Hendrickson Kristi R G, Juang Titania, Rodrigues Anna, Burmeister Jay W
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford Cancer Center, Stanford, CA, USA.
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017 Sep;18(5):336-350. doi: 10.1002/acm2.12135. Epub 2017 Aug 20.
The purpose of this survey study is to investigate behaviors in conflict with the ethical standards of the Medical Physics Residency (MedPhys) Match (MPM) process as stated in the MPM rules (a) and with the nondiscrimination regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (b), in addition to other behaviors that may in other ways erode the fairness of the system.
A survey was sent to all applicants and program directors registered for the 2015 and 2016 MPM. Survey questions asked about application, interview, and postinterview experiences, match results, and overall satisfaction with the process.
Thirteen percent of 2015 respondents and 20% of 2016 respondents were asked by at least one program how highly they planned to rank them or which program they would rank first. Thirty-seven percent of 2015 and 40% of 2016 program directors indicated that candidates communicated to the program their rank intent, with 22.0% in 2015 and 12.5% in 2016 being told that their program would be ranked first. Twenty-three percent of 2015 respondents indicated being asked by at least one program during the interview about children or plans to have children; including 19% of males and 33% of females. In 2016, these values were 28% overall, 22% male, and 36% female. Fifty-seven percent of 2015 respondents who were asked this question indicated being uncomfortable or very uncomfortable answering, including 27.3% of males and 88.9% of females. In 2016, 42.9% of all respondents indicated being uncomfortable or very uncomfortable answering, including 10.0% of males and 80.0% of females.
In the first two years of the MPM, there were widespread instances of ethical violations and discriminatory questioning during the interview process. Educating both interviewers and candidates on the MPM rules and general EEOC guidelines should decrease these instances and increase the fairness of the residency selection process.
本调查研究旨在调查与医学物理住院医师匹配（MedPhys）过程的伦理标准（如MedPhys匹配（MPM）规则所述）以及平等就业机会委员会（EEOC）的非歧视规定相冲突的行为，此外还包括可能以其他方式损害该系统公平性的其他行为。
向所有注册参加2015年和2016年MPM的申请人和项目主任发送了一份调查问卷。调查问题涉及申请、面试和面试后经历、匹配结果以及对该过程的总体满意度。
2015年的受访者中有13%，2016年的受访者中有20%被至少一个项目询问他们计划将该项目排在多高的位置或他们会将哪个项目排在第一位。2015年37%的项目主任和2016年40%的项目主任表示，候选人向项目传达了他们的排名意向，2015年有22.0%，2016年有12.5%的人被告知他们的项目将被排在第一位。2015年23%的受访者表示在面试期间被至少一个项目询问有关孩子或生育计划的问题；其中包括19%的男性和33%的女性。在2016年，这些比例分别为总体28%、男性22%和女性36%。被问到这个问题的2015年受访者中有57%表示回答时感到不舒服或非常不舒服，其中包括27.3%的男性和88.9%的女性。在2016年，所有受访者中有42.9%表示回答时感到不舒服或非常不舒服，其中包括10.0%的男性和80.0%的女性。
在MPM的头两年，面试过程中存在广泛的违反伦理和歧视性提问的情况。对面试官和候选人进行MPM规则及EEOC一般准则的教育应能减少这些情况，并提高住院医师选拔过程的公平性。
