Scholarlink

Purpose <p>This study aims to examine how program signals are utilized and perceived in a recent graduating cohort applying into surgical and non-surgical specialties.</p> Methods <p>This is a retrospective survey-based study performed at a single, university-based medical school. This study was conducted among fourth-year medical students who applied to residency programs utilizing program signaling and geographic preferences in the 2024 residency recruitment cycle.</p> Results <p>The survey had an overall response rate of 94% (128/136 students), incorporating 24 specialties that participated in program signaling and geographic preferences. Surgical applicants applied to more programs than students applying into non-surgical specialties (43 vs 30; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05), but the two groups did not receive significantly different numbers of interviews (15 vs 13; <i>p</i> = 0.13). Most students (98%) used all their program signals in their intended specialty. 55% of all students felt signals were essential or significantly impactful in gaining a residency interview, mainly driven by surgical applicants. With respect to the number of signals allocated, 22% of large signal (&gt; 20 signals) applicants and 20% of tiered signal applicants would have preferred to have fewer program signals, while 31% of small signal (&lt; 7 signals) applicants would have preferred more program signals. Overall, 23% of students indicated that they would have used their program signals differently, citing predominantly a desire to have signaled less competitive programs and those within a specific geographic location. Interestingly, 52% of students felt their interest in a signaled program decreased after interviewing and 75% expressed an interest in having an opportunity to signal their top programs again after interviews were completed. This effect was preserved in the surgical subgroup, with 67% reporting decreased interest after interviewing and 76% expressing interest in signaling again after interviews.</p> Conclusion <p>These findings suggest that students value their respective signal allocations despite heterogenous signaling practices across specialties. The data may support formalization of post-interview signaling, especially in surgical specialties. Further work is needed to better characterize how signaling is addressing the challenges that originally motivated its adoption in the application process, with an emphasis on perspectives of both students and residency programs.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Perspectives of program signaling in residency recruitment among surgical and non-surgical applicants

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月29日

查看全文
  • Samantha Lai,
  • Salila Kurra,
  • Jean-Marie Alves-Bradford,
  • Aubrie Sein,
  • Monica Lypson,
  • Cary B. Aarons

摘要

Purpose

This study aims to examine how program signals are utilized and perceived in a recent graduating cohort applying into surgical and non-surgical specialties.

Methods

This is a retrospective survey-based study performed at a single, university-based medical school. This study was conducted among fourth-year medical students who applied to residency programs utilizing program signaling and geographic preferences in the 2024 residency recruitment cycle.

Results

The survey had an overall response rate of 94% (128/136 students), incorporating 24 specialties that participated in program signaling and geographic preferences. Surgical applicants applied to more programs than students applying into non-surgical specialties (43 vs 30; p < 0.05), but the two groups did not receive significantly different numbers of interviews (15 vs 13; p = 0.13). Most students (98%) used all their program signals in their intended specialty. 55% of all students felt signals were essential or significantly impactful in gaining a residency interview, mainly driven by surgical applicants. With respect to the number of signals allocated, 22% of large signal (> 20 signals) applicants and 20% of tiered signal applicants would have preferred to have fewer program signals, while 31% of small signal (< 7 signals) applicants would have preferred more program signals. Overall, 23% of students indicated that they would have used their program signals differently, citing predominantly a desire to have signaled less competitive programs and those within a specific geographic location. Interestingly, 52% of students felt their interest in a signaled program decreased after interviewing and 75% expressed an interest in having an opportunity to signal their top programs again after interviews were completed. This effect was preserved in the surgical subgroup, with 67% reporting decreased interest after interviewing and 76% expressing interest in signaling again after interviews.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that students value their respective signal allocations despite heterogenous signaling practices across specialties. The data may support formalization of post-interview signaling, especially in surgical specialties. Further work is needed to better characterize how signaling is addressing the challenges that originally motivated its adoption in the application process, with an emphasis on perspectives of both students and residency programs.