Mp39-17 the Virtual Urology Residency Interview Is Here to Stay: A Two-Year Comparison of Applicants’ Attitudes and Perceptions

You have accessJournal of UrologyEducation Research II (MP39)1 May 2024MP39-17 THE VIRTUAL UROLOGY RESIDENCY INTERVIEW IS HERE TO STAY: A TWO-YEAR COMPARISON OF APPLICANTS' ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS Melinda Z. Fu, Ellen M. Cahill, Rachel Passarelli, Alain Kaldany, Arnav Srivastava, Sammy E. Elsamra, Thomas L. Jang, and Ji Hae Park Melinda Z. FuMelinda Z. Fu , Ellen M. CahillEllen M. Cahill , Rachel PassarelliRachel Passarelli , Alain KaldanyAlain Kaldany , Arnav SrivastavaArnav Srivastava , Sammy E. ElsamraSammy E. Elsamra , Thomas L. JangThomas L. Jang , and Ji Hae ParkJi Hae Park View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008644.01945.6c.17AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: In response to the restrictions brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Society of Academic Urologists implemented virtual interviews during the 2020 Urology Residency Match. To this day virtual interviews remain the standard of the Urology Residency Match. Though virtual interviews have decreased interview-related costs, they have presented new challenges for applicants in making informed decisions about residencies. We conducted a survey-based study over two years to clarify this trade off. METHODS: An anonymous, web-based survey was sent to applicants of the 2022 and 2023 Urology Residency Match who submitted an application to our institution. The ten-minute survey gathered demographic information and asked a variety of questions to gauge applicant attitudes towards virtual interviews. RESULTS: For the 2022 application cycle, of 283 applicants receiving the survey, 102 (36%) responded. An additional 91 responses were elicited from 2023 applicants. On average, respondents both applied to more programs in the 2023 cycle compared to the 2022 cycle (92.1 vs 87.4, p>0.05) and received more interview invites (15.7 vs 14.6, p>0.05). The number of programs that applicants ranked was comparable between 2023 and 2022 (13.9 vs 13.2). 82% of survey respondents in 2022 matched compared to 88% of 2023 respondents, both with a median match of program number 2 (IQR: 1-5) on their rank list. Participants of both years chose fit within the program (36% in 2023 and 38% in 2022), program location (34% in 2023 and 28% in 2022), or resident happiness (14% in 2023 and 23% in 2022) as the most important factor when making their rank lists. Participants felt faculty interviews and resident happiness were well-replicated virtually, but program location was not. In 2022 44% of participants found virtual resident question and answer sessions and pre/post-interview socials helpful in assessing resident happiness, and in 2023 this increased to 51% of applicants. Applicant feedback included adding virtual tours, interactive maps, and "day in the life" social media posts. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual interviews for the Urology Residency Match are here to stay. Trends over the last two years largely demonstrate consistency in applicant priorities as well as in the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the virtual interview process. Novel software programs, interviewing formats, and creative supplemental events such as pre-recorded videos and live virtual events will be crucial in addressing some of the pitfalls of the virtual interview process as highlighted in our study. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e658 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Melinda Z. Fu More articles by this author Ellen M. Cahill More articles by this author Rachel Passarelli More articles by this author Alain Kaldany More articles by this author Arnav Srivastava More articles by this author Sammy E. Elsamra More articles by this author Thomas L. Jang More articles by this author Ji Hae Park More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...