Cargando…

Survey of the 2020 Fellowship Council application and match process and the impact of COVID-19

BACKGROUND: The interview process represents a necessary but potentially resource intensive process from applicant and program perspectives. This study aimed to identify opinions of the 2020 Fellowship Council (FC) application and match process and in-cycle transition to virtual interviews due to th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rosenbluth, Amy L., Nagaraj, Madhuri B., Brunt, L. Michael, Scott, Daniel J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8740859/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34997344
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08935-8
_version_ 1784629387451170816
author Rosenbluth, Amy L.
Nagaraj, Madhuri B.
Brunt, L. Michael
Scott, Daniel J.
author_facet Rosenbluth, Amy L.
Nagaraj, Madhuri B.
Brunt, L. Michael
Scott, Daniel J.
author_sort Rosenbluth, Amy L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The interview process represents a necessary but potentially resource intensive process from applicant and program perspectives. This study aimed to identify opinions of the 2020 Fellowship Council (FC) application and match process and in-cycle transition to virtual interviews due to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Surveys were developed to assess the interview process and were distributed by the FC to all applicants and fellowship programs. Completion was voluntary and data (median [IQR] reported) were anonymous. RESULTS: Applicant response was 53%. Applicants submitted 27.5 (13.25–40) applications, were offered 10 (4–17) interviews, and ranked 10 (5–15) programs. Due to COVID-19, 74% of interview plans changed. Applicants completed 30% of their planned in-person interviews. For decision-making, 90% felt that in-person and 81% virtual interviews were sufficiently informative. Expected cost was $4750 ($2000–$6000) vs. actual cost $1000 ($250–$2250), (p < 0.05). Expected missed work-days were 10 (5–16) versus actual 3 (0–6.25) (p < 0.05). For future interviews, 44% of applicants preferred in-person after virtual pre-interviews, 29% preferred virtual only, and 18% preferred in-person only. Program response was 38%. Programs received 60 (43–85.5) applications, offered 20 (15–26) interviews, completed 16 (12.5–21) interviews, and ranked 14 (10–18) candidates. For decision-making, 92% of programs felt in-person versus 71% virtual interviews were sufficiently informative. Person-hours were greater for in-person 48 (27.5–80) versus virtual 24 (9–40) interviews (p < 0.05). For future interviews, 38% of programs preferred in-person after virtual pre-interviews, 31% preferred in-person only, and 21% preferred virtual only. CONCLUSION: Despite pandemic changes, 81% of applicants and 71% of programs felt they gained sufficient information from virtual sessions to create rank lists. Virtual interviews had lower costs and fewer missed work-days for applicants and decreased resource usage for programs. The majority of both groups preferred either solely virtual or virtual pre-interview followed by in-person interview formats. Virtual interviews should be incorporated into future fellowship application cycles.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8740859
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87408592022-01-10 Survey of the 2020 Fellowship Council application and match process and the impact of COVID-19 Rosenbluth, Amy L. Nagaraj, Madhuri B. Brunt, L. Michael Scott, Daniel J. Surg Endosc 2021 SAGES Oral BACKGROUND: The interview process represents a necessary but potentially resource intensive process from applicant and program perspectives. This study aimed to identify opinions of the 2020 Fellowship Council (FC) application and match process and in-cycle transition to virtual interviews due to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Surveys were developed to assess the interview process and were distributed by the FC to all applicants and fellowship programs. Completion was voluntary and data (median [IQR] reported) were anonymous. RESULTS: Applicant response was 53%. Applicants submitted 27.5 (13.25–40) applications, were offered 10 (4–17) interviews, and ranked 10 (5–15) programs. Due to COVID-19, 74% of interview plans changed. Applicants completed 30% of their planned in-person interviews. For decision-making, 90% felt that in-person and 81% virtual interviews were sufficiently informative. Expected cost was $4750 ($2000–$6000) vs. actual cost $1000 ($250–$2250), (p < 0.05). Expected missed work-days were 10 (5–16) versus actual 3 (0–6.25) (p < 0.05). For future interviews, 44% of applicants preferred in-person after virtual pre-interviews, 29% preferred virtual only, and 18% preferred in-person only. Program response was 38%. Programs received 60 (43–85.5) applications, offered 20 (15–26) interviews, completed 16 (12.5–21) interviews, and ranked 14 (10–18) candidates. For decision-making, 92% of programs felt in-person versus 71% virtual interviews were sufficiently informative. Person-hours were greater for in-person 48 (27.5–80) versus virtual 24 (9–40) interviews (p < 0.05). For future interviews, 38% of programs preferred in-person after virtual pre-interviews, 31% preferred in-person only, and 21% preferred virtual only. CONCLUSION: Despite pandemic changes, 81% of applicants and 71% of programs felt they gained sufficient information from virtual sessions to create rank lists. Virtual interviews had lower costs and fewer missed work-days for applicants and decreased resource usage for programs. The majority of both groups preferred either solely virtual or virtual pre-interview followed by in-person interview formats. Virtual interviews should be incorporated into future fellowship application cycles. Springer US 2022-01-07 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8740859/ /pubmed/34997344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08935-8 Text en © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle 2021 SAGES Oral
Rosenbluth, Amy L.
Nagaraj, Madhuri B.
Brunt, L. Michael
Scott, Daniel J.
Survey of the 2020 Fellowship Council application and match process and the impact of COVID-19
title Survey of the 2020 Fellowship Council application and match process and the impact of COVID-19
title_full Survey of the 2020 Fellowship Council application and match process and the impact of COVID-19
title_fullStr Survey of the 2020 Fellowship Council application and match process and the impact of COVID-19
title_full_unstemmed Survey of the 2020 Fellowship Council application and match process and the impact of COVID-19
title_short Survey of the 2020 Fellowship Council application and match process and the impact of COVID-19
title_sort survey of the 2020 fellowship council application and match process and the impact of covid-19
topic 2021 SAGES Oral
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8740859/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34997344
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08935-8
work_keys_str_mv AT rosenbluthamyl surveyofthe2020fellowshipcouncilapplicationandmatchprocessandtheimpactofcovid19
AT nagarajmadhurib surveyofthe2020fellowshipcouncilapplicationandmatchprocessandtheimpactofcovid19
AT bruntlmichael surveyofthe2020fellowshipcouncilapplicationandmatchprocessandtheimpactofcovid19
AT scottdanielj surveyofthe2020fellowshipcouncilapplicationandmatchprocessandtheimpactofcovid19