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

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to gauge the experiences of applicants and program directors (PDs) in the Medical Physics (MedPhys) Match (MPM) and to determine the most important characteristics and factors that influence decision‐making for applicants and programs when screening, interviewi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hendrickson, Kristi R. G., Juang, Titania, Rodrigues, Anna E., Burmeister, Jay W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8130228/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33786983
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13235
_version_ 1783694471095910400
author Hendrickson, Kristi R. G.
Juang, Titania
Rodrigues, Anna E.
Burmeister, Jay W.
author_facet Hendrickson, Kristi R. G.
Juang, Titania
Rodrigues, Anna E.
Burmeister, Jay W.
author_sort Hendrickson, Kristi R. G.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to gauge the experiences of applicants and program directors (PDs) in the Medical Physics (MedPhys) Match (MPM) and to determine the most important characteristics and factors that influence decision‐making for applicants and programs when screening, interviewing, and ranking in the MPM. Opinions were also solicited from applicants and PDs on the status of medical physics residencies and the selection process, such as the availability of residency positions and satisfaction with the match process. METHODS: A survey was sent to all applicants registered for the 2015–2018 MPM and to all PDs registered for the 2015–2017 MPM. Survey questions asked about the pre‐interview screening, interview, and ranking stages of the residency match process. Survey data were analyzed using graphical methods and spreadsheet tools. RESULTS: An increasing percentage of applicants are female and/or hold a PhD as their highest degree. The over all number of interview invitations per applicant has increased, leading some applicants to decline interviews with the top reasons being cost of travel and scheduling conflicts. The top considerations for applicants in ranking programs were residency program/institution reputation, program structure/organization, and facilities/equipment available. The primary considerations identified by PDs for ranking applicants included impressions from the interview, personality fit, and clinical potential. While two‐thirds of applicants agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that a residency position was difficult to obtain, roughly one‐third of PDs agree that the current residency placement rate is a problem. CONCLUSION: Four years of survey data on the experiences of applicants and PDs participating in the MPM is useful to future participants navigating the residency match system. It is hoped that the data will be helpful to inform improvements and to enhance understanding of the residency match system and how it shapes our profession.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8130228
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81302282021-05-21 The MedPhys match survey: Search criteria and advice for programs and applicants Hendrickson, Kristi R. G. Juang, Titania Rodrigues, Anna E. Burmeister, Jay W. J Appl Clin Med Phys Education PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to gauge the experiences of applicants and program directors (PDs) in the Medical Physics (MedPhys) Match (MPM) and to determine the most important characteristics and factors that influence decision‐making for applicants and programs when screening, interviewing, and ranking in the MPM. Opinions were also solicited from applicants and PDs on the status of medical physics residencies and the selection process, such as the availability of residency positions and satisfaction with the match process. METHODS: A survey was sent to all applicants registered for the 2015–2018 MPM and to all PDs registered for the 2015–2017 MPM. Survey questions asked about the pre‐interview screening, interview, and ranking stages of the residency match process. Survey data were analyzed using graphical methods and spreadsheet tools. RESULTS: An increasing percentage of applicants are female and/or hold a PhD as their highest degree. The over all number of interview invitations per applicant has increased, leading some applicants to decline interviews with the top reasons being cost of travel and scheduling conflicts. The top considerations for applicants in ranking programs were residency program/institution reputation, program structure/organization, and facilities/equipment available. The primary considerations identified by PDs for ranking applicants included impressions from the interview, personality fit, and clinical potential. While two‐thirds of applicants agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that a residency position was difficult to obtain, roughly one‐third of PDs agree that the current residency placement rate is a problem. CONCLUSION: Four years of survey data on the experiences of applicants and PDs participating in the MPM is useful to future participants navigating the residency match system. It is hoped that the data will be helpful to inform improvements and to enhance understanding of the residency match system and how it shapes our profession. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-03-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8130228/ /pubmed/33786983 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13235 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Education
Hendrickson, Kristi R. G.
Juang, Titania
Rodrigues, Anna E.
Burmeister, Jay W.
The MedPhys match survey: Search criteria and advice for programs and applicants
title The MedPhys match survey: Search criteria and advice for programs and applicants
title_full The MedPhys match survey: Search criteria and advice for programs and applicants
title_fullStr The MedPhys match survey: Search criteria and advice for programs and applicants
title_full_unstemmed The MedPhys match survey: Search criteria and advice for programs and applicants
title_short The MedPhys match survey: Search criteria and advice for programs and applicants
title_sort medphys match survey: search criteria and advice for programs and applicants
topic Education
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8130228/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33786983
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13235
work_keys_str_mv AT hendricksonkristirg themedphysmatchsurveysearchcriteriaandadviceforprogramsandapplicants
AT juangtitania themedphysmatchsurveysearchcriteriaandadviceforprogramsandapplicants
AT rodriguesannae themedphysmatchsurveysearchcriteriaandadviceforprogramsandapplicants
AT burmeisterjayw themedphysmatchsurveysearchcriteriaandadviceforprogramsandapplicants
AT hendricksonkristirg medphysmatchsurveysearchcriteriaandadviceforprogramsandapplicants
AT juangtitania medphysmatchsurveysearchcriteriaandadviceforprogramsandapplicants
AT rodriguesannae medphysmatchsurveysearchcriteriaandadviceforprogramsandapplicants
AT burmeisterjayw medphysmatchsurveysearchcriteriaandadviceforprogramsandapplicants