Pdf download doximity residency rankings

They included aware of rankings preference for a particular geographic location, listed interview experience and experience with residents.

Applicants who looked at rankings. A previous other. From the National Residency Matching assess final match position of applicants, and without that Program for , there were 1, U.

Respondents found the released in response to the rankings. The mean number of programs added make inferences about the reputation and value of programs per applicant who looked at the rankings was 1.

It is well documented that range 0 to 7. However, for those students who did add or drop programs to their rank list based on the rankings, the mean number added was 2. Factors of importance affecting choice of residency programs on their rank list based on the Doximity rankings, programs to which medical students applied.

Factors important in making a rank list rank those selected in question above. It is possible that students chose to There is a strong interest on the part of students and EM complete or not complete the survey based on preconceived programs for accurate, objective data about training programs.

Recall bias is another limitation in The inclusion of objective data could help guide applicants any survey-based study. Students may not remember exactly in selection of the best training environment for each learner. Board they do not have a personal comparison of applying prior to passage rates were included in the Residency Navigator by the release of Doximity.

Doximity for programs in internal medicine, family medicine, surgery and pediatrics. This based on personal factors such as geography and experiences. While it would be preferable to focus on to be detrimental to students, programs, and the public. We objective data in lieu of rankings, we know from previous feel it important for specialties to develop consensus around research including this study that rankings impact decision- measurable training outcomes and provide freely accessible making, and now Doximity has introduced an Internet- metrics for candidate education.

In addition, there should be a searchable residency ranking system that most applicants greater emphasis on student advising and matching to a best- are aware exists. Perhaps efforts can be made to shift the fit program rather than to the most highly ranked one. Peterson, MD, University program superiority. Email: Internet-searchable form could tremendously benefit student wpet med.

Other specialties agreement, all authors are required to disclose all affiliations, have previously initiated work on this. The authors reportable metrics that may allow applicants to rank programs disclosed none. Volume XVII, no. For additional content validity, the questions were modeled after previous studies on a similar population fourth-year students applying to residency. That survey was piloted by 20 residents and faculty and revised for response process validity.

All authors reviewed this survey with attention to response process. The survey was initially distributed at the beginning of March after rank lists were submitted by applicants and closed before Match Day. Three repeated requests were sent weekly to non-responders.

The survey asked first whether the student applicant was aware of or had looked at the Doximity rankings prior to submitting their rank list Figure. Students who had looked at the rankings were eligible to complete the questions that assessed whether the Doximity rankings impacted their rank list construction.

Students were also asked basic demographic information, how accurate they perceived the rankings to be on a point scale 0 being not accurate at all and being very accurate , and whether they increased or decreased the rank of programs based on the Doximity rankings. Additionally, space was provided for students to comment about the Doximity rankings. The comments were qualitatively reviewed and categorized into three groups: negative impression of rankings, neutral, and positive impressions of rankings.

The negative category contained statements about how Doximity rankings were perceived as inaccurate or biased. The neutral category contained comments where students were unsure or did not care about the rankings. The positive category contained comments about how Doximity rankings were helpful or perceived as accurate. Finally, respondents were asked what factors affected their choice of programs. Data analysis included descriptive statistics using SPSS This study was determined to be exempt from institutional review board review at all four participating sites.

Respondents found the Doximity rankings to be somewhat accurate with the mean score for accuracy of 41 SD 23, range 0— The mean number of programs added per applicant who looked at the rankings was 1. However, for those students who did add or drop programs to their rank list based on the rankings, the mean number added was 2. The mean number of programs that an applicant who looked at the Doximity rankings increased in rank was 0.

For those students who changed their rank list based on the Doximity rankings, the mean increase in rank was 1. They included preference for a particular geographic location, listed interview experience and experience with residents.

This study found that a majority of medical students applying to residency in EM were aware of the Doximity rankings prior to submitting rank lists. A substantial number of applicants looked at the rankings and about a quarter of these applicants changed the number of programs and ranks of those programs when completing their rank list.

Notably, the Doximity rankings were the least important factor compared to the other factors assessed in this study Table 1. Skip to main content. Email Facebook Twitter. Learn more. Abstract Introduction: Choosing a residency program is a stressful and important decision. For improved accessibility of PDF content, download the file to your device. Thumbnails Document Outline Attachments. Highlight all Match case. Whole words.

Toggle Sidebar. The mean number of programs that an applicant who looked at the Doximity rankings increased in rank was 0. For those students who changed their rank list based on the Doximity rankings, the mean increase in rank was 1. A substantial number of applicants looked at the rankings and about a quarter of these applicants changed the number of programs and ranks of those programs when completing their rank list. Notably, the Doximity rankings were the least important factor compared to the other factors assessed in this study Table 1.

While these rankings were the least important, applicants did make changes in their rankings because of Doximity, demonstrating that the Doximity rankings may have some impact in applicant decision-making in ranking residency programs. A previous study similarly found that Doximity rankings affected the number of programs to which students applied.

There has been significant resistance to the Doximity rankings in the EM community due to concerns about lack of objective criteria and inaccurate portrayal of residency programs. A consensus statement against the Doximity rankings endorsed by all major EM organizations was recently released in response to the rankings. Despite the concerns expressed by the EM community and by students directly through their comments in our study, the existence of Doximity rankings allows students to make inferences about the reputation and value of programs based solely on these rankings and allows institutions to lay claim to reputation as well.

It is well documented that Table 1. Factors of importance affecting choice of residency programs to which medical students applied. Factors important in making a rank list rank those selected in question above. There is a strong interest on the part of students and EM programs for accurate, objective data about training programs. The inclusion of objective data could help guide applicants in selection of the best training environment for each learner.

However, objective data for residency programs is limited and varies, and there is also the question of what data to include for a ranking system and more importantly, whether programs are willing to be transparent with certain information.

Board passage rates were included in the Residency Navigator by Doximity for programs in internal medicine, family medicine, surgery and pediatrics. While markers like these are often considered by trainees and programs as indicators of successful training, these data speak to a single facet of training.

Our study also confirms the results of a previous study by Love and colleagues4 that students are choosing programs based on personal factors such as geography and experiences.

This may be due to the absence of objective data to assist decision-making. While it would be preferable to focus on objective data in lieu of rankings, we know from previous research including this study that rankings impact decisionmaking, and now Doximity has introduced an Internetsearchable residency ranking system that most applicants are aware exists.

Perhaps efforts can be made to shift the way these rankings are generated and to promote searchable objective data about programs so that applicants can better identify the characteristics of programs that fit their individual interests and needs rather than creating an artificial roster of program superiority. Efforts to identify useful objective data, collect that data, and disseminate it in an easily navigable and Internet-searchable form could tremendously benefit student applicants by providing a set of metrics to evaluate and characterize programs in a transparent way.

Other specialties have previously initiated work on this. It is possible that students chose to complete or not complete the survey based on preconceived perception of Doximity.

Recall bias is another limitation in any survey-based study. Students may not remember exactly how Doximity affected their rank lists, as this survey was distributed after students had already submitted their lists.

Another limitation is that students may not be able to fairly measure the impact of Doximity on their list choices since they do not have a personal comparison of applying prior to the release of Doximity.

In addition, there should be a greater emphasis on student advising and matching to a bestfit program rather than to the most highly ranked one. Address for Correspondence: William J.