Paucity of Online Information About Gender-Affirming Surgery Fellowships in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite growing demand for gender-affirming surgery (GAS), there are few formal GAS fellowships in the United States. Paucity of online information about GAS fellowships may discourage potential applicants and decrease the visibility of the field. Thus, it is important to analyze the existing online information about GAS fellowships to improve fellow recruitment and patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To identify the number of GAS fellowship websites (GASFWs) and evaluate their robustness. Second, to report the social media presence of GAS fellowships. METHODS: To identify GASFWs, existing databases sponsored by plastic surgery associations and Google query were used between April and May 2023. Thirty-five independent variables based on previously published data were evaluated for presence in a bivariate fashion on GASFWs. Accounts on popular social media websites were also identified by Google query. Website and social media analysis were also done for GAS fellowships that were offered by departments/specialties other than plastic surgery. RESULTS: In total, only 6 GASFWs associated with plastic surgery departments were identified and analyzed. Eight nonplastic surgery GASFWs were included for analysis. Overall, both categories of GASFWs were not robust; key information such as previous fellow listing and selection criteria was often missing. Furthermore, important topics specifically related to GAS such as community engagement and programmatic building are often not found on GASFWs either. In addition, none of the fellowships had any independent Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter. CONCLUSIONS: To ensure patient safety and quality outcomes, it is important to promote GAS by recruiting more applicants for specialized training beyond residency. With increased Internet use, improving GASFWs and social media presence as well as considering the use of a centralized database or match system can foster the growth of the field.

Flipping Tradition on Its Head: A Single-Institution Study on United States Medical Licensing Examination Step Order.

Given the recent change in Step 1 grading, medical students are faced with decisions surrounding the optimal Step examination order and timing. There is a current lack of guidance outside commonly used United States Medical Licensing Examination study blogs. The aim of this study was to characterize current practices in Step examination order and understand the factors influencing student examination preference. To gather data, we used a 24-item survey and electronically distributed it through three separate email requests to medical students. Participants included medical students (MS1-4) attending a single institution, interested in a surgical residency. In total, 56 students responded to the survey (response rate of 20%). Most students (63.6%) opted to take Step 2 before Step 1. Justifications included the perceived importance of Step 2 for residency applications (33.3%), the change to pass/fail grading (27.0%), the relevance of Step 2 after rotations (27.0%), and a desire to obtain a Step 2 score earlier (7.9%). Step examination order did not lead to differences in Step 2 score (P = 0.459), time used to prepare for Step 1 (P = 0.396), or time used to prepare for Step 2 (P = 0.078). Due to the perceived importance of Step 2, most medical students at our institution who are interested in pursuing a surgical residency are reversing the traditional Step examination order. As this may represent a national trend, additional work needs to be done to provide guidance to medical students and identify the optimal step examination testing strategy.