The Impact of Residency Match Information Disseminated by a Third-Party Website

Kutikov, Alexander; Morgan, Todd M.; Resnick, Matthew J.

doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2009.03.034

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, we found a discrepancy between the assessed websites and applicants’ self-reported needs, despite the importance of online resources 10 , 17 to residency program applicants. 5 , 7 , 18 , 19 “User-friendly” now represents more than availability of necessary information, but also encompasses the ability to engage, collaborate, and view information through various modalities. As the field of plastic surgery—and medicine as a whole—evolves, delivery of information and content must also evolve to fit ever-changing needs and behaviors, 13 whether it be the use of social media or integration and automation of content.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Websites Provide What Applicants Need? Plastic Surgery Residency Program Websites Versus Applicant Self-reported Needs

Chen

Hoang

Garner

2018

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Websites Provide What Applicants Need? Plastic Surgery Residency Program Websites Versus Applicant Self-reported Needs

Chen

Hoang

Garner

2018

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This website provides information on the matching process. 11 It includes matching tips from program directors, stories from the interviewing trail (the colloquial term for the interviewing process) and recommended reading for students.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The History and Rationale of the American Urological Association Residency Matching Program

Weissbart

Stock

2014

Urology Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Before the AUA Urology Residency Match Program medical students and residency programs would pair up without the aid of a centralized system. We report the history and rationale of this program. Methods: AUA archives regarding the AUA Urology Residency Match Program were searched. Interviews were done with physicians and AUA personnel involved in the creation/facilitation of the Urology Match, including Drs. Eugene Carlton, August Colenbrander and Carl Olsson, and Randy Berndt. Results: Before 1985 there were significant problems in the urology residency job market as a result of not having a formal matching system. An offer/counteroffer system existed that was inequitable, produced suboptimal pairings and created tremendous anxiety for applicants and program directors. The first AUA match was implemented in 1985. The match was done using a deferred acceptance algorithm, which matched applicants and programs according to preferences. Key figures who facilitated the match included Director of Education Dr. Eugene Carlton, Assistant Director of Education William Brubaker, Data Processing Manager Randy Berndt and Dr. August Colenbrander, an ophthalmologist who established the Ophthalmology Residency Matching Program. Although the Urology Match has been a success, a single mismatch occurred in 2005. Dr. Carl Olsson, the AUA Secretary, investigated the erroneous match and led a committee that initiated additional match safeguards. The AUA Residency Match Program has run smoothly since. Conclusions: The AUA Urology Residency Match Program has taken away the problems associated with the offer/counteroffer system that existed before the Urology Match, setting into motion the career trajectories and lives of thousands of urologists.

show abstract

“…Urologymatch.com, a website created with the purpose of informing medical students about the American Urological Association match process, has received more over 1 million visits since its inception as applicants are eager to learn which factors will help to predict a highly successful application to urology. 2 In addition, different residency training programs across the country may have differing views on the importance of various aspects of each application.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survey of Canadian urology programs: Which aspects of the Canadian Residency Matching Service (CaRMS) application are the most important?

Nguyen

Lee²,

Domes³

et al. 2020

CUAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: For medical students, determining which aspects of the Canadian Residency Matching Service (CaRMS) application are the most important when applying to residency programs can be challenging. Due to the lack of current and reliable information on the selection criteria of Canadian urology residency programs, we surveyed each program about which criteria are the most important when selecting future residents in order to provide medical students with more transparency and programs with a better idea of how their criteria compare to those of others. Methods: An electronic survey was sent to all 13 Canadian urology residency programs (both program directors and selection committee members). It asked respondents to rate each aspect of the application on a five-point Likert scale. Following a 100% response rate from program directors, the same survey was sent to selection committee members. A numeric mean score was calculated for each individual aspect surveyed to create an overall rank list of the components. Independent samples t-tests (two groups) were used to compare the scores of program directors vs. program committee members and of francophone programs vs. anglophone programs. Results: Forty-three urologists involved in the application process answered. The three most important aspects were rotation performance at the respondent's institution (4.95±0.21), quality of reference letters from a urologist (4.60±0.62), and interview performance (4.49±0.63). There were no statistically significant differences between program directors and committee members for mean score of any aspect surveyed. Comparatively to anglophone programs, francophone programs gave statistically more significant importance to French proficiency (p<0.001) and pre-clinical academic performance (p=0.0272), while giving less importance to English proficiency (p<0.001). Conclusions: Canadian urology residency programs are similar by ranking “clinical performance during a rotation at their school” as the most important selection criteria when choosing a future urology trainee. Graduate degrees, career plans, and reference letters from non-urologists have less impact when choosing future urology residents. Francophone schools and anglophone schools differ in the importance of language proficiency and pre-clinical grades as selection criteria for urology residency. This study will provide future urology applicants with more information and transparency when applying to urology programs in Canada and be of use to urology residency programs that must now publish their selection criteria.

show abstract

The Impact of Residency Match Information Disseminated by a Third-Party Website

Cited by 13 publications

References 12 publications

Do Websites Provide What Applicants Need? Plastic Surgery Residency Program Websites Versus Applicant Self-reported Needs

Do Websites Provide What Applicants Need? Plastic Surgery Residency Program Websites Versus Applicant Self-reported Needs

The History and Rationale of the American Urological Association Residency Matching Program

Survey of Canadian urology programs: Which aspects of the Canadian Residency Matching Service (CaRMS) application are the most important?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About