Dalrymple William Alexander, Ulep Robin, Ratliff Jeffrey B, Carrera Joseph, Wang Alan, Patrie James T, Southerland Andrew M
From the Department of Neurology (W.A.D., A.M.S.), University of Virginia, Charlottesville; Department of Neurology (R.U.), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Neurology (J.B.R.), Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; Department of Neurology (J.C.), University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor; Department of Neurology (A.W.), University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix; and Department of Public Health Sciences (J.T.P., A.M.S.), University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Neurol Educ. 2024 Oct 31;3(4):e200161. doi: 10.1212/NE9.0000000000200161. eCollection 2024 Dec.
The residency application process relies on interviews, which allow programs and applicants to assess one another. Historically, interviews were conducted in person at each program. With the advent of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, residency interviews shifted to a virtual format. Now, many specialties are choosing to return to in-person interviews. The objective of this study was to evaluate the resident perspective of virtual and in-person interviews.
We created a survey about various aspects of the residency interview process and distributed it to neurology residents in all years of training from 5 institutions across the United States. Because of the timing of survey distribution, some residents interviewed in-person while others interviewed virtually. We focused the survey on a few themes: number of applications, cost, and overall quality. Survey response data were analyzed using generalized linear models and by nonparametric methods for categorical data.
Of the 164 total residents among the 5 programs, 60 completed the survey; 25 (41.7%) interviewed in-person while 35 (58.3%) interviewed virtually. Applicants who interviewed virtually applied to more programs (38.2 ± 26.6 vs 20.7 ± 7.4, < 0.001) and attended more interviews (15.4 ± 8.3 vs 11.6 ± 3.3) but received a lower percentage of interview offers (54.3% ± 23.0% vs 74.4% ± 19.8%). Applicants who interviewed in-person spent significantly more money (95% CI $2,000-3,500 vs $15-100) but were also more confident in their assessment of a program's culture (76.9% vs 17.1%) and location (56.0% vs 8.6%). When asked which method they would prefer, respondents chose the method that they were familiar with-96% of people who interviewed in-person would prefer in-person interviews while 68.6% of those who interviewed virtually would prefer virtual interviews ( < 0.001).
There are multiple factors to consider when deciding on in-person or virtual residency interviews. In-person interviews are significantly more expensive and thus raise issues of equity but also provide better insight into the culture, location, and "fit" of programs and can help to reduce application burden. All these factors need to be considered before moving forward with a decision on residency interview formats for the future.
住院医师申请过程依赖面试，通过面试项目和申请者可以相互评估。过去，每个项目的面试都是面对面进行的。随着2019冠状病毒病大流行的出现，住院医师面试改为虚拟形式。现在，许多专业正选择恢复面对面面试。本研究的目的是评估住院医师对虚拟面试和面对面面试的看法。
我们创建了一份关于住院医师面试过程各个方面的调查问卷，并将其分发给来自美国5家机构的各培训年份的神经科住院医师。由于调查问卷分发的时间安排，一些住院医师参加了面对面面试，而另一些则参加了虚拟面试。我们将调查问卷重点放在几个主题上：申请数量、成本和整体质量。使用广义线性模型和分类数据的非参数方法对调查问卷回复数据进行分析。
在5个项目的164名住院医师中，60人完成了调查问卷；25人（41.7%）参加了面对面面试，35人（58.3%）参加了虚拟面试。参加虚拟面试的申请者申请的项目更多（38.2±26.6个 vs 20.7±7.4个，<0.001），参加的面试也更多（15.4±8.3次 vs 11.6±3.3次），但获得面试邀请的比例较低（54.3%±23.0% vs 74.4%±19.8%）。参加面对面面试的申请者花费显著更多（95%置信区间为2000 - 3500美元 vs 15 - 100美元），但他们对项目文化（76.9% vs 17.1%）和地点（56.0% vs 8.6%）的评估也更有信心。当被问及他们更喜欢哪种方式时，受访者选择了他们熟悉的方式——96%参加面对面面试的人更喜欢面对面面试，而68.6%参加虚拟面试的人更喜欢虚拟面试（<0.001）。
在决定采用面对面还是虚拟住院医师面试时，有多个因素需要考虑。面对面面试成本显著更高，因此引发了公平性问题，但也能更好地了解项目的文化、地点和“契合度”，并有助于减轻申请负担。在就未来住院医师面试形式做出决定之前，所有这些因素都需要加以考虑。
