skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Applicant Interview Experiences and Postinterview Communication of the 2016 Radiation Oncology Match Cycle

Abstract

Purpose: To characterize applicant interview experiences at radiation oncology residency programs during the 2016 match cycle and to assess applicant opinions regarding postinterview communication (PIC) after recent attention to gamesmanship noted in prior match cycles. Methods and Materials: An anonymous, institutional review board–approved, 29-question survey was deployed following the rank order list deadline to all 2016 radiation oncology residency applicants applying to a single institution. Results: Complete surveys were returned by 118 of 210 applicants, for a 56% response rate. Regarding possible match violation questions, 84% of respondents were asked at least once about where else they were interviewing (occurred at a median of 20% of program interviews); 51% were asked about marital status (6% of interviews); and 22% were asked about plans to have children (1% of interviews). Eighty-three percent of applicants wrote thank-you notes, with 55% reporting fear of being viewed unfavorably if such notes were not communicated. Sixty percent of applicants informed a program that they had ranked a program highly; 53% felt this PIC strategy would improve their standing on the rank order list, yet 46% reported feeling distressed by this obligation. A majority of applicants stated that they would feel relieved if programs explicitly discouragedmore » PIC (89%) and that it would be preferable if programs prohibited applicants from notifying the program of their rank position (66%). Conclusions: Potential match violations occur at a high rate but are experienced at a minority of interviews. Postinterview communication occurs frequently, with applicants reporting resultant distress. Respondents stated that active discouragement of both thank-you notes/e-mails and applicants' notification to programs of their ranking would be preferred.« less

Authors:
; ;  [1];  [2];  [3];  [4]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (United States)
  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (United States)
  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Anchorage and Valley Radiation Therapy Center, Anchorage, Alaska (United States)
  4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22645670
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Journal Name:
International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 96; Journal Issue: 3; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2016 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); Journal ID: ISSN 0360-3016
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; CHILDREN; COMMUNICATIONS; MEDICAL PERSONNEL; PUBLIC OPINION; RADIOTHERAPY; REVIEWS; VIOLATIONS

Citation Formats

Berriochoa, Camille, Ward, Matthew C., Weller, Michael A., Holliday, Emma, Kusano, Aaron, Thomas, Charles R., and Tendulkar, Rahul D., E-mail: tendulr@ccf.org. Applicant Interview Experiences and Postinterview Communication of the 2016 Radiation Oncology Match Cycle. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.08.009.
Berriochoa, Camille, Ward, Matthew C., Weller, Michael A., Holliday, Emma, Kusano, Aaron, Thomas, Charles R., & Tendulkar, Rahul D., E-mail: tendulr@ccf.org. Applicant Interview Experiences and Postinterview Communication of the 2016 Radiation Oncology Match Cycle. United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.08.009.
Berriochoa, Camille, Ward, Matthew C., Weller, Michael A., Holliday, Emma, Kusano, Aaron, Thomas, Charles R., and Tendulkar, Rahul D., E-mail: tendulr@ccf.org. Tue . "Applicant Interview Experiences and Postinterview Communication of the 2016 Radiation Oncology Match Cycle". United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.08.009.
@article{osti_22645670,
title = {Applicant Interview Experiences and Postinterview Communication of the 2016 Radiation Oncology Match Cycle},
author = {Berriochoa, Camille and Ward, Matthew C. and Weller, Michael A. and Holliday, Emma and Kusano, Aaron and Thomas, Charles R. and Tendulkar, Rahul D., E-mail: tendulr@ccf.org},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To characterize applicant interview experiences at radiation oncology residency programs during the 2016 match cycle and to assess applicant opinions regarding postinterview communication (PIC) after recent attention to gamesmanship noted in prior match cycles. Methods and Materials: An anonymous, institutional review board–approved, 29-question survey was deployed following the rank order list deadline to all 2016 radiation oncology residency applicants applying to a single institution. Results: Complete surveys were returned by 118 of 210 applicants, for a 56% response rate. Regarding possible match violation questions, 84% of respondents were asked at least once about where else they were interviewing (occurred at a median of 20% of program interviews); 51% were asked about marital status (6% of interviews); and 22% were asked about plans to have children (1% of interviews). Eighty-three percent of applicants wrote