Dr. Jena was a third-year resident, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, at the time of writing. He is now assistant professor of health care policy, Harvard Medical School, and assistant physician, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Arora is associate professor of medicine, assistant dean for scholarship and discovery, and associate program director, Internal Medicine Residency Program, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. Dr. Hauer is professor of medicine and director of internal medicine clerkships, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco, California. Dr. Durning is professor of medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland. Dr. Borges is professor, Department of Community Health, and assistant dean of medical education research and evaluation, Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton, Ohio. Dr. Oriol is dean for students, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Elnicki is professor of medicine and director, Combined Ambulatory Medicine Pediatrics Clerkship, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Dr. Fagan is professor of medicine and internal medicine clerkship director, Brown University Warren Alpert School of Medicine, Providence, Rhode Island. Dr. Harrell is associate professor of medicine and internal medicine clerkship director, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida. Dr. Torre is associate professor of medicine and associate program director, Internal Medicine Residency Program, Drexel University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ms. Prochaska is a second-year student, Loyola University Chicago School of Law, Chicago, Illinois
To examine the frequency and nature of postinterview communications between programs and applicants during the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Main Residency Match.
The authors surveyed senior medical students at seven U.S. medical schools about postinterview communications with residency programs during the 2010 Match and analyzed the data.
The response rate was 68.2% (564/827). Among respondents, 86.4% reported communicating with residency programs. Most (59.9%) reported telling more than one program they would rank it highly; 1.1% reported telling more than one they would rank it first. Students reported that programs told them they would be "ranked to match" (34.6%), be "ranked highly" (52.8%), or "fit well" (76.2%). Almost one-fifth (18.6 %) reported feeling assured by a program that they would match there but did not despite ranking that program first; 23.4% reported altering their rank order list based on communications with programs. In multivariate analysis, applicants to more competitive specialties were less likely to report being told they would be "ranked to match" (relative risk [RR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-0.99). Applicants were more likely to report being told that they would be "ranked to match" if they received honors in the specialty clerkship (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.10-1.77) or were members of Alpha Omega Alpha (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.37-2.17).
Reports of nonbinding communications with programs were frequent. Students should be advised to interpret any comments made by programs cautiously. Reported violations of the NRMP's Match Participation Agreement were uncommon.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background:
The authors studied residency applicant attitudes toward rank list creation, communication with programs, and the impact of these factors on their performance in the Match.
An anonymous, 26-question, multiple-choice, online survey was distributed to the program coordinators of every Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited program participating in the National Resident Matching Program for whom e-mail addresses were available. The survey addressed five areas: (1) demographics and interview characteristics, (2) preinterview and interview factors, (3) postinterview contact, (4) importance of various factors in rank list creation, and (5) Match outcome. Survey responses were analyzed with Microsoft Excel.
A total of 1179 responses were received. It was not possible to calculate a response rate, because the number of residents receiving the survey was not known. The majority of respondents (78 percent) reported postinterview contact with a program. A large portion of respondents (42 percent) considered such contact to be important in the creation of their rank lists. Half of all respondents admitted to exaggerating their interest in a program during or after an interview. The majority of respondents (87.5 percent) received no assistance in covering the costs of "second-look" visits to programs.
Applicants may be modifying their rank lists in response to post-interview contact from programs; furthermore, they usually have no assistance in paying for the cost of second looks. To level the playing field for students and programs alike, the authors propose that the National Resident Matching Program modify residency interview rules to (1) disallow any postinterview contact between programs and students, and (2) disallow second looks.
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 05/2013; 132(3). DOI:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31829ad2bb · 2.99 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The residency match is an increasingly competitive process. Communication from medical student applicants to programs varies and the effect this has on their rank status is unclear. We assessed how Obstetrics and Gynecology program directors interpret and act on post-interview communication initiated by applicants by conducting an anonymous cross-sectional web-based survey of CREOG Obstetrics and Gynecology program directors. One hundred and thirty seven program directors (55%) responded to the survey. Twenty nine percent would consider ranking an applicant more favorably if the applicant expressed interest (beyond a routine thank you) or if a faculty mentor personally known to the program director stated that the applicant was ranking the program first. Fifty two percent indicated that they would rank an applicant more favorably if a mentor known to them endorsed the applicant as outstanding. Approximately 30% responded that applicants who did not communicate with their program were disadvantaged compared to those who did. Approximately 17% stated it was desirable to create additional specialty-specific guidelines regarding post-interview contact between programs and applications. Based on the wide variation in how program directors interpret and act upon post-interview communication from applicants, residency programs should formulate and communicate a clear policy about whether they request and how they respond to post-interview communication from applicants and their mentors. This will establish a more level playing field and eliminate potential inequities resulting from inconsistent communication practices.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 07/2014; 211(4). DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2014.07.034 · 4.70 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Studies show postinterview communication from applicants may affect their placement on the program's National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) rank order list.
To determine whether postinterview correspondence from applicants to a residency program is associated with the applicant's subsequent position on the program's rank list.
During 2 recruitment seasons, we collected postinterview correspondence from applicants to 1 residency program. Applicant characteristics and the content and timing of correspondence were compared with the applicant's position on the program's rank list. Data were analyzed using the Pearson χ(2) test.
Of 470 applicants interviewed, 290 (61.7%) sent unsolicited correspondence to the program after interviewing. Ten percent (29 of 290) stated they planned to rank the program first, 11.7% (34 of 290) that they planned to rank it highly, and 78.3% (227 of 290) gave no indication of ranking intentions. Applicants who corresponded were no more likely to be ranked in the top 2 quartiles on the rank list than those who did not (P = .32) nor were applicants who communicated plans to rank the program "first" or "highly" ranked higher than other corresponding applicants (P = .34). Of the 16 applicants who planned to rank the program "first" and who were ranked in the program's match range, 5 did not match with the program, suggesting they may have misled the program.
Postinterview correspondence by applicants was not associated with position on the rank order list. Correspondence does not benefit the applicant and can lead to misleading statements, which may violate the NRMP participation agreement.
Note: This list is based on the publications in our database and might not be exhaustive.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.