Advertisement

Preference Signaling Pilot in the Urology Match: Outcomes and Perceptions

Published:September 14, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.08.034

      Abstract

      OBJECTIVE

      To assess the perceptions and outcomes of the A preference signaling (PS) pilot implemented by the Society of Academic Urology in the 2021-2022 Urology Match cycle.

      METHODS

      Five non-weighted signals were provided to each applicant, and signals were delivered to programs by the American Urological Association to provide an applicant-centered formal and equitable process to express genuine interest in residency programs. Applicant and program perception and behavior was assessed through surveys. Signal distribution, mean, range, and interview offer rates for overall, signaled, and non-signaled programs were calculated.

      RESULTS

      In the 2021-2022 Urology Match cycle, 566 applicants completed signaling; 2829 total signals were sent to programs with 97% applicant and 100% program participation. Each program received a mean number of 19 signals (range of 1-62), and 25% of programs received 49% of all signals. The overall interview-offer rate for the cohort was 12.5% (6019 interviews held/47,989 applications received); the signaled interview rate was 51% (1443/2829), and the non-signaled interview rate was 10% (4576/45,160) with an approximate 4-fold increase in rate of interview for signaled programs compared to non-signaled programs. There was moderate to high levels of satisfaction from applicants and programs on the overall process. 48% of programs incorporated PS into initial application review.

      CONCLUSION

      Preference signaling was demonstrated to be feasible and successful in providing a novel applicant-directed, formal, equitable, and credible structured process for applicants to express genuine interest in programs. Additionally, programs were able to incorporate PS into their interview selection and recruitment process.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Associate of American Medical Colleges: ERAS Statistics, 2022. Available at https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/interactive-data/eras-statistics-data. Accessed March 23, 2022.

      2. Associate of American Medical Colleges: ERAS Statistics, 2022. Available at https://www.aamc.org/media/39781/download. Accessed March 23, 2022.

        • Pletcher SD
        • Chang CWD
        • Thorne MC
        • Malekzadeh S.
        The otolaryngology residency program preference signaling experience.
        Acad Med. 2021; (Epub ahead of print. PMID:34618735)https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004441
        • Bernstein J.
        Not the last word: want to match in an orthopaedic surgery residency? Send a rose to the program director.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017; 475: 2845-2849
        • Coles Peter
        • Kushnir Alexey
        • Niederle Muriel
        Preference signaling in matching markets.
        Am Econ J Microecon. 2013; 5: 99-134https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.5.2.99
        • Fantasia J
        • Elsamra S
        • Thavaseelan S.
        Improving the match: use of preference signaling to optimize the urology match interview process.
        Urology. 2021; 154 (Epub 2021 Feb 2. PMID:33545207): 57-61https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.01.042
        • Weissbart SJ
        • Hall SJ
        • Fultz BR
        • Stock JA.
        The urology match as a prisoner's dilemma: a game theory perspective.
        Urology. 2013; 82 (Epub 2013 Aug 12. PMID:23947988): 791-797https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.04.061
        • Weissbart SJ
        • Stock JA
        • Wein AJ.
        Program directors' criteria for selection into urology residency.
        Urology. 2015; 85: 731-736
        • Warren CJ
        • Reitblat CR
        • Ferreri CA
        • et al.
        Virtual “Matchmaking”: stakeholder perspectives on the future of the urology residency match.
        Urology. 2022; (S0090-4295(22)00169-8. Epub ahead of print. PMID:35263640)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.02.016
        • Lebastchi AH
        • Khouri Jr, RK
        • McLaren ID
        • et al.
        The urology applicant: an analysis of contemporary urology residency candidates.
        Urology. 2018; 115 (Epub 2018 Feb 2. PMID:29408686): 51-58https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.10.065
        • Huang MM
        • Clifton MM.
        Evaluating urology residency applications: what matters most and what comes next?.
        Curr Urol Rep. 2020; 21 (PMID:32803400. PMCID: PMC7429368): 37https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-020-00993-0
      3. Supplemental ERAS application for the ERAS 2023 cycle. Available at: https://students-residents.aamc.org/applying-residencies-eras/supplemental-eras-application-eras-2023-cycle Accessed April 7, 2022.

      4. Preliminary Exploration of Applications Caps. https://cmss.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Preliminary-Exploration-of-Application-Caps-AAMC.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2022.