Otolaryngology Applicant Perspectives on In-person and Virtual Residency Interviews.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to understand applicant perspectives on in-person and virtual otolaryngology residency interviews. STUDY DESIGN: Survey study. SETTING: Otolaryngology residency applicants who were interviewed during 2022-2023. METHODS: Survey sent to all otolaryngology residency applicants who interviewed during the 2022-2023 interview season. RESULTS: A total of 499 applicants were surveyed with 150 responses (30%). Approximately 48.3% of respondents were offered an in-person interview with 78.9% accepting the offer. Of those who did not accept, reasons included not wanting to travel (21.1%) and time conflicts (15.5%). When comparing virtual versus in-person interviews, those who attended virtual interviews were more likely to disagree that they connected with residents (P = .02) and that they had an improved perspective of the program (P = .002). The majority of applicants agreed that virtual interviews are more inclusive and equitable than in-person interviews (70.4%). When asked which interview style applicants would prefer, 63.1% of applicants preferred an in-person interview when compared to virtual with a second look option (29.5%) and virtual (7.4%). Respondents who self-identified as being underrepresented in medicine were less likely to choose in-person as their preferred interview format (P = .01) and were more likely to decline an in-person interview offer due to monetary limitations (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Applicants indicated dissatisfaction with connecting with residents and improving their perspective of the program when in a virtual setting. Applicants felt that virtual interviews were more equitable, but that if the barriers to equity were lessened then they would prefer in-person interviews.

Resource limitation alters the consequences of co-infection for both hosts and parasites.

Most animals are concurrently infected with multiple parasite species and live in environments with fluctuating resource availability. Resource limitation can influence host immune responses and the degree of competition between co-infecting parasites, yet its effects on individual health and pathogen transmission have not been studied for co-infected hosts. To test how resource limitation affects immune trade-offs and co-infection outcomes, we conducted a factorial experiment using laboratory mice. Mice were given a standard or low protein diet, dosed with two species of helminths (alone and in combination), and then challenged with a microparasite. Using a community ecology trophic framework, we found that co-infection influenced parasite survival and reproduction via host immunity, but the magnitude and direction of responses depended on resources and the combination of co-infecting parasites. Our findings highlight that resources and their consequence for host defenses are a key context that shapes the magnitude and direction of parasite interactions.