Perspectives of Stakeholders About an Early Result Acceptance Program to Complement the Residency Match in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Importance: The residency application process is flawed, costly, and distracts from the preparation for residency. Disruptive change is needed to improve the inefficiencies in current selection processes. Objective: To determine interest in an early result acceptance program (ERAP) among stakeholders in obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN), and to estimate its outcome in future application cycles. Design, Setting, and Participants: Surveys of stakeholders in March 2021 queried interest in ERAP across the US. Respondents included OBGYN residency applicants, members of the Association of American Medical Colleges Group on Student Affairs, OBGYN clerkship directors, and residency program directors. Statistical analysis was performed from March to April 2021. Exposures: Respondents completed surveys sent by email from the Association of American Medical Colleges (to OBGYN applicants and members of the Group on Student Affairs), the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics (to clerkship directors), and the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology (to program directors). Main Outcomes and Measures: Applicants and program directors indicated their interest in participating in ERAP, and clerkship directors and members of the Group on Student Affairs indicated their likelihood of recommending ERAP using a 5-point Likert scale. Results: Respondents included 879 (34.0%) of 2579 applicants to OBGYN, 143 (50.3%) of 284 residency program directors, 94 (41.8%) of 225 clerkship directors, and 51 (32.9%) of 155 student affairs deans. The majority of respondents reported being either somewhat or extremely likely to participate in ERAP, including 622 applicants (70.7%) and 87 program directors (60.8%). Interest in ERAP was independent of an applicant's reported board scores, medical school type, race, number of applications submitted, or number of interviews completed. Among program directors, those at university programs were more likely to participate. Stakeholders supported a limit of 3 applications for ERAP, to fill 25% to 50% of residency positions. Estimating the outcome of ERAP using these data suggests 26 280 to 52 560 fewer applications could be submitted in the regular match cycle. Conclusions and Relevance: Stakeholders in the OBGYN application process expressed broad support for the concept of ERAP. The majority of applicants and programs indicated that they would participate, with potentially substantial positive impact on the application process. Careful pilot testing and research regarding implementation are essential to avoid worsening an already dysfunctional application process.