Virtual Interviews and the Pediatric Emergency Medicine Match Geography: A National Survey

TL;DR

This study compares how pediatric emergency medicine fellowship applicants chose programs based on virtual versus in-person interviews and found no significant increase in the number of applications.

Contribution

The study is the first to analyze geographic application patterns in PEM fellowships under virtual interview conditions.

Findings

Most PEM applicants applied to programs in the same region as their residency and outside it, regardless of interview format.

Only the Pacific region saw a statistically significant increase in applicants during virtual interviews.

There was no significant difference in the number of programs applied to during virtual versus in-person interviews.

Abstract

Virtual interviews (VI) are now a permanent part of pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) recruitment, especially given the cost and equity advantages. Yet inability to visit programs in person can impact decision-making, leading applicants to apply to more programs. Moreover, the cost advantages of VI may encourage applicants to apply to programs farther away than they might otherwise have been willing or able to travel. This could create unnecessary strain on programs. We conducted this study to determine whether PEM fellowship applicants would apply to a larger number of programs and in different geographic patterns with VI (2020 and 2021) as compared to in-person interviews (2018 and 2019).

We conducted an anonymous national survey of all PEM fellows comparing two cohorts: current fellows who interviewed inperson (applied in 2018/2019) and fellows who underwent VIs in 2020/2021 (current fellows and those recently matched in 2021). The study took place in March–April 2022. Questions focused on geographic considerations during interviews and the match. We used descriptive statistics, chi-square and t-tests for analysis.

Overall response rate was 42% (231/550); 32% (n = 74) interviewed in person and 68% (n = 157) virtually. Fellows applied to a median of 4/6 geographic regions (interquartile range 2, 5). Most applied for fellowship both in the same region as residency (216, 93%) and outside (192, 83%). Only the Pacific region saw a statistically significant increase in applicants during VI (59.9% vs 43.2%, P = 0.02). There was no statistical difference in the number of programs applied to during in-person vs VI (mean difference (95% confidence interval 0.72, −2.8 – 4.2). A majority matched in their preferred state both during VI (60.4%) and in-person interviews (65.7%). The difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.45).

While more PEM fellowship applicants applied outside the geographic area where their residency was and to the Pacific region, there was no overall increase in the number of programs or geographic areas PEM applicants applied to during VI as compared to in-person interview seasons. As this was the first two years of VI, ongoing data collection will further identify trends and the impactof VI.