Assessment of Applicant and Program Director Attitudes Toward a Hybrid Approach to Urology Residency Interviews.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the attitudes of urology residency applicants and program directors (PDs) toward virtual vs in-person interviews in the context of a hybrid interview approach.

METHODS

We conducted 2 anonymous surveys of Urology Residency Match applicants and PDs from accredited training programs after the completion of the 2024-2025 match cycle. These surveys were approved and distributed by the Society of Academic Urologists.

RESULTS

A total of 168 applicants (39% of matched candidates) and 53 PDs (36% of accredited programs) responded. Among applicants, 83% preferred in-person interviews compared to 11% who preferred virtual. The strength of preference for in-person interviews varied by amount of financial debt. 88% of applicants indicated they selected an in-person interview when presented a choice at a program they were interested in and 53% indicated they felt pressured to select in-person interviews. The median cost to applicants of in-person interviews was $2000 (IQR $1000-3000) compared to $0 (IQR $0-30) for virtual (P<.001). 65% of applicants reported receiving assistance from programs to help offset the costs of in-person interviews. Among the 53 programs surveyed, 16 (30%) offered hybrid interviews; only 1 of these programs (6%) reported matching a virtual interviewee. While 92% of in-person only programs intended to continue the same format in the next application cycle, 67% of virtual interview only programs intended to add an in-person component (P=.01).

CONCLUSION

Most applicants prefer in-person interviews and the majority of hybrid interview programs did not match a virtual interviewee. Although the Urology Match should continue to allow both formats, individual programs might consider implementing a single format.