Abstract No. 459 Interventional radiology/diagnostic radiology residency applicant preferences in the National Resident Matching Program

Abstract

Investigators have evaluated diagnostic radiology (DR) residency applicant preferences; however, extensive study of interventional radiology (IR)/DR applicant preferences has not been performed. The purpose of this study is to evaluate factors determining where IR/DR applicants match. We hypothesize that IR/DR applicants rank IR/DR higher than DR programs rather than by strength of training institution. 628 IR/DR applicants at a single academic center for the 2017-2019 Match seasons were invited to participate in an anonymous web-based survey (Qualtrics; UT) assessing their ranking preferences with Likert scales (n = 83, 13% response rate; 72% M, 28% F, age 29 (25-36) years). 75% matched to IR/DR, and 25% matched to DR. Data are reported as mean (range) or mean ± standard deviation. Statistical analyses including t-test and Mann-Whitney U tests were performed in Prism (GraphPad; CA) with P <0.05 considered statistically significant. Applicants did not have a significantly higher score for ranking IR/DR over DR programs (3.7 ± 1.2) when compared to ranking by academic reputation of IR (3.9 ± 0.8) or academic reputation of DR (3.7 ± 0.9) at an institution. Preferences for ranking IR/DR over DR programs were significantly higher than preferences due to a program’s number of IR/DR residency spots (2.7 ± 1.3) and significantly lower than program location (4.2 ± 0.9) or perceived happiness of current residents (4.1 ± 0.9). Applicants who matched IR/DR had a higher score for ranking IR/DR programs over DR programs compared to applicants who matched DR (P <0.01). More applicants who matched IR/DR (55%) versus DR (8%) felt that training would be stronger after completing an IR/DR versus a DR residency with Early Specialization in IR (ESIR) (P <0.01). IR/DR applicants value location and trainee happiness above all else; however, applicants who matched IR/DR preferentially ranked IR/DR programs over DR programs. This study may help to guide future IR/DR applicants and program directors in how to best allocate limited recruitment resources. The study’s main limitation is that responses are self-reported, which may lead to selection bias; however, the results may help clarify an evolving process.