Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Academic Ophthalmology 2023; 15(02): e209-e214
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1775576
Research Article

Attending Perceptions on the Use of Preference Signaling in the Ophthalmology Residency Application Process

Geoffrey Nguyen 
1   University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Benjamin Lin
2   Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miami, Florida
,
Jayanth Sridhar
2   Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miami, Florida
,
Moran R. Levin 
3   Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
› Author Affiliations Funding This research was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health Center Core Grant (P30EY014801).
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This article characterizes perspectives of ophthalmologists involved in the residency selection process regarding the potential impact of preference signaling on the ophthalmology residency match.

Methods An anonymous online questionnaire generated from SurveyMonkey was approved by the Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology (AUPO) Data Resource Committee for distribution to 391 individuals from the AUPO Departmental Chairs, Program Directors, and Directors of Medical Student Education email listservs in August 2022.

Results A total of 96 (24.6%) ophthalmology faculty completed the questionnaire. The majority (n = 76, 79.2%) agreed or strongly agreed that preference signaling should be implemented in the ophthalmology residency application system. Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that preference signaling will allow for more holistic reviews of applications (n = 55, 57.3%), agreed or strongly agreed that it will benefit applicants who do not have connections to home programs or faculty that can reach out to desired programs (n = 81, 84.4%), and agreed or strongly agreed that it will improve the distribution of interviews to applicants (n = 76, 79.2%). Participants agreed or strongly agreed that applicants who have signaled interest in their program will receive preference when offering interviews (n = 59, 61.5%), and those signals will be used as a tiebreaker for similar applications (n = 75, 78.1%). The majority of participants believed that the ideal number of preference signals' applicants should be given three to four signals (n = 35, 36.0%) or five to six signals (n = 29, 30.2%).

Conclusion A majority of ophthalmology faculty surveyed support the integration of preference signaling into the ophthalmology residency match.

Keywords

ophthalmology match - medical education - holistic review - interview selection - residency selection - preference signaling - program directors

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 23 February 2023

Accepted: 31 August 2023

Article published online:
25 September 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Association of American Medical Colleges. ERAS Statistics. 2021. Accessed March 5, 2022 at: https://www.aamc.org/eras-statistics-2019
    PubMed
  • 2 SF Match. Ophthalmology Residency Match Summary Report. Accessed May 5, 2022 at: https://www.sfmatch.org/specialty/ophthalmology-residency/Statistics
    PubMed
  • 3 Venincasa MJ, Steren B, Young BK. et al. Ophthalmology Residency Match in the Covid-19 Era: Applicant and Program Director Perceptions of the 2020-2021 Application Cycle. Semin Ophthalmol 2022; 37 (01) 36-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Nallasamy S, Uhler T, Nallasamy N, Tapino PJ, Volpe NJ. Ophthalmology resident selection: current trends in selection criteria and improving the process. Ophthalmology 2010; 117 (05) 1041-1047
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Boatright D, O'Connor PG. E Miller J. Racial Privilege and Medical Student Awards: Addressing Racial Disparities in Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Society Membership. J Gen Intern Med 2020; 35 (11) 3348-3351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ross DA, Boatright D, Nunez-Smith M, Jordan A, Chekroud A, Moore EZ. Differences in words used to describe racial and gender groups in Medical Student Performance Evaluations. PLoS ONE 2017; 12 (08) e0181659
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Pletcher SD, Chang CWD, Thorne MC, Malekzadeh S. The Otolaryngology Residency Program Preference Signaling Experience. Acad Med 2022; 97 (05) 664-668
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Chang CWD, Pletcher SD, Thorne MC, Malekzadeh S. Preference Signaling for the Otolaryngology Interview Market. Laryngoscope 2021; 131 (03) E744-E745
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Fantasia J, Elsamra S, Thavaseelan S. Improving The Match: Use of Preference Signaling to Optimize the Urology Match Interview Process. Urology 2021; 154: 57-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gangal A, Blalock TW. A perfect match: pros and cons of preference signaling in dermatology. J Am Acad Dermatol 2021; 84 (05) 1504-1505
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Traxel E, Richstone L, Brown J, Mirza M, Greene K, Thavaseelan S. Preference signaling pilot in the urology match: outcomes and perceptions. Urology 2022; 170: 27-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Association of American Medical Colleges. Supplemental ERAS application guide. 2021. Accessed March 5, 2022 at: https://students-residents.aamc.org/media/12326/download
    PubMed
  • 13 Otolaryngology Program Directors Association. Otolaryngology preference signaling: updates. 2021. Accessed March 5, 2022 at: https://opdo-hns.org/mpage/signaling-updates
    PubMed
  • 14 Pelletier-Bui AE, Schnapp BH, Smith LG. et al. Making our preference known: preference signaling in the emergency medicine residency application. West J Emerg Med 2021; 23 (01) 72-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Dirr MA, Brownstone N, Zakria D, Rigel D. Dermatology match preference signaling tokens: impact and implications. Dermatol Surg 2022; 48 (12) 1367-1368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Leopold Z, Rajagopalan A, Mikhail M. et al. Preference signaling in the 2022 urology residency match - the applicant perspective. Urology 2022; 170: 33-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Mun F, Suresh KV, Li TP, Aiyer AA, LaPorte DM. Preference signaling for orthopaedic surgery applicants: a survey of residency program directors. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2022; 30 (23) 1140-1145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Winterton M, Ahn J, Bernstein J. The prevalence and cost of medical student visiting rotations. BMC Med Educ 2016; 16 (01) 291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ahmed H, Law JC, Felsted D. et al. Matching ophthalmology amidst coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): lessons that went viral. J Acad Ophthalmol 2020; 12 (02) e200-e204
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Loh AR, Joseph D, Keenan JD, Lietman TM, Naseri A. Predictors of matching in an ophthalmology residency program. Ophthalmology 2013; 120 (04) 865-870
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Salehi PP, Benito D, Michaelides E. A novel approach to the national resident matching program-The Star System. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018; 144 (05) 397-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Association of American Medical Colleges. ERAS Statistics. 2023. Accessed January 25, 2023 at: https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/interactive-data/eras-statistics-data
    PubMed
  • 23 Cui D, Scott IU, Wingert HL. Ophthalmology Program Directors' Perspectives on the Impact of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Change to Pass-Fail Scoring. J Acad Ophthalmol 2020; 12 (02) e277-e283
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar