A Survey of Urology Residency Program Directors Assessing Criteria to Interview Applicants during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Introduction:We aimed to determine criteria of interest to urology residency program directors when selecting applicants for residency interviews during the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: An anonymous survey was sent via email to all urology residency program directors across the United States. Program directors were asked to assign the degree of importance (1e5, with 5 being very important) of selected factors in deciding which applicants to interview. Surveys were distributed and study data were managed using REDCap. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed.Results: In total, 130 urology residency program directors were contacted and 64 (49.3%) responded to the survey. Urology letter(s) of recommendation based on nonvirtual rotation(s), urology clerkship grades, research experience, and visa status of the applicant were cited as the most important factors in selecting applicants for interview with median importance ratings of 5, 4, 4, and 5, respectively. Urology letter(s) of recommendation based on virtual rotation(s), virtual subinternship(s), and participation in social media activities were the least important in selecting applicants for interviews with median importance ratings of 2 for each. Notably, urology letter(s) of recommendation based on nonvirtual rotation(s) and visa status were consistently ranked as the most important factors by more than 50% of program directors.Conclusions: Urology program directors value urology letter(s) of recommendation from nonvirtual rotation(s), urology clerkship grades, research experience, and applicant visa status as the most important factors in selecting applicants for interviews during the COVID-19 pandemic. Virtual rotation(s) and social media activity were ranked the lowest among criteria that influence the selection process for interviews.

Twitter Engagement of Medical Students Applying to Urology Residency During COVID-19: A Mixed Methods Study

“…A recent survey of Urology program directors on interview criteria during the COVID-19 pandemic also showed that 54.7% rank the student's visa status as very important, second only to Urology letters of recommendation (64.1%). 18 Our survey also indicated most students rarely felt comfortable tweeting/retweeting about racial, political, and diversity issues. Prior studies demonstrated African-American and Hispanic populations are underrepresented in the general field of Urology as well as academic leadership roles for Urology.…”

Evaluating the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use and impact of social media in the urology residency match: A review of the literature

“…Another theme shared by the studies was that program directors did not consider SoMe to be an important aspect of evaluating applicants (10,13,15). This contrasts current applicant beliefs, as over 30% felt that program directors were evaluating their SoMe use during the application cycle (15).…”

“…The other study found that only 6% of program directors reviewed an applicant's SoMe before offering an interview (10). Furthermore, greater than 80% of program directors reported that SoMe played no role in assessment of applicants (10,13). Even though only a small proportion of program directors acknowledged SoMe was considered in the application process, one survey found that 15% of program directors reported SoMe was beneficial to an applicant's chances of matching and 12% reported that SoMe hurt an applicant's chances (13).…”

“…Although a strongly held belief among applicants, one study on the 2021 match found that only 3% of program directors agreed that they assessed an applicant's SoMe in the match process (13). This finding was supported by two other studies (10,15). The first found that program directors considered SoMe to be one of the least important factors in selecting applicants for interviews (15).…”

“…The first found that program directors considered SoMe to be one of the least important factors in selecting applicants for interviews (15). The other study found that only 6% of program directors reviewed an applicant's SoMe before offering an interview (10). Furthermore, greater than 80% of program directors reported that SoMe played no role in assessment of applicants (10,13).…”