Skip to main content
  • News in Review

    COVID’s Impact on the Residency Match Process

    Add to My Bookmarks

    Download PDF

    During the COVID-19 pandemic, the residency match process switched from in-person to virtual interviews. Going forward, should specialty residency programs offer a fully virtual match process, return to prepandemic ways, or forge a hybrid approach? A recent study on the virtual interview’s impact on the residency match, using ophthalmology as a prototype, addressed these questions.1

    Comparing 2021 to earlier years. The study was a collaboration between the Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology’s Match Oversight Committee and researchers at Duke Eye Center in Durham, North Carolina, said coauthor Pratap Challa, MD, at Duke.

    Using data from the AUPO database, the researchers analyzed 3,343 applicants to compare 2021 virtual match outcomes to those that took place between 2016 and 2020.

    Hypothesis No. 1. The researchers hypothesized that significantly more applicants would match at their home institutions during the virtual application cycle than in previous years. This hypothesis proved correct; 26.1% of applicants to ophthalmology residency programs matched at their home institution in the virtual match cycle, versus 20.6% of the 2016-2020 matches.

    Hypothesis No. 2. Another hypothesis—that applicants would apply to significantly more programs—also held true. The 2021 cohort applied to 78.8 programs, versus 73.1 in the 2016-2020 matches. Furthermore, with an all-time high number of applications, the national match rate for applicants dropped from 81.3% in the 2016-2020 time frame to 76.6% in 2021.

    More information is needed. The numbers, however, did not convey how virtual interviews affected outcomes such as rank choices and perceptions of residency programs. In their study, the authors attempted to provide insight, citing small surveys that found applicants to other specialties gave mixed reviews to the virtual match.

    In a separate study, which was conducted within ophthalmology, Venincasa et al. found that 126 of 205 applicants (71.2%) and 22 of 37 program directors (78.6%) preferred in-person interviews.2

    Dr. Challa noted that, although more feedback is needed from applicants and programs as to their satisfaction with virtual interviews, the process did eliminate some of the travel and financial constraints of the in-person process. “Therefore, I suspect that the virtual trend will continue.”

    —Miriam Karmel

    ___________________________

    1 Aggarwal S et al. J Grad Med Educ. 2022;14(6):674-679.

    2 Venincasa MJ et al. Semin Ophthalmol. 2022;37(1):36-41.

    ___________________________

    Relevant financial disclosures: Dr. Challa—None.

    For full disclosures and the disclosure key, see below.

    Full Financial Disclosures

    Dr. Basit Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council: S.

    Dr. Bharti None.

    Dr. Challa Aerie: P; NIH: S.

    Mr. Pollard Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council: S.

    Dr. Stan Argenx: C; Horizon Therapeutics: C; Immunovant: C; Or­thoDiagnostics: C; OSE Immunotherapeutics: C; Roivant: C; Septerna: C; Sling Therapeutics: C; Third Rock Ven­tures: C; Tourmaline: C.

    Dr. Tao None.

    Disclosure Category

    Code

    Description
    Consultant/Advisor C Consultant fee, paid advisory boards, or fees for attending a meeting.
    Employee E Hired to work for compensation or received a W2 from a company.
    Employee, executive role EE Hired to work in an executive role for compensation or received a W2 from a company.
    Owner of company EO Ownership or controlling interest in a company, other than stock.
    Independent contractor I Contracted work, including contracted research.
    Lecture fees/Speakers bureau L Lecture fees or honoraria, travel fees or reimbursements when speaking at the invitation of a commercial company.
    Patents/Royalty P Beneficiary of patents and/or royalties for intellectual property.
    Equity/Stock/Stock options holder, private corporation PS Equity ownership, stock and/or stock options in privately owned firms, excluding mutual funds.
    Grant support S Grant support or other financial support from all sources, including research support from government agencies (e.g., NIH), foundations, device manufacturers, and\or pharmaceutical companies. Research funding should be disclosed by the principal or named investigator even if your institution receives the grant and manages the funds.
    Stock options, public or private corporation SO Stock options in a public or private company.
    Equity/Stock holder, public corporation US Equity ownership or stock in publicly traded firms, excluding mutual funds (listed on the stock exchange).

     

    More from this month’s News in Review