Evaluating the Impact of the Novel Geographic Preferences Section on Interview Rate and Residency Match Outcomes

BackgroundThe American Association of Medical Colleges trialed residency application initiatives including geographic preferences and preference signals in 2022.ObjectiveTo assess the impact of geographic preferences on application outcomes during the 2022 residency match year.DesignCross-sectional.ParticipantsApplicants to categorical and preliminary internal medicine during the 2022 application cycle who completed the Texas Seeking Transparency in Applications to Residency survey.Main MeasuresThe primary outcome was interview rate (interview offers/total applications) and whether an application resulted in a match. The key dependent variables were geographic preferences and program-specific preference signals. We also assessed differences in utilization of geographic preferences between specialties.Key ResultsA total of 970 applicants into categorical (n = 884) and preliminary (n = 86) internal medicine were included in our study. A total of 704 (72.6%) applicants submitted at least one geographic preference and 424 (43.7%) submitted three preferences. On average, applicants who submitted a geographic preference had a higher interview rate than those who did not (46.0% vs. 41.8%). Applications submitted with both a preference signal and geographic preference were significantly more likely to receive an interview offer (OR: 3.2, p < 0.01) and match (OR: 6.4, p < 0.01) than applications with neither a preference signal nor a geographic preference. Geographic preferences were associated with an increase in the odds of an application receiving an interview offer, even in the setting of a preference signal (OR: 1.4, p < 0.01).ConclusionsBoth preference signals and geographic preferences have significant associations with odds of an application receiving an interview and matching for both categorical and preliminary internal medicine applicants. This study can be used to inform applicants, advisors, and programs how novel application strategies can affect important application outcomes for US medical school graduates. As more specialties pilot alternative processes, it will be important to study all application outcomes among varying applicant populations.