Survey of the 2020 Fellowship Council application and match process and the impact of COVID-19

Abstract

Background The interview process represents a necessary but potentially resource intensive process from applicant and program perspectives. This study aimed to identify opinions of the 2020 Fellowship Council (FC) application and match process and in-cycle transition to virtual interviews due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Surveys were developed to assess the interview process and were distributed by the FC to all applicants and fellowship programs. Completion was voluntary and data (median [IQR] reported) were anonymous. Results Applicant response was 53%. Applicants submitted 27.5 (13.25–40) applications, were offered 10 (4–17) interviews, and ranked 10 (5–15) programs. Due to COVID-19, 74% of interview plans changed. Applicants completed 30% of their planned in-person interviews. For decision-making, 90% felt that in-person and 81% virtual interviews were sufficiently informative. Expected cost was $4750 ($2000–$6000) vs. actual cost $1000 ($250–$2250), ( p < 0.05). Expected missed work-days were 10 (5–16) versus actual 3 (0–6.25) ( p < 0.05). For future interviews, 44% of applicants preferred in-person after virtual pre-interviews, 29% preferred virtual only, and 18% preferred in-person only. Program response was 38%. Programs received 60 (43–85.5) applications, offered 20 (15–26) interviews, completed 16 (12.5–21) interviews, and ranked 14 (10–18) candidates. For decision-making, 92% of programs felt in-person versus 71% virtual interviews were sufficiently informative. Person-hours were greater for in-person 48 (27.5–80) versus virtual 24 (9–40) interviews ( p < 0.05). For future interviews, 38% of programs preferred in-person after virtual pre-interviews, 31% preferred in-person only, and 21% preferred virtual only. Conclusion Despite pandemic changes, 81% of applicants and 71% of programs felt they gained sufficient information from virtual sessions to create rank lists. Virtual interviews had lower costs and fewer missed work-days for applicants and decreased resource usage for programs. The majority of both groups preferred either solely virtual or virtual pre-interview followed by in-person interview formats. Virtual interviews should be incorporated into future fellowship application cycles.

Virtual interviewing for graduate medical education recruitment and selection: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 80

“…In some programs, this time reduction was partially offset by offering more interviews. However, when comparing total person hours (days  faculty  hours), the requirements for VIs were less than for IPIs (Rosenbluth et al 2022). PDs reported that faculty were more likely to participate in VIs due to the reduced time commitment, the ability to participate from anywhere, and the possibility of continuing some clinical duties (Simmons et al 2022).…”

Evaluation of Virtual Vitreoretinal Surgery Fellowship Interview and Match Experience

“…Studies in other subspecialties have concluded that virtual interviews for fellowship programs should be offered in the future, 13,14,18 although some suggest that virtual interviews should be offered in combination with in-person interviews. [14][15][16] Interestingly, a previous study found that a half of interviewers would negatively view fellowship applicants who chose to interview virtually if an in-person interview were offered. 11 This is a concern shared by fellowship applicants, with one study indicating that 97% of applicants would worry that choosing a virtual interview over an in-person one would convey less interest to a program.…”

“…Other studies of fellowship applicants have also identified cost savings and less time away from clinical duties as top benefits of virtual interviews. [15][16][17] In addition, applicants in 2020 said they felt that the length of the interviews was shorter than those in 2019. The shorter virtual interview day may help facilitate scheduling multiple interviews at a time and thus improve efficiency and accessibility, which was deemed a major advantage by candidates.…”