Geographic mobility in the emergency medicine residency match and the influence of gender

Regan, Linda; Gisondi, Michael A.; Branzetti, Jeremy; Mitchell, Meghan; Roméo, Michèle; Kayko, Caroline; Hopson, Laura R.

doi:10.1002/aet2.10706

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…15 A separate analysis found that a majority of applicants remain within the same geographic region of their medical school for residency. 16 In addition to geography, other location factors considered by applicants include proximity to a partner or family, cost of living, preference for a particular size or type of community, and available recreational activities. 15,17 While the list of individual program features that influence applicants is extensive, some prominent characteristics include program length and reputation, number and type of training sites, patient population, interactions with residency and faculty, and opportunities to support subspecialty interests.…”

Section: How Do Applic Ants S Elec T P Otential Em Prog R Ams?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most EM applicants, according to a survey of medical school graduates who participated in the 2020 Match, select residency programs based on combination of geography and program characteristics 15 . A separate analysis found that a majority of applicants remain within the same geographic region of their medical school for residency 16 . In addition to geography, other location factors considered by applicants include proximity to a partner or family, cost of living, preference for a particular size or type of community, and available recreational activities 15,17 .…”

Section: How Do Applicants Select Potential Em Programs?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evidence‐Informed Emergency Medicine Career Advising

Klein,

Leibowitz,

Fant

2024

AEM Education and Training

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Applying to emergency medicine (EM) residency in the United States is an increasingly complex endeavor. This critical period of professional development is often stressful for medical students, however, several novel disruptive influences-including a dramatic growth in the number of EM residency programs, 1 the COVID-19 pandemic, 2 and concerns about the future EM physician workforce 3 -heighten the uncertainty that potential applicants must navigate. In this rapidly evolving environment, both students and their advisors benefit from objective, accurate, and trustworthy information to help guide their decision making. CON CLUS IONSUnderstanding the emergency medicine application literature is a necessary, but not sufficient, step in a successful Match. Given the recent disruption to the emergency medicine Match, we encourage potential applicants to familiarize themselves with objective data and trusted resources to ensure an accurate understanding of the residency application process. Similarly, advisors must maintain an up-to-date understanding of current trends, new literature, Electronic Residency Application Service modifications, and evolving specialty guidelines.

show abstract

Section: How Do Applic Ants S Elec T P Otential Em Prog R Ams?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How Do Applicants Select Potential Em Programs?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence‐Informed Emergency Medicine Career Advising

Klein,

Leibowitz,

Fant

2024

AEM Education and Training

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, available literature has primarily assessed Match results from the perspective of the EM residency applicant, including geographic mobility and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. [5][6][7] To date, no existing work describes the characteristics of EM residency programs that successfully fill their positions before the SOAP versus those that do not. Therefore, we sought to identify the risk of EM residency program characteristics including accreditation duration, primary clinical site ownership status, and geography pertaining to not filling positions before the SOAP.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Understanding the relationship between residency program–specific characteristics and their relation to Match results would provide important foundational data to the NRMP, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), EM residency program leadership, and potential EM residency applicants. However, available literature has primarily assessed Match results from the perspective of the EM residency applicant, including geographic mobility and the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic 5–7 . To date, no existing work describes the characteristics of EM residency programs that successfully fill their positions before the SOAP versus those that do not.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unfilled in emergency medicine: An analysis of the 2022 and 2023 Match by program accreditation, ownership, and geography

Gettel,

Bennett,

Rothenberg

et al. 2023

AEM Education and Training

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe two most recent National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Match cycles saw a high number of initially unfilled emergency medicine (EM) residency positions. We sought to identify the risk of EM residency program characteristics including accreditation duration, primary clinical site ownership status, and geography pertaining to not initially filling all positions.MethodsWe performed a repeated cross‐sectional observational study of EM residency programs participating in the 2022 and 2023 NRMP Match cycles and used publicly available data from the NRMP, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Our primary outcome was the proportion of EM residency programs that did not initially fill positions, with analyses stratified by accreditation duration (>5 or ≤5 years), primary clinical site ownership status, and geographic core‐based statistical areas (CBSAs).ResultsA total of 219 of 2921 (7.5%) positions in the 2022 Match and 554 of 3010 (18.4%) positions in the 2023 Match were initially unfilled. Over the 2‐year period, EM residency programs accredited within the past 5 years had more than double the risk (relative risk [RR] 2.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.69–2.57, chi‐square p < 0.001) of not filling all positions compared to those accredited more than 5 years previously. EM residency programs with a primary clinical site under for‐profit ownership had a 50% greater risk of not filling all positions when compared to those under nonprofit or governmental ownership (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.14–1.98, chi‐square p = 0.009). In 2023, several CBSAs had a high number of both offered and unfilled positions.ConclusionsEM residency programs accredited within the past 5 years or those with a primary clinical site under for‐profit ownership had a greater risk of not filling all positions within the past two Match cycles.

show abstract