Advertisement

Preference Signaling in the 2022 Urology Residency Match – The Applicant Perspective

Published:September 30, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.09.009

      Abstract

      Objective

      To evaluate the applicant experience with preference signaling during the 2022 Urology Residency Match.

      Methods

      An anonymous electronic survey was emailed to all urology residency applicants who applied to Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School during the 2021-2022 application cycle. The survey collected information regarding applicant demographics, applicant characteristics, preference signal destinations, match outcomes, and attitude towards preference signaling.

      Results

      A total of 601 applicants applied to the 2022 Urology Residency Match, 283 of which applied to the urology residency program at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. Of the 283 applicants, 53 (19%) responded to our survey. Rate of interview for preference signaled programs was 54.23%, with a significantly lower rate of interview for comparative, non-signaled programs (40.54%; P = .001). Of respondents, 14.29%, 26.19%, and 35.71% matched to their home program, a program they signaled, or a program where they completed an away rotation, respectively. 96% of applicants favored continuation of the preference signaling program.

      Conclusion

      Our study suggests preference signaling in the 2022 Urology Match may have been an effective method of expressing interest in a program. Respondents of our survey overwhelmingly favor continuation of the program in future urology matches. However, it may not address the underlying, growing problem of the increasing application burden on applicants and programs alike. We encourage more comprehensive studies to further clarify the effects of preference signaling on the Urology Match.
      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. American Urological Association. Urology and Specialty Matches - American Urological Association. aunt.org. Retrieved August 9, 2022, from https://www.auanet.org/meetings-and-education/for-residents/urology-and-specialty-matches

        • Tabakin AL
        • Srivastava A
        • Polotti CF
        • Gupta NK.
        The financial burden of applying to urology residency in 2020.
        Urology. 2021; 154: 62-67
        • American Association of Medical Colleges
        ERAS Statistics.
      2. Society of Academic Urologists. SAU Preference Signal Pilot Program. Retrieved August 9, 2022, from https://sauweb.org/about/announcements/sau-preference-signal-pilot-program.aspx

      3. Society of Academic Urologists. Overview: The Challenge of Overapplication. Retrieved August 9, 2022, from https://sauweb.org/match-program/signaling/overview.aspx

        • Pletcher SD
        • Chang CWD
        • Thorne MC
        • Malekzadeh S.
        The otolaryngology residency program preference signaling experience.
        Acad Med. 2021; 97: 664-668
        • Fantasia J
        • Elsamra S
        • Thavaseelan S.
        Improving the match: use of preference signaling to optimize the urology match interview process.
        Urology. 2021; 154: 57-61
        • Secrest AM
        • Coman GC
        • Swink JM
        • Duffy KL.
        Limiting residency applications to dermatology benefits nearly everyone.
        J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2021; 14: 30-32
        • Carmody JB
        • Rosman IS
        • Carlson JC.
        Application fever: reviewing the causes, costs, and cures for residency application inflation.
        Cureus. 2021; 13: e13804
        • Friedman DT
        • Feustel PJ
        • Kogan BA.
        Simulated capped application process for urology applicants.
        J Urol. 2022; 207: 271-273
        • Burk-Rafel J
        • Standiford TC.
        A novel ticket system for capping residency interview Numbers: reimagining interviews in the COVID-19 era.
        Acad Med. 2021; 96: 50-55
        • Wapnir I
        • Ashlagi I
        • Roth AE
        • et al.
        Explaining a potential interview match for graduate medical education.
        J Graduate Med Educ. 2021; 13: 764-767
        • Mahajan A
        • Cahill C
        • Scharf E
        • et al.
        Neurology residency training in 2017: a survey of preparation, perspectives, and plans.
        Neurology. 2019; 92: 76-83
        • Tawfik AM
        • Imbergamo C
        • Chen V
        • et al.
        Perspectives on the orthopaedic surgery residency application process during the COVID-19 pandemic.
        J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2021; 5https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00091