Use of Signaling in Family Medicine Residency Interviewing.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although signals have been used in the residency application process by other specialties, family medicine residency directors have not previously participated. With applicant signal information available for the first time in the 2023-2024 application cycle, the current study describes family medicine residency program directors' intended use of signals and provides benchmarking descriptive data that may help inform best practices and future studies. METHODS: A total of 691 of the 745 family medicine program directors in US family medicine residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education were surveyed. We used ꭓ2 and Pearson correlation analyses to examine how program directors of family medicine residency programs intended to use signaling and their perceived impact of signaling on the residency interviewing process. RESULTS: Most program directors indicated that applicant signals would assist them in deciding who to invite for an interview and would be a positive factor in a holistic review process. However, program directors also noted that rotation experience or geographic ties would be more powerful inducements to interview or rank a specific candidate. Program directors did not indicate a belief that signals would decrease interview season stress or workload. CONCLUSIONS: Signals may play an important role in the residency application process for family medicine in 2023-2024. While signals are not anticipated to decrease application workload or stress, a signal may be an important mechanism for a specific applicant to distinguish themselves with a program.

Storylines of family medicine III: core principles-primary care, systems and family.

Storylines of Family Medicine is a 12-part series of thematically linked mini-essays with accompanying illustrations that explore the many dimensions of family medicine, as interpreted by individual family physicians and medical educators in the USA and elsewhere around the world. In 'III: core principles-primary care, systems, and family', authors address the following themes: 'Continuity of care-building therapeutic relationships over time', 'Comprehensiveness-combining breadth and depth of scope', 'Coordination of care-managing multiple realities', 'Access to care-intersectional, systemic, and personal', 'Systems theory-a core value in patient-centered care', 'Family-oriented practice-supporting patients' health and well-being', 'Family physician as family member' and 'Family in the exam room'. May readers develop new understandings from these essays.

Interviewing for Family Medicine Residency: In-Person, Virtual, or Hybrid?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the impact of interviewing format changes on the family medicine (FM) residency interviewing process. Specifically, we compare applicant cost and time expenditures in traditional in-person, virtual-only, and hybrid interview years. We also report student perceptions of the virtual-only and hybrid interview processes. METHODS: Applicants for first-year FM residency positions via the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) completed a survey questionnaire in 2019-2020 (in-person interviewing only), 2020-2021 (virtual only), and 2021-2022 (hybrid). Statistical analyses included analysis of variance for questions related to applications, interviews, ranked programs, cost, and time spent. We used thematic analysis to code narrative comments about the interviewing experience for the virtual-only and hybrid years. RESULTS: Seventy-one FM applicants responded (response rate 63.4%). Costs for the in-person interview year were significantly higher ($2,394.70±$1,961.20) than the virtual ($646.80±$846.60, P=.0001) and hybrid years ($903.30±$793.40, P=.001). Days spent per applicant on in-person interviews was also significantly higher (25.9±7.9,) than virtual (14.9±7.6, P=.0001) and hybrid years (14.3±7.0, P<.0001). For virtual and hybrid years, thematic analyses identified five categories: "feelings related to interviewing," "suggestions for future," "convenience/logistics of interviewing," "perceived fit of program," and "cost/time of interviewing," that further elucidated applicant experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual interviewing works well for overall cost and time, but other aspects such as perceived fit with programs and equity need to be considered before residency programs adopt fully virtual or hybrid interviewing in future years.

Using the Residency Matched Method and Intent to Practice Method to Estimate Primary Care Workforce Production.

Introduction: Many medical schools overestimate the percentage of their graduates who enter the primary care workforce based on the "first-certificate" residency their graduates enter. To rectify this problem, Deutchman and colleagues proposed a new method of estimation. The objective of this study was to compare results from the traditional residency match and Deutchman methods to the actual percentage of University of Kansas School of Medicine (KUSM) graduates who practice primary care after completing medical school and all residency and subspeciality fellowship training. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted using a convenience sample of KUSM graduates from 2003-2014. Percentages of graduates classified as primary care by the traditional Residency Match Primary Care Method (RMPCM) and the percentages of graduates identified as primary care by Deutchman's Intent to Practice Primary Care Method (IPPCM) were compared with the actual percentage of graduates who eventually entered the primary care workforce. Results: Of the 1,944 KUSM graduates identified during the study period, the RMPCM predicted a 48.1% primary care output rate. The Deutchman's IPPCM predicted a 22.8% primary care output rate. The actual known percentage of graduates practicing primary care was 34.2%. Conclusions: Neither the RMPCM nor the Deutchman's IPPCM performed well in predicting the percentage or number of KUSM graduates who eventually practiced primary care. Due to predictions for the shortage of primary care physicians, there is a need to identify a method that more accurately predicts the medical schools' contribution to the primary care workforce.

Navigating the digital divide: A systematic review of eHealth literacy in underserved populations in the United States.

eHealth provides an important mechanism to connect medically underserved populations with health information, but little is known about gaps in eHealth literacy research in underserved adult populations within the U.S. Between June and July 2013, three systematic literature reviews of five databases were conducted and a subsequent hand search was completed. Identified literature was screened and studies meeting exclusion and inclusion criteria were synthesized and analyzed for common themes. Of the 221 articles critically appraised, 15 met these criteria. Thirty-five of these studies were excluded due to international origin. Of the articles meeting the inclusion criteria, underserved populations assessed included immigrant women, the elderly, low-income, the un- and underemployed, and African-American and Hispanic populations. eHealth literacy assessments utilized included one or two item screeners, the eHEALS scale, health information competence and cognitive task analysis. Factors examined in relation to eHealth literacy included age, experience, overall health literacy, education, income and culture. The majority did not assess the impact of locality and those that did were predominately urban. These data suggest that there is a gap in the literature regarding eHealth literacy knowledge for underserved populations, and specifically those in rural locations, within the U.S.