From the Department of Neurology & Neurological Sciences (N.Z.), Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto; Department of Neurology (C.A.), Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY; Department of Neurology (T.B.), New York University School of Medicine, New York City; and Departments of Neurology and Neurotherapeutics and Ophthalmology (D.I.F.), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Neurology. 2020 Sep 8;95(10):e1294-e1300. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000010186. Epub 2020 Jul 6.
To examine the current headache medicine fellowship application process and to propose recommendations for a more unified, systematic, and transparent process.
We identified 42 headache fellowship programs using the United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties certification database. After an initial contact via e-mail, we conducted individual telephone interviews with program directors. Qualitative data coding allowed identification of emerging themes. Quantitative data were summarized with descriptive statistics.
Forty (95%) program directors (34 adult, 6 pediatric) responded. Emerging themes included the following. (1) There are benefits and disadvantages to having a match. (2) If the match were reinstated, programs would participate only if all programs participated. (3) There should be consequences for programs that do not participate. If the match were reinstated, 37.5% of program directors responded that their program would participate without conditions; 37.5% would participate only if every program were required to participate. Fifteen percent would not participate, and 10% were not sure if they would participate. Forty percent supported sanctions against programs that did not participate in the match.
The fellowship match potentially makes the process more systematic for both programs and applicants; however, it does not currently appear to be a feasible option for the field of headache medicine. Until the number of applicants exceeds the number of programs, we recommend instituting a universal timeline for applications and offers.
考察当前头痛医学研究员申请流程，并为更统一、系统和透明的流程提出建议。
我们使用美国神经科专业委员会认证数据库确定了 42 个头痛研究员项目。通过电子邮件进行初步联系后，我们对项目主管进行了单独的电话访谈。定性数据分析确定了新出现的主题。定量数据采用描述性统计进行总结。
40 位（95%）项目主管（34 位成人，6 位儿科）做出回应。出现的主题包括以下内容。（1）匹配既有好处也有坏处。（2）如果恢复匹配，只有所有项目都参与，项目才会参与。（3）不参与的项目应承担后果。如果恢复匹配，37.5%的项目主管表示他们的项目将无条件参与；37.5%的项目主管表示只有当所有项目都要求参与时，他们才会参与。15%的项目主管不会参与，10%的项目主管不确定是否会参与。40%的项目主管支持对不参与匹配的项目实施制裁。
研究员匹配可能使该过程对项目和申请人都更加系统；然而，它目前似乎不是头痛医学领域的可行选择。在申请人数量超过项目数量之前，我们建议为申请和录取制定通用的时间表。
