Gynecologic Oncology fellowship recruitment in the virtual era: An evaluation of program websites and survey of applicant preferences
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 participa...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2023-08-01
|
| Series: | Gynecologic Oncology Reports |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352578923000851 |
| _version_ | 1797753990070403072 |
|---|---|
| author | Lauren Montemorano Connor C Wang Ankitha Madde J Stuart Ferriss Bunja J Rungruang Brittany A Davidson Ryan J Spencer |
| author_facet | Lauren Montemorano Connor C Wang Ankitha Madde J Stuart Ferriss Bunja J Rungruang Brittany A Davidson Ryan J Spencer |
| author_sort | Lauren Montemorano |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T17:27:01Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e4f444040c934eac97741ff4d07edc45 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2352-5789 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T17:27:01Z |
| publishDate | 2023-08-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Gynecologic Oncology Reports |
| spelling | doaj.art-e4f444040c934eac97741ff4d07edc452023-08-05T05:16:10ZengElsevierGynecologic Oncology Reports2352-57892023-08-0148101216Gynecologic Oncology fellowship recruitment in the virtual era: An evaluation of program websites and survey of applicant preferencesLauren Montemorano0Connor C Wang1Ankitha Madde2J Stuart Ferriss3Bunja J Rungruang4Brittany A Davidson5Ryan J Spencer6Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA; Corresponding author at: Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Wisconsin Hospitals & Clinics, 600 Highland Ave, Box 6188, Madison, WI 53792, USA.Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USADivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USAKelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USADivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USADivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USADivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USAObjective: 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.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352578923000851Virtual interviewingGynecologic OncologyFellowship |
| spellingShingle | Lauren Montemorano Connor C Wang Ankitha Madde J Stuart Ferriss Bunja J Rungruang Brittany A Davidson Ryan J Spencer Gynecologic Oncology fellowship recruitment in the virtual era: An evaluation of program websites and survey of applicant preferences Gynecologic Oncology Reports Virtual interviewing Gynecologic Oncology Fellowship |
| title | Gynecologic Oncology fellowship recruitment in the virtual era: An evaluation of program websites and survey of applicant preferences |
| title_full | Gynecologic Oncology fellowship recruitment in the virtual era: An evaluation of program websites and survey of applicant preferences |
| title_fullStr | Gynecologic Oncology fellowship recruitment in the virtual era: An evaluation of program websites and survey of applicant preferences |
| title_full_unstemmed | Gynecologic Oncology fellowship recruitment in the virtual era: An evaluation of program websites and survey of applicant preferences |
| title_short | Gynecologic Oncology fellowship recruitment in the virtual era: An evaluation of program websites and survey of applicant preferences |
| title_sort | gynecologic oncology fellowship recruitment in the virtual era an evaluation of program websites and survey of applicant preferences |
| topic | Virtual interviewing Gynecologic Oncology Fellowship |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352578923000851 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT laurenmontemorano gynecologiconcologyfellowshiprecruitmentinthevirtualeraanevaluationofprogramwebsitesandsurveyofapplicantpreferences AT connorcwang gynecologiconcologyfellowshiprecruitmentinthevirtualeraanevaluationofprogramwebsitesandsurveyofapplicantpreferences AT ankithamadde gynecologiconcologyfellowshiprecruitmentinthevirtualeraanevaluationofprogramwebsitesandsurveyofapplicantpreferences AT jstuartferriss gynecologiconcologyfellowshiprecruitmentinthevirtualeraanevaluationofprogramwebsitesandsurveyofapplicantpreferences AT bunjajrungruang gynecologiconcologyfellowshiprecruitmentinthevirtualeraanevaluationofprogramwebsitesandsurveyofapplicantpreferences AT brittanyadavidson gynecologiconcologyfellowshiprecruitmentinthevirtualeraanevaluationofprogramwebsitesandsurveyofapplicantpreferences AT ryanjspencer gynecologiconcologyfellowshiprecruitmentinthevirtualeraanevaluationofprogramwebsitesandsurveyofapplicantpreferences |