kraus,John L. Dalrymple,Ezra Schwartz,Gimena Marzan,Sarah Nelson,Helen K. Morgan,Maya M. Hammoud,Omar M. Young

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2023.12.019

IF: 3.524

2024-02-28

Journal of Surgical Education

Abstract:OBJECTIVE There are few published accounts of the obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) specialty-specific experience with a formal signaling program. Prior studies examining other medical specialties' experiences with signaling are quantitative, having not examined the complexity of the residency applicant experience by directly engaging applicants; therefore, this study aimed to describe the lived experiences of OBGYN residency applicants who employed a formal signaling program during the 2022-2023 residency application cycle to assist and guide future residency applicants. DESIGN A phenomenological approach was chosen to prescribe a common meaning for OBGYN residency applicants' experiences. purposeful sampling was employed to ensure racial, ethnic, and institutional geographic diversity in participant representation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted virtually between April and May 2023. RESULTS Twenty-five OBGYN residency applicants participated. Fourteen identified as underrepresented in medicine. Four themes emerged: non-uniform decision-making processes, inconsistent guidance, mental health effect, and signaling reflections. Some themes had associated subthemes. Critical aspects of the applicants' journey were revealed, including decision-making dynamics and reliance on trusted advisors. Applicants described tensions and complexities when navigating signaling strategy in relation to abortion education opportunities in a post- Dobbs era. They also conveyed concerns about inconsistencies in signaling guidance, the emotional toll on well-being, and persistent inequities in the application process. They ultimately made recommendations for future directions, including suggestions for more robust advising and improved signaling execution. CONCLUSIONS This study offers a comprehensive exploration of the experiences of OBGYN residency applicants with formal program signaling. To ensure equity and transparency in the residency application process, it is crucial to not only provide OBGYN residency applicants with clear guidance on signaling, but also encourage a standardized approach for its utilization by residency programs.

surgery,education, scientific disciplines
The Plastic Surgery Central Application versus ERAS: Which is Preferred?

Benjamin A Sarac,Kianna Jackson,Rachel Schwartz,Amanda A Gosman,Samuel J Lin,Jeffrey E Janis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000005703

2024-03-28

Abstract:Background: The Plastic Surgery Central Application (PSCA), designed to provide an equitable and streamlined application for both applicants and programs, was first designed in 2019, piloted in the 2020-21 application cycle, and is now in its fourth cycle in 2023-24. It has included preference signaling since the 2022-23 cycle, a feature in which applicants can send five "signals" to programs to express interest. We surveyed both program directors (PDs) and applicants following the 2023 match on their perceptions of PSCA versus Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS). Methods: Surveys were deployed to applicants from three integrated plastic surgery programs during the 2022-23 cycle and all PDs. Respondents were asked basic demographic information, which application system they preferred: PSCA or ERAS, how well they were able to highlight/evaluate different areas of the application, and about their experiences specifically with preference signaling. Results: Forty-two (48%) PDs and 93 (29%) applicants responded. Most PDs (72%) and applicants (59%) preferred PSCA, with only 18% and 27% preferring ERAS. The remainder had no preference. Ninety-three percent of applicants reported that the cost savings of the PSCA were important. Most applicants (78%) and PDs (80%) were in favor or strongly in favor of the preference signaling program. Conclusions: Most applicants and PDs prefer PSCA over ERAS. These data, in conjunction with the cost savings, suggest that the PSCA may be a better alternative for the integrated plastic surgery match. Future analyses of these application systems will help provide the best application for prospective residents.
Response to Simulated Traffic Signals Using Light-Emitting Diode and Incandescent Sources

John Bullough,Peter Boyce,Andrew Bierman,Kathryn Conway,Kun Huang,Conan O'Rourke,Claudia Hunter,Akiko Nakata

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3141/1724-06

IF: 1.7

2007-01-01

Transportation Research Record

Abstract:Simulated light-emitting diode (LED) traffic signals of different luminances were evaluated relative to incandescent signals of the same nominal color and at the luminances required by the specifications of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Measurements were made of the reaction times to onset and the number of missed signals for red, yellow, and green incandescent and LED signals. Measurements also were made of subjects' ability to correctly identify signal colors and of their subjective brightness and conspicuity ratings. All measurements were made under simulated daytime conditions. There were no significant differences in mean reaction time, percentage of missed signals, color identification, or subjective brightness and conspicuity ratings between simulated incandescent and LED signals of the same nominal color and luminance. Higher luminances were needed for the yellow and green signal colors to ensure that they produced the same reaction time, the same percentage of missed signals, and the same rated brightness and conspicuity as a red signal at a given luminance, Equations fitted to the reaction time data, the missed signals data, and the brightness and conspicuity ratings for the LED signals can be used to make quantitative predictions of the consequences of proposed changes in signal luminance for reaction time, brightness, and conspicuity.
Virtual Interviews and the Pediatric Emergency Medicine Match Geography: A National Survey

Aline Baghdassarian,Jessica A. Bailey,Derya Caglar,Michelle Eckerle,Andrea Fang,Katherine McVety,Thuy Ngo,Jerri A. Rose,Cindy Ganis Roskind,Melissa M. Tavarez,Frances Turcotte Benedict,Joshua Nagler,Melissa L. Langhan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.18581

