Background Studies of the virtual interview format are needed to inform medical residency program leaders as they plan for future virtual interview seasons. Objective In the current study, completed in 2021, we sought to assess applicant perspectives of virtual interview effectiveness, advantages, and barriers, including factors that might impact equity and inclusion. Methods Interviewees applying to 7 residency programs and 2 clinical psychology programs at an academic medical center in the Pacific Northwest completed a post-interview survey. Results A total of 565 of 1429 interviewees (40%) completed the survey. A vast majority (83%–96%) agreed virtual interviews were effective in each measured domain, except for learning institutional culture (352 of 565, 62%). Many also found information regarding social/living environments inadequate. Participants selected advantages to virtual interviews more frequently than disadvantages. Commonly selected advantages included cost savings, time efficiency, reduced burden of travel, and reduced carbon footprint. Disadvantages included time zone differences, access to an appropriate interview setting, and reliable access to internet. The majority of interviewees (84%, 456 of 542) desired to keep a component of virtual interviews in the future. There were no significant disparities in results based on gender, rural/suburban/urban location, race, or underrepresented minority status. Conclusions Virtual interviews were perceived as effective, more advantageous than burdensome, and widely acceptable, with no disparities in these findings by included demographic characteristics.

Background The shift from in-person to virtual residency interviews may impact greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) and costs but the direction and amount of this change is not yet clear. Objective To estimate GHGE and financial impacts of virtual interviews among applicants and programs. Methods In 2020-2021 we sent a postinterview survey to 1429 applicants from 7 residency programs and 1 clinical psychology program at 1 institution. The survey collected origin of travel and transit type if in-person interviews had been held and excluded responses if the applicant would not have participated in an in-person interview, or if travel type or original city was missing. We used the International Civil Aviation Organization calculator to estimate flight-related GHGE in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) and Google Maps to estimate ground travel, with a standard CO2e per mile. Flight, hotel, and airport taxi costs were estimated using Expedia.com, Hotels.com, Uber, and Lyft. We aggregated these data and calculated median and interquartile ranges (IQRs) for applicant GHGE and cost savings, and assumed no cost or GHGE from virtual interviews. We used Wilcoxon signed rank sum tests to compare in-person 2019-2020 and virtual 2020-2021 GME program interview budgets. Results The survey response rate was 565, or 40% of applicants; 543 remained after the exclusion criteria were applied. Reduction in applicant travel due to virtual interviews led to median estimated GHGE savings of 0.47 (IQR 0.30-0.61) MTCO2e and $490 (IQR $392-$544) per applicant, per interview. Programs savings ranged from $7,615 to $33,670 for the interview season. Conclusions Virtual interviews in 8 GME programs were associated with lower estimated GHGE and costs, for applicants and programs, compared with in-person interviews.

No abstract