Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Gynecologic Oncology fellowship recruitment in the virtual era: An evaluation of program websites and survey of applicant preferences.
Montemorano, Lauren; Wang, Connor C; Madde, Ankitha; Stuart Ferriss, J; Rungruang, Bunja J; Davidson, Brittany A; Spencer, Ryan J.
Afiliação
  • Montemorano L; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
  • Wang CC; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
  • Madde A; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
  • Stuart Ferriss J; Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Rungruang BJ; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA.
  • Davidson BA; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
  • Spencer RJ; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Gynecol Oncol Rep ; 48: 101216, 2023 Aug.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37325295
Objective: Virtual Gynecologic Oncology fellowship recruitment has altered how candidates and programs exchange information. This study analyzes programs' web-based content and the priorities of fellowship candidates. Methods: Web-based materials of Gynecologic Oncology fellowship programs participating in the 2022 match were reviewed. An anonymous survey was emailed to applicants. Questions assessed importance of web-based materials on a Likert scale. Respondents were asked to rank factors from most to least important in their decisions to interview and rank programs. Results: Of the 66 programs participating in the 2022 Gynecologic Oncology fellowship match, 62 (93.9%) had accessible websites. Over one-fourth (25.8%) of program websites did not list application requirements. Most (74.2%) websites contained requests for letters of recommendation, but fewer (48.4%) specified the preferred quantity or authorship. Residency in-service exam score requirement information was present on 61.3% of websites. Of 100 applicants invited to participate, 44 returned surveys (44% response rate). The median number of programs applied to was 60 (IQR 51-65). Web-based materials most important to candidates were application requirements and deadlines, letter of recommendation details, and in-service exam requirements. Interaction with faculty and program information received during interview days were among the most important factors in decisions to rank programs. Conclusions: Gynecologic Oncology fellowship applicants surveyed in this study applied to nearly all participating fellowships. The content of web-based materials varies across program websites, particularly for application requirements, which applicants indicated as the most important electronically available material. Programs should have clear application requirements and provide clinical details on their websites.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Evaluation_studies / Guideline / Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Evaluation_studies / Guideline / Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article