2024-03-16

Western Journal of Emergency Medicine

Abstract:Introduction: Virtual interviews (VI) are now a permanent part of pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) recruitment, especially given the cost and equity advantages. Yet inability to visit programs in person can impact decision-making, leading applicants to apply to more programs. Moreover, the cost advantages of VI may encourage applicants to apply to programs farther away than they might otherwise have been willing or able to travel. This could create unnecessary strain on programs. We conducted this study to determine whether PEM fellowship applicants would apply to a larger number of programs and in different geographic patterns with VI (2020 and 2021) as compared to in-person interviews (2018 and 2019).Methods: We conducted an anonymous national survey of all PEM fellows comparing two cohorts: current fellows who interviewed in-person (applied in 2018/2019) and fellows who underwent VIs in 2020/ 2021 (current fellows and those recently matched in 2021). The study took place in March–April 2022. Questions focused on geographic considerations during interviews and the match. We used descriptive statistics, chi-square and t-tests for analysis.Results: Overall response rate was 42% (231/550); 32% (n = 74) interviewed in person and 68% (n = 157) virtually. Fellows applied to a median of 4/6 geographic regions (interquartile range 2, 5). Most applied for fellowship both in the same region as residency (216, 93%) and outside (192, 83%). Only the Pacific region saw a statistically significant increase in applicants during VI (59.9% vs 43.2%, P = 0.02). There was no statistical difference in the number of programs applied to during in-person vs VI (mean difference (95% confidence interval 0.72, −2.8 – 4.2). A majority matched in their preferred state both during VI (60.4%) and in-person interviews (65.7%). The difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.45).Conclusion: While more PEM fellowship applicants applied outside the geographic area where their residency was and to the Pacific region, there was no overall increase in the number of programs or geographic areas PEM applicants applied to during VI as compared to in-person interview seasons. As this was the first two years of VI, ongoing data collection will further identify trends and the impactof VI.

emergency medicine
816 Comparing Match Data for Neurological and Orthopaedic Surgery Applicants From 2016-2022: Is There a Point of Diminishing Return for Research Experiences and Publications?

Austin James Allen,Daniel O'Connell,Olivia de Araujo,Lawrence Ullman,Carolyn Quinsey,MD Carolyn Quinsey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000002809_816

IF: 5.315

2024-04-01

Neurosurgery

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: The application process for neurological surgery (NSGY) and orthopaedic surgery (Ortho) residency positions is highly competitive. Prior work has characterized variables associated with improved match rates; however, limited analyses have been published in recent years. METHODS: Data on the characteristics of NSGY and Ortho applicants was obtained from the National Residency Matching Program Interactive Charting Outcomes in the Match tool from 2016 to 2022. The POM was computed for each subgroup classification available for applicant characteristics. RESULTS: Applicant characteristics that correlated with an improved POM into both NSGY and Ortho included increasing USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 scores, being a US MD Senior, number (#) of contiguous ranks (a proxy for # of interviews), # of volunteer experiences, and being a member of AOA. An increasing # of publications correlated with an increased POM until 25+ were reported for NSGY applicants but only until more than 11-15 were reported for Ortho applicants. A PhD correlated positively with the POM for NSGY applicants but negatively for Ortho applicants. Non-PhD graduate degrees correlated negatively with the POM for both NSGY and Ortho applicants. An increasing # of work experiences correlated negatively with the POM for NSGY applicants at all levels, and correlated negatively with the POM for Ortho applicants after 3-5 were reported. CONCLUSIONS: There appeared to be a point of diminishing return where an increasing number of publications no longer increased the probability of matching for both NSGY and Ortho applicants. Non-PhD graduate degrees did not improve the POM. Ranking more programs was associated with a higher POM for both NSGY and Ortho applicants, suggesting an incentive to take as many interviews as possible if not otherwise restricted.

surgery,clinical neurology

Red Light or Green? Did Preference Signals Open Doors for EM applicants in the Match?

Don't Get Your Signals Crossed: Preference Signaling in the 2023 Emergency Medicine Match

Program Signaling in Emergency Medicine: The 2022–2023 Program Director Experience

Sending a Signal: Evaluating the Impact of Program and Geographic Preference Signaling on the Internal Medicine Residency Match

What Do Program and Geographic Preference Signals Signal? A Survey of Diagnostic Radiology and Integrated Interventional Radiology Residency Applicants

Preference Signaling and the Integrated Plastic Surgery Match: A National Survey Study

814 Results and Opinions on the Implementation of a Preference Signaling System in Neurosurgical Residency Applications

Preference Signaling Survey of Program Directors–After the Match

The Impact of Signaling in Diagnostic Radiology Residency

Deciphering a Changing Match Environment in Emergency Medicine and Identifying Residency Program Needs

The Power of Preference Signaling: A Monumental Shift in the Orthopaedic Surgery Application Process

Understanding clerkship experiences in emergency medicine and their potential influence on specialty selection: A qualitative study

The Impact of Signaling on the 2022 to 2023 Orthopaedic Residency Application Cycle: A Survey of Incoming Residents

Advising special population emergency medicine residency applicants: a survey of emergency medicine advisors and residency program leadership

Exploring Recent Changes to the New Urology Residency Match

Use of Signaling in Family Medicine Residency Interviewing

Mixed Signals: Navigating the Obstetrics and Gynecology Signaling Initiative

The Plastic Surgery Central Application versus ERAS: Which is Preferred?

Response to Simulated Traffic Signals Using Light-Emitting Diode and Incandescent Sources

Virtual Interviews and the Pediatric Emergency Medicine Match Geography: A National Survey

816 Comparing Match Data for Neurological and Orthopaedic Surgery Applicants From 2016-2022: Is There a Point of Diminishing Return for Research Experiences and Publications?