Stakeholder Perspectives on Limiting Residency Applications and Interviews in Obstetrics and Gynecology

• Published in: Journal of surgical education 2022-03, Vol.79 (2), p.362-369
• Main Authors: Strand, Eric A., Winkel, Abigail Ford, Marzano, David A., Morgan, Helen K., Staples, Halley, Hammoud, Maya M.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: graduate medical education; Gynecology - education; Humans; Internship and Residency; interviews; Obstetrics - education; Residency application process; residency selection; Surveys and Questionnaires
• ISSN: 1931-7204; 1878-7452
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.10.012

Application inflation in the current residency application process leads to congestion, inefficiency, and perceptions of inequity. The authors aimed to assess the interest of key stakeholders on the topic of capping applications and interviews, and their perceptions regarding equity of the process. An anonymous survey was electronically distributed in March 2021 to Obstetrics and Gynecology (OBGYN) residency applicants, clerkship directors, program directors, and student affairs deans after the submission of the rank order list for the 2021 application cycle and prior to the release of final Match results. Participants answered questions regarding the perceived equity of the current process (no limits on applications submitted or interviews completed) compared with limiting the number of applications and interviews students could submit or complete. Respondents supporting caps reported the number they considered a reasonable cap for applications and interviews. Associations between the profiles of applicants and program directors and their interest in application and interview caps were explored using chi-squared tests for non-parametric statistics and t-tests for normally distributed interval data. The University of Michigan determined the study exempt from IRB review. The overall response rate was 36.0% (1167/3243), including 34.0% of applicants (879/2579), 50.3% of program directors (143/284), 41.8% of clerkship directors (94/225) and 32.9% of student affairs deans (51/155). All groups reported application caps for either all applicants or the most competitive applicants to be more equitable than the current process, and suggested a median application cap ranging from 25 (clerkship directors and program directors) to 40 (applicants). All groups also believed interview caps to be more equitable than the current process, and suggested a median interview cap ranging from 12 (clerkship directors) to 15 (applicants, program directors, and student affairs deans). Stakeholders in the OBGYN application process consider caps to applications and interviews a promising means to improve equity in the Match.