MP37-12 UROLOGY APPLICANTS′ CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING AND MATCHING INTO RESIDENCY

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Practice Patterns, Quality of Life and Shared Decision Making IV1 Apr 2016MP37-12 UROLOGY APPLICANTS′ CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING AND MATCHING INTO RESIDENCY Amir H Lebastchi, Ian D McLaren, Gary J Faerber, Kate H Kraft, Khaled S Hafez, Casey A Dauw, Vincent G Bird, Thomas F Stringer, Ajay Singla, Mathew D Sorensen, Hunter Wessells, and Sapan N Ambani Amir H LebastchiAmir H Lebastchi More articles by this author , Ian D McLarenIan D McLaren More articles by this author , Gary J FaerberGary J Faerber More articles by this author , Kate H KraftKate H Kraft More articles by this author , Khaled S HafezKhaled S Hafez More articles by this author , Casey A DauwCasey A Dauw More articles by this author , Vincent G BirdVincent G Bird More articles by this author , Thomas F StringerThomas F Stringer More articles by this author , Ajay SinglaAjay Singla More articles by this author , Mathew D SorensenMathew D Sorensen More articles by this author , Hunter WessellsHunter Wessells More articles by this author , and Sapan N AmbaniSapan N Ambani More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.1689AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES It is unclear whether urology residency applicants understand how they are ranked. Furthermore, we do not know how applicants evaluate training programs. We conducted a national survey to better understand how future urology residents evaluate residency programs, and how they feel they are evaluated. METHODS A survey was sent to all 2016 urology residency match applicants who applied to the urology training program at one of 4 participating institutions. Participants were asked to rank criteria they used to evaluate training programs, as well as rank what they felt programs used in the selection of potential trainees. Analysis of variance with post-hoc testing was used to compare and evaluate differences in mean ranks. RESULTS 322 applicants with baseline demographics similar to historical data responded. Applicants ranked operative experience, followed by interaction with residents, as most important when evaluating potential training programs (Table 1). 46% of respondents felt geography played at least a strong role in determining their future training program. Applicants felt that training programs considered United States Medical Licensing Examination scores, followed by urology references, as most important when selecting future residents (Table 2, Figure). CONCLUSIONS Urology applicants have significant insight into what factors influence their ranking by training programs. Additionally, the results of our survey provide data on what today′s applicants value in a training program, which programs may find useful when marketing their program to future applicants. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e501-e502 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Amir H Lebastchi More articles by this author Ian D McLaren More articles by this author Gary J Faerber More articles by this author Kate H Kraft More articles by this author Khaled S Hafez More articles by this author Casey A Dauw More articles by this author Vincent G Bird More articles by this author Thomas F Stringer More articles by this author Ajay Singla More articles by this author Mathew D Sorensen More articles by this author Hunter Wessells More articles by this author Sapan N Ambani More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...