Insight Into a Successful Couples Match in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Abstract

Arnold and Padilla Colon 1 state that physical exercise is the primary intervention for the prevention and management of sarcopenia. However, although not overtly stated, it is worthwhile to recall that as per the US Physical Activity Guidelines, all older adults should be engaged in a regular multicomponent physical activity/exercise program, including aerobic and resistance exercise training as well as balance exercises. 4 As such, a primary prevention program of sorts is already in place for sarcopenia via these guidelines. Unfortunately, not unlike the US population at large, compliance with these guidelines is quite low, with only 23% of older adults achieving the recommended minimums for aerobic and resistance exercise. 5 Thus, again, there is an opportunity for physiatrists to intervene by dedicating a few minutes during a clinical visit with their older patients to enforce the benefits of exercise/physical activity and/or to provide educational resources for these patients (e.g., National Institute on Aging Exercise and Physical Activity website, https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/exercisephysical-activity) to assist them in developing a regular exercise/physical activity program.For patients diagnosed with sarcopenia, a program as per Arnold and Padilla Colon 1 can be initiated, while for those with one or more identified concomitant disabling diagnoses (e.g., hip or knee osteoarthritis, neurogenic claudication), a physiatrist can address management of those conditions as well.In sum, the evaluation and management of older adult patients with, or at risk, for sarcopenia are yet another area in which the unique skill set and expertise of physiatrists can be brought to bear to optimize the health and welfare of a functionally disabled patient population.

Advice and perspectives from navigating the couples match in otolaryngology: A qualitative pilot study

“…Residents also discussed defining priorities to engage in shared decision making and maintain harmony with each other. This process matched similar literature that described the process for two physicians applying to Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 5 . Ranking combinations, explicitly stating priorities, and determining the maximum “feasible” distance away from each other were some of the conversations that Couples Match applicants faced in our study and other “personal account” pieces in the literature 5–7 .…”

“…This process matched similar literature that described the process for two physicians applying to Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 5 Ranking combinations, explicitly stating priorities, and determining the maximum “feasible” distance away from each other were some of the conversations that Couples Match applicants faced in our study and other “personal account” pieces in the literature. 5 , 6 , 7 However, during the application process, these stressors became complicated with emotions surrounding the fear of not matching altogether or matching at undesirable institutions.…”

“… 5 Ranking combinations, explicitly stating priorities, and determining the maximum “feasible” distance away from each other were some of the conversations that Couples Match applicants faced in our study and other “personal account” pieces in the literature. 5 , 6 , 7 However, during the application process, these stressors became complicated with emotions surrounding the fear of not matching altogether or matching at undesirable institutions. Applicants may sacrifice their top desired choices to accommodate their partner and their relationship.…”

“…While these unique difficulties may not be avoidable, they may be alleviated by self‐reflecting in advance and beginning these conversations earlier. Wakim et al discussed the importance of self‐reflection for both partners, 5 which may start before the application cycle through participation in extracurricular activities, selection of away rotations, and other collaborative opportunities in research or volunteering. This discussion parallels some of the advice given by participants of this survey.…”

“…According to the NRMP, geographic proximity between partners is not part of the calculation for a successful Couples Match, as it only considers both partners matching at an institution to be successful, even if they match at programs in different locations. 1 , 4 While several editorials have been published about the experiences of couples navigating through this application process, 5 , 6 , 7 they ultimately are limited in generalizability due to specific experience based on specialties and personal circumstances. Moreover, research identifying general experiences of partners applying through the Couples Match in competitive specialties remains unstudied.…”