Nationwide Analysis of Integrated and Independent Interventional Radiology Residency Websites During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze current interventional radiology residency program websites based on validated criteria and highlight areas for improvement during the COVID-19 pandemic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

ACGME-accredited interventional radiology residency programs were identified from the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) public database, including 91 independent and 89 integrated programs. Program Webpages were then evaluated during September and October 2020 based on the presence of 48 criteria, organized into seven main categories including visibility & communication, program information, curriculum information, faculty description, research, recruitment, and salary and benefits. Programs were also evaluated based on region and research ranking. Additionally, 166 programs with accreditation for Early Specialization in Interventional Radiology (ESIR) were assessed for the presence or absence of ESIR pathway acknowledgement on program webpages.

RESULTS

The online search yielded information on all integrated programs (89/89, 100%) and 74 independent programs (74/91, 80.3%). For the ESIR programs, the online search for accreditation acknowledgement yielded 108 programs (108/166, 65%) approved for this pathway. Only seven of the 89 integrated programs met at least 75% of the criteria. Of the 91 independent programs, only one met at least 75% of the criteria. On average, integrated programs met more criteria (25, 52%) than independent programs (17, 36%). When comparing programs based on national rank, the visibility & communication category met more criteria on average than the lower ranked programs (integrated =73% vs. 64%, p = 0.01), (independent = 73% vs. 45%, p = 0.01). When comparing programs regionally, statistical significance was found only in the research category (p = 0.01). When comparing the integrated programs with the independent programs for averages in the 7 categories and the total criteria, statistical significance was found in all categories except facility description: visibility & communication (67.5% vs. 53. 7%, p = 0.01), program information (75.7% vs. 58%, p = 0.01), curriculum information (54.8% vs. 31.4, p = 0.01), research (42.5% vs. 27.5%, p = 0.01), recruitment (42.6% vs. 26.8%, p = 0.01), salary & benefits (47.8% vs. 26.8%, p = 0.01), and total criteria (52% vs. 35.8%, p = 0.01.

CONCLUSION

IR residency programs across the country are proficient in providing curricular, and logistical information online. However, improvement is needed in providing nonacademic highlights unique to programs that can aid in maximizing applicant match and compatibility. The information provided by online resources has the potential to influence residency applicant's program ranking and chosen pathway, particularly during the COVID19 pandemic.