Original reportThe Importance of Basic Science and Clinical Research as a Selection Criterion for General Surgery Residency Programs
Introduction
The criteria used by program directors (PDs) in general surgery for selection of residents vary widely across programs.1 The relative importance of individual factors used in this process has not been delineated. During the 2005 residency match, of the 976 senior medical students from US medical schools who applied to general surgery, 83% had participated in research projects and 57% had published at least 1 research article.2 Eighty-six percent of the applicants who had published at least 1 article matched, compared with a match rate of 78% of those who had no published articles. The match rates are comparable for those who participated in research projects as well, with an 84% match rate for those who participated in projects compared with a match rate of 76% in those who did not participate in a project.
Little has been written about the importance of a candidate's research experience in the evaluation process.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Research is a more heterogeneous measurement relative to more standardized selection criteria such as class ranking and the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores. Considerable variability exists in topics, time commitment, and results.
The purpose of this study was to determine the relative importance of basic science and clinical research as a selection criterion for general surgery residency programs and to evaluate the PDs' perception of selection factors.
Section snippets
Methods
A web-based survey consisting of 11 questions was sent using the list server of the Association of Program Directors in Surgery with its permission (Table 1). Overall, 251 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited general surgery residency programs in the United States were identified.
The e-mail addresses of PDs found on the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA) website were used to send up to 4 reminders for nonresponders.
Statistical Analysis
To assess the difference between respondents and nonrespondents in terms of the types of surgical training programs with which they were associated, 2-way ANOVA was used, with a significance level set at p less than 0.05.
Results
In total, 134 surveys (53.3%) were returned from PDs. The respondents represented 61 (45.5%) university-based programs, 57 (42.5%) community-based programs with university affiliation, and 16 (11.9%) community-based programs without university affiliation. Of the 117 nonrespondents, 59 PDs (50.4%) represented university-based programs, 46 (39.3%) community-based programs with university affiliation, and 12 (10.3%) community-based programs without university affiliation.
Overall, 113 PDs (89.5%)
Discussion
Surgical residency programs are competitive with several criteria used for selection. Gilbart et al3 evaluated a tool to assist in ranking surgical residents in Canada. Their study found that the assessment form ratings were consistent within interviewers. Candidate assessments within programs were moderately reliable, which suggests agreement within programs regarding the relative quality of candidates, but very little agreement existed across programs. Wagoner et al4 surveyed a national,
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Linda Brochhausen and Jonathan Cohen, PhD, in manuscript preparation; Margaret Tarpley in providing access to the list server of the Association of Program Directors in Surgery; and all the program directors who responded to the survey.
References (11)
- et al.
Evaluating surgical resident procedures
Am J Surg
(2001) - et al.
Key criteria for selection of radiology residents: results of a national survey
Acad Radiol
(2006) - et al.
Selection of surgical residents: a neural network approach
Cybern Syst
(2000) Charting Outcomes in the MatchCharacteristics of Applicants Who Matched to their Preferred Specialty in the 2005 NRMP Main Residency Match
(2006)- et al.
Factors used by program directors to select residents
J Med Educ
(1986)
Cited by (42)
Equal but Separate: The Slow Assimilation of Osteopathic Surgery Residents Two Years After the Unified Match
2023, Journal of Surgical EducationDiminishing Basic Science Research Experience Among United States Cardiothoracic Surgery Trainees
2022, Journal of Surgical ResearchImpact of Surgery Program Characteristics on Fate of Non-designated Preliminary Surgery Interns
2020, Journal of Surgical EducationValue of Research Years for International Medical Graduates Applying to General Surgery Residency
2020, Journal of Surgical EducationCitation Excerpt :Of prime importance, almost half (46%) of PD cohort suggested that an IMG's research experience was ‘not important’ and the majority of PDs (63%) did not recommend taking time off after graduation to pursue research years. These findings seem to be in line with the results of the PD survey by the NRMP in 2018 where there were several more highly valued application components such as the USMLE scores, letters of recommendation, interview performance and interpersonal skills in interviewing and ranking applicants to a GS residency.6,13 Although we found no differences between the groups of applicants who did and did not pursue research years, other differences between the applicants themselves may possibly contribute to the decision to pursue research and ultimately alter their match outcomes.
Supported by an Empire Clinical Research Investigators Program Award (to M.M.M.).