The MedPhys match survey: Search criteria and advice for programs and applicants

Hendrickson, K; Juang, Titania; Rodrigues, Anna; Burmeister, Jay

doi:10.1002/acm2.13235

Cited by 2 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2021, the average number of applications submitted per applicant was 21, which is similar to previous years. 7 Females submitted an average of 25 applications, while males submitted an average of 19 applications. These results represent a shift from previous years' results where male applicants submitted more applications on average than female applicants.…”

Section: Number Of Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clinical potential remained the top criteria compared to previous survey years, with reference letters and academic potential decreasing in importance, and screening interview and medical physics background increasing in percentage of PDs who identified these criteria as major. 7 Post-interview, PDs identified the following criteria as the primary major considerations for ranking a candidate: impressions from the interview (98%), clinical potential (87%), personality fit (83%), medical physics background (65%), leadership potential (51%), and previous clinical experience (49%), as shown in Figure 16. Compared to previous survey years, impressions from the interview remains the top-ranking criteria.…”

Section: % 3%mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A survey of MPM participants was developed to evaluate discriminatory behavior and ethical violations within the residency interview and match process and to gather data on the interview and match experiences of residency applicants and program directors (PDs). Quantitative and qualitative results from the first 4 years of the MPM (2015–2018) have been previously published 6,7 . In this paper, new results from the 2020−21 MPM cycle (hereon referred to as the 2021 MPM cycle for brevity) using a slightly modified survey tool are compared to previously reported experiences, comparing experiences with onsite interviews to the virtual interviewing environment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Virtual interviewing in the MedPhys match: Experiences of applicants and programs

Juang

Landers

Rodrigues

et al. 2023

J Applied Clin Med Phys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this survey study is to compare the experiences of programs and applicants in the MedPhys Match (MPM) in the 2020-21 match cycle with experiences reported from previous match cycles. The 2020-21 match cycle was unique in that recruitment and interviewing were almost exclusively virtual during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A survey was sent to all applicants and programs registered for the 2020-21 MPM.Survey questions asked about the pre-interview screening,interview, ranking, and post-match stages of the residency match process. Survey data were analyzed using graphical methods and spreadsheet tools. Results: Advantages and disadvantages to the virtual interviewing experience were reported by applicants and program directors (PDs). The advantages included reduced cost and greater scheduling flexibility with fewer scheduling conflicts, allowing applicants to consider more programs. These advantages greatly outweighed the disadvantages such as the inability to meet faculty/staff and current residents in person and gauge the feel of the program. PDs recognized the advantages of minimal costs and time savings for applicants. Programs reported it was difficult to convey workplace culture and the physical environment and to gauge personality and interpersonal skills of the applicants. Conclusion:The virtual interviewing environment for residency recruitment in medical physics is strongly preferred by applicants over required in-person interviews. The advantages identified by applicants outweigh the disadvantages, allowing applicants to feel confident in their ranking decisions and overall satisfied with their match results. PDs acknowledge the greater equity of access to interviews for applicants in the virtual environment, however, they are overall less satisfied with their ability to showcase their program's strengths and to assess the personality of applicants. Caution is urged when considering a hybrid interview model to ensure fair assessments that do not depend on whether an applicant chooses to accept an optional in-person interview or site visit.

show abstract

Section: Number Of Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: % 3%mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Virtual interviewing in the MedPhys match: Experiences of applicants and programs

Juang

Landers

Rodrigues

et al. 2023

J Applied Clin Med Phys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thoughtfully set an appropriate number of applications and interviews. Twenty applications have been the average for most students 15 . As these are quick to prepare (compared to interviewing), the number of applications is relevant but not critical in terms of time management.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twenty applications have been the average for most students. 15 As these are quick to prepare (compared to interviewing), the number of applications is relevant but not critical in terms of time management. In contrast, interviewing is more time‐consuming, and considerable planning and subjective judgment may be required to ascertain an appropriate number of interviews.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interviewing for residency positions while completing a graduate degree: Considerations for graduate students, mentors, and program directors

Newhauser

Pitcher

Swanson

et al. 2022

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The pipeline of new clinical medical physicists in the United States includes graduate education followed by residency training. A major bottleneck occurs as students on the verge of completing their advanced degree programs seek positions in residency training programs; for example, in 2022 between a quarter and a half of applicants did not enter residency training.[ 1 ] The origin of the bottleneck was the introduction in 2014 of the American Board of Radiology's eligibility requirement for professional board certification that mandated the completion of an accredited residency program. 1 The bottleneck acutely impacts graduate students. Impacts of concern include anxiety and depression, which are prevalent in graduate students across a spectrum of disciplines in the United States. 2 Other potential impacts include shortages of qualified medical physicists, which could in turn impact the quality, safety, and availability of patient care. [3][4][5][6][7] Although there is literature on navigating the medical physics education and training pathways, 8-10 there is little guidance for graduate students in balancing their limited time to be spent on the competing tasks of interviewing for a residency position and simultaneously completing their degree. In principle, this should be quite simple: Each student interviews with enough 1 For the intents and purposes of this editorial, we require only a crude bracket around the true value, which is not known. We took data on the MedPhys Match (run by National Matching Services [NMS] for positions beginning in 2022). 13 These data reveal that 133 of 264 (50%) of applicants matched to a residency. However, only 214 applicants participated in the match, and of those only 180 were ranked by at least one program (NMS calls this subset ranked applicants "acceptable" applicants; we use this term for consistency; be noted th-at we are unable to confirm that ranked applicants are acceptable or unranked applicants are unacceptable).A total of 133 of 180 (74%) of acceptable applicants matched to a residency program. Hence, these data suggest a bracket spanning 50%-74% of applicants, depending on the denominator selected. For comparison, according to the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), 323 students graduated from accredited programs in 2020 (a figure which excludes nine graduates from DMP programs), 19 of which at least 50% applied to residency programs. We speculate that the reason for which the AAPM's value is larger than that from CAMPEP is that the former includes a backlog of frustrated applicants (who completed their degree in previous years and are attempting admission a second or higher time), whereas the latter excludes these individuals.

show abstract

The MedPhys match survey: Search criteria and advice for programs and applicants

Cited by 2 publications

References 5 publications

Virtual interviewing in the MedPhys match: Experiences of applicants and programs

Virtual interviewing in the MedPhys match: Experiences of applicants and programs

Interviewing for residency positions while completing a graduate degree: Considerations for graduate students, mentors, and program directors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About