Advertisement

Preference Signaling and Virtual Interviews: The New Urology Residency Match

Published:November 01, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.09.028

      Abstract

      Objective

      To define applicant response to the preference signaling program and continuing virtual aspects of the 2022 Urology Residency Match to guide future decisions surrounding this process.

      Methods

      We emailed an anonymous, de-identified 20-question, multiple choice survey to all applicants to our institution for the 2022 Urology Residency Match (RedCap). Where appropriate, comparisons were made to already published data collected in an identical manner from applicants to our institution for the 2021 Urology Residency Match.

      Results

      Of the 418 survey recipients, 155 (37%) responded to our survey. A majority of applicants (83%) thought that preference signaling should remain in future years, and 66% of applicants matched to a program to which they had signaled or where they completed a subinternship. Geographic location of programs was ranked to have the highest impact on choice of programs for preference signaling. Fifty-two percent of 2022 applicants thought that interviews should remain virtual compared with 39% of 2021 applicants (P = .03). Twenty-one percent of 2022 applicants agreed that pre/post-interview socials were well-replicated virtually compared with 10% of 2021 applicants (P = .04).

      Conclusion

      A majority of urology applicants were satisfied with the preference signaling program, suggesting that preference signaling should remain in future matches. A majority of urology applicants now favor the virtual interview platform. While it is gaining greater acceptance among applicants, the virtual platform generally still carries deficiencies. Further research of the urology match process is necessary for continued optimization of the program for all stakeholders.
      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

        • Carpinito GP
        • Khouri RK
        • Kenigsberg AP
        • et al.
        The virtual urology residency match process: moving beyond the pandemic.
        Urology. 2021; 158: 33-38https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.06.038
      1. Society of Academic Urologists. Society of academic urologists | preference signaling pilot. (n.d.). Retrieved from: https://sauweb.org/match-program/signaling.aspx. Accessed January 21, 2022

      2. Society of Academic Urologists. Society of academic urologists | 2022 residency match changes. (n.d.). Retrieved from: https://sauweb.org/match-program/changes.aspx. Accessed January 21, 2022

        • Fantasia J
        • Elsamra S
        • Thavaseelan S.
        Improving the match: use of preference signaling to optimize the urology match interview process.
        Urology. 2021; 154: 57-61https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.01.042
        • Chang CWD
        • Pletcher SD
        • Thorne MC
        • Malekzadeh S
        Preference signaling for the otolaryngology interview market.
        Laryngoscope. 2021; 131: E744-E745https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.29151
        • Tabakin AL
        • Srivastava A
        • Polotti CF
        • Gupta NK
        The financial burden of applying to urology residency in 2020.
        Urology. 2021; 154: 62-67https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.01.013
        • Pletcher SD
        • Chang CWD
        • Thorne MC
        • Malekzadeh S
        The otolaryngology residency program preference signaling experience.
        Acad Med. 2021; (Ahead of Print)https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004441
        • Salehi PP
        • Azizzadeh B
        • Lee YH.
        Preference signaling for competitive residency programs in the NRMP.
        J Grad Med Educ. 2019; 11: 733-734https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-19-00695.1
        • Salehi PP
        • Benito D
        • Michaelides E.
        A novel approach to the national resident matching program—the star system.
        JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018; 144: 397-398https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2018.0068
        • Whipple ME
        • Law AB
        • Bly RA
        A computer simulation model to analyze the application process for competitive residency programs.
        J Grad Med Educ. 2019; 11: 30-35https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-18-00397.1
      3. American Urological Association. Urology residency matchstatistics. Retrieved from: https://www.auanet.org/education/auauniversity/for-residents/urology-and-specialty-matches/urology-match-results. Accessed May 2, 2022

        • Hanson KA
        • Borofsky MS
        • Hampson LA
        • et al.
        Capturing the perspective of prospective urology applicants: impacts of COVID-19 on medical education.
        Urology. 2020; 146: 36-42https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.09.027
        • Kenigsberg AP
        • Khouri RK
        • Kuprasertkul A
        • Wong D
        • Ganesan V
        • Lemack GE.
        Urology residency applications in the COVID-19 era.
        Urology. 2020; (Published online)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.05.072
        • Gabrielson AT
        • Meilchen CK
        • Kohn JR
        • Kohn TP
        The COVID-19 residency application cycle did not affect geographic dispersal patterns among applicants entering the urology match: a quantitative mapping study.
        Urology. 2021; 158: 26-32https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.05.093
        • Khouri RK
        • Joyner BD
        • Lemack GE
        Applicants’ perspectives of the urology residency match process.
        Urol Pract. 2019; 6: 185-190https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urpr.2018.08.003
        • Jiang J
        • Key P
        • Deibert CM
        Improving the residency program virtual open house experience: a survey of urology applicants.
        Urology. 2020; 146: 1-3https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.08.077
        • Lebastchi AH
        • Khouri RK
        • McLaren ID
        • et al.
        The urology applicant: an analysis of contemporary urology residency candidates.
        Urology. 2018; 115: 51-58https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.10.065
        • Polacco MA
        • Lally J
        • Walls A
        • Harrold LR
        • Malekzadeh S
        • Chen EY.
        Digging into debt: the financial burden associated with the otolaryngology match.
        Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg (United States). 2017; 156: 1091-1096https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599816686538
        • Nikonow TN
        • Lyon TD
        • Jackman SV
        • Averch TD
        Survey of applicant experience and cost in the urology match: opportunities for reform.
        J Urol. 2015; 194: 1063-1067https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.04.074
        • Weissbart SJ
        • Hall SJ
        • Fultz BR
        • Stock JA.
        The urology match as a prisoner's dilemma: a game theory perspective.
        Urology. 2013; 82: 791-798https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.04.061
        • Weissbart SJ
        • Kim SJ eong
        • Feinn RS
        • Stock JA
        Relationship between the number of residency applications and the yearly match rate: time to start thinking about an application limit?.
        J Grad Med Educ. 2015; 7: 81-85https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-14-00270.1
        • Huang MM
        • Clifton MM.
        Evaluating urology residency applications: what matters most and what comes next?.
        Curr Urol Rep. 2020; 21https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-020-00993-0