Gynecologic Oncology fellowship recruitment in the virtual era: An evaluation of program websites and survey of applicant preferences

被引:1
|
作者
Montemorano, Lauren [1 ,5 ]
Wang, Connor C. [1 ]
Madde, Ankitha [1 ]
Ferriss, J. Stuart [2 ]
Rungruang, Bunja J. [3 ]
Davidson, Brittany A. [4 ]
Spencer, Ryan J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wisconsin, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Gynecol Oncol, Madison, WI USA
[2] Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Dept Gynecol & Obstet, Kelly Gynecol Oncol Serv, Baltimore, MD USA
[3] Augusta Univ, Med Coll Georgia, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Gynecol Oncol, Augusta, GA USA
[4] Duke Univ, Sch Med, Div Gynecol Oncol, Durham, NC USA
[5] Univ Wisconsin Hosp & Clin, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, 600 Highland Ave,Box 6188, Madison, WI 53792 USA
来源
关键词
Virtual interviewing; Gynecologic Oncology; Fellowship;
D O I
10.1016/j.gore.2023.101216
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective: Virtual Gynecologic Oncology fellowship recruitment has altered how candidates and programs ex-change information. This study analyzes programs' web-based content and the priorities of fellowship candidates.Methods: Web-based materials of Gynecologic Oncology fellowship programs participating in the 2022 match were reviewed. An anonymous survey was emailed to applicants. Questions assessed importance of web-based materials on a Likert scale. Respondents were asked to rank factors from most to least important in their de-cisions to interview and rank programs.Results: Of the 66 programs participating in the 2022 Gynecologic Oncology fellowship match, 62 (93.9%) had accessible websites. Over one-fourth (25.8%) of program websites did not list application requirements. Most (74.2%) websites contained requests for letters of recommendation, but fewer (48.4%) specified the preferred quantity or authorship. Residency in-service exam score requirement information was present on 61.3% of websites. Of 100 applicants invited to participate, 44 returned surveys (44% response rate). The median number of programs applied to was 60 (IQR 51-65). Web-based materials most important to candidates were application requirements and deadlines, letter of recommendation details, and in-service exam requirements. Interaction with faculty and program information received during interview days were among the most important factors in decisions to rank programs.Conclusions: Gynecologic Oncology fellowship applicants surveyed in this study applied to nearly all participating fellowships. The content of web-based materials varies across program websites, particularly for application requirements, which applicants indicated as the most important electronically available material. Programs should have clear application requirements and provide clinical details on their websites.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Increasing Fellow Recruitment: How Can Fellowship Program Websites Be Optimized?
    Shaath, M. Kareem
    Avilucea, Frank R.
    Lim, Philip K.
    Warner, Stephen J.
    Achor, Timothy S.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2020, 28 (24) : E1105 - E1110
  • [22] Virtual Recruitment Is Here to Stay: A Survey of ID Fellowship Program Directors and Matched Applicants Regarding Their 2020 Virtual Recruitment Experiences
    Rockney, Danica
    Benson, Constance A.
    Blackburn, Brian G.
    Chirch, Lisa M.
    Konold, Victoria J. L.
    Luther, Vera P.
    Razonable, Raymund R.
    Tackett, Sean
    Melia, Michael T.
    OPEN FORUM INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2021, 8 (08):
  • [23] Cross-sectional survey of preparedness for gynecologic oncology fellowship among recent gynecologic oncology graduates
    Tondo-Steele, Katelyn
    Siedel, Jean
    Brackmann, Melissa
    GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2024, 190 : S272 - S272
  • [24] Breast Surgical Oncology Fellowship applicant selection and ranking: A survey of Society of Surgical Oncology programs
    Hedges, Elizabeth A.
    Khan, Tahsin M.
    Teke, Martha
    Wach, Michael M.
    Hernandez, Jonathan M.
    Hoover, Susan J.
    JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2023, 127 (01) : 34 - 39
  • [25] Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology fellowship programs in the USA: a survey of fellows and fellowship directors
    Sfakianos, Gregory P.
    Frederick, Peter J.
    Kendrick, James E.
    Straughn, J. Michael
    Kilgore, Larry C.
    Huh, Warner K.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ROBOTICS AND COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY, 2010, 6 (04): : 405 - 412
  • [26] Evaluation of Cardiothoracic Surgery Residency and Fellowship Program Websites
    Miller, Vanessa M.
    Padilla, Luz A.
    Schuh, Alissa
    Mauchley, David
    Cleveland, David
    Aburjania, Zviadi
    Dabal, Robert
    JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH, 2020, 246 : 200 - 206
  • [27] An Evaluation of Burn Fellowship Program Websites' Presence and Content
    Mayorga-Young, Danielle
    LaGuardia, Jonnby
    Zaronias, Callista
    Park, Won
    Bell, Derek
    JOURNAL OF BURN CARE & RESEARCH, 2024,
  • [28] Evaluation of Canadian urology residency and fellowship program websites
    Siron, Nicolas
    Bouhadana, David
    Schwartz, Ryan
    Deyermendjian, Claudia
    Lafontaine, Marie-Lyssa
    Cossette, Francois
    Jain, Mehr
    Nguyen, David-Dan
    Zorn, Kevin C.
    Khosa, Faisal
    Elterman, Dean S.
    Chughtai, Bilal
    Bhojani, Naeem
    CUAJ-CANADIAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2023, 17 (09): : E291 - E296
  • [29] Critical evaluation of functional neurosurgical fellowship program websites
    Gariscsak, Peter
    Figueredo, Luisa
    Singh, Rohin
    Stonnington, Henry O.
    Brown, Nolan J.
    Shahrestani, Shane
    Rangel, India C.
    Neal, Matthew T.
    Patel, Naresh P.
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY-X, 2023, 18
  • [30] An evaluation of the content on pediatric ophthalmology fellowship program websites
    Cohen, Samuel A.
    Pershing, Suzann
    JOURNAL OF AAPOS, 2022, 26 (04): : 220 - 223