Perspectives Regarding Virtual Interviewing for Dermatology Residency in the United States: A Survey of Applicants, Residents, Faculty, and Program Directors in the 2022-2023 Application Cycle
Main Article Content
Keywords
virtual interviewing, interviewing, residency, applicants, program directors, dermatology, dermatology residency
Abstract
Background: Despite the widespread adoption of virtual interviewing for dermatology residency in the United States (US), there are limited data on the perspectives of those affected.
Objectives: Characterize the viewpoints regarding virtual interviewing of applicants, residents, and faculty who participated in the 2022-2023 US dermatology residency application cycle.
Methods: Two anonymized surveys were created: one for applicants and the other for programs (residents, program directors, and other faculty). The program survey was distributed through the US Dermatology Program Director listserv in January 2023. The applicant survey was distributed through email in April 2023.
Results: There were 336 respondents: 135 applicants, 63 program directors, 77 other faculty, and 61 residents. Overall, the largest proportion favored virtual-only interviewing (39%), followed by some combination of in-person and virtual interviews (28%) and in-person–only interviewing (20%). There was no significant difference between preferences of applicants and program directors (P=0.13). The respondents’ most supported changes for future application cycles were limiting the number of programs to which an applicant can apply (34%), limiting the number of interviews an applicant can accept (30%), and providing funding for applicants with demonstrated need (13%).
Limitations: Our study may be limited by the response rates, estimated to be 21% for applicants and 45% for program directors.
Conclusion: Given the range of preferences, we would not advocate for requiring virtual-only interviewing at this time for our specialty. Instead, reforms should prioritize the respondents’ most supported changes for future application cycles.
References
2. Narang J, Zheng DX, Xu JR, et al. Estimating carbon emission and cost savings from virtual dermatology residency interviews. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;88(3):676-678.
3. Domingo A, Rdesinski RE, Stenson A, et al. Virtual residency interviews: applicant perceptions regarding virtual interview effectiveness, advantages, and barriers. J Grad Med Educ. 2022;14(2):224-228.
4. Asaad M, Elmorsi R, Ferry AM, Rajesh A, Maricevich RS. Interviewing amidst a pandemic: perspectives of US residency program directors on the virtual format. J Eur CME. 2022;11(1):2087397.
5. National Resident Matching Program. Virtual experience and holistic review in the transition to residency: an examination of the 2021 and 2022 main residency matches. Accessed October 11, 2023. https://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2022-Virtual-Exper-Research-Brief_Final.pdf.
6. Brumfiel CM, Jefferson IS, Rinderknecht FA, Worswick S, Rosman IS. Current perspectives of and potential reforms to the dermatology residency application process: a nationwide survey of program directors and applicants. Clin Dermatol. 2022; 40(5):595-601.
7. Alvarado S, Grant-Kels JM. Ethical issues related to the virtual interviews process faced by applicants and programs. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83(6):1845-1846.
8. Williams GE, Zimmerman JM, Wiggins CJ, Seervai RNH, Mihalic AP, Ahmed AM. The indelible marks on dermatology: impacts of COVID-19 on dermatology residency Match using the Texas Start database. Clin Dermatol. 2023;41(1):215-218.
9. Dowdle TS, Ryan MP, Wagner RF. Internal and geographic dermatology match trends in the age of COVID-19. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;85(5):1364-1366.
10. Dowdle TS, Ryan MP, Tarbox MB, Wagner RF. An analysis of internal and regional dermatology matches during the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;88(1):207-209.
11. Dowdle TS, Ryan MP, Fenner B, Wagner RF. Virtual interviews and increased internal matching in dermatology since the COVID-19 pandemic. Bayl Univ Med Center; 2023. Doi:10.1080/08998280.2023.2255509
12. Ederle A, Shahriari S, Whisonant C, Stewart S, Roberson P, Valdes-Rodriguez R. The impact of COVID-19 on the dermatology match: an increase in the number of students matching at home programs. Dermatol Online J. 2021;27(9).
13. Mulligan KM, Zheng DX, Narang J, et al. The effect of COVID-19 related changes on geographical outcomes in the 2021 dermatology residency match. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2022;47(2):445-447.
14. Diamond C, Cardones AR, Liu B, Green CL, Lesesky E. Effects of virtual interviews on dermatology match trends: a retrospective cohort analysis. Dermatol Online J. 2023;29(3).
15. Association of American Medical Colleges. Interviews in GME: where do we go from here? Accessed October 11, 2023. https://www.aamc.org/about-us/mission-areas/medical-education/interviews-gme-where-do-we-go-here.
16. Association of Professors of Dermatology. Information regarding the 2023-2024 application cycle. Published May 22, 2023. Accessed October 11, 2023. https://www.dermatologyprofessors.org/files/APD%20statement%20on%202023-2024%20application%20cycle.pdf.
17. Harvey JA, Costello C, Besch-Stokes J, et al. Characteristics of matched versus nonmatched dermatology applicants. Cutis. 2023;111(1):E8-E15.
18. Pandya AG, Alexis AF, Berger TG, et al. Increasing racial and ethnic diversity in dermatology: a call to action. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74:584-587.
19. Rinderknecht FA, Brumfiel CM, Jefferson IS, Worswick S, Rosman IS. Differences in underrepresented in medicine applicant backgrounds and outcomes in the 2020-2021 dermatology residency match. Cutis. 2022; 110(2):76-79.
20. Huppert LA, Hsiao EC, Cho KC, et al. Virtual interviews at graduate medical education training programs: determining evidence-based best practices. Acad Med. 2021;96(8):1137-1145.
21. Chen A, Shinkai K. Rethinking how we select dermatology applicants-turning the tide. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153(3):259-260.
22. American Academy of Dermatology Association. Diversity in Dermatology: Diversity Committee Approved Plan 2021-2023. Published January 26, 2021. Accessed October 12, 2023. https://assets.ctfassets.net/1ny4yoiyrqia/xQgnCE6ji5skUlcZQHS2b/65f0a9072811e11afcc33d043e02cd4d/DEI_Plan.pdf
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY): lets others distribute and copy the article, to create extracts, abstracts, and other revised versions, adaptations or derivative works of or from an article (such as a translation), to include in a collective work (such as an anthology), to text or data mine the article, even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit the author(s), do not represent the author as endorsing their adaptation of the article, and do not modify the article in such a way as to damage the author's honor or reputation.
Authors retain copyright in their work and license the publisher to publish the content. The publisher is the National Society for Cutaneous Medicine, with production and publishing support provided by OJS, Open Journal Systems,see https://pkp.sfu.
Prior to January 2022, authors transferred copyright to the National Society for Cutaneous Medicine. However, all articles are freely available to anyone in the world. There are no subscription fees, page charges, or article processing charges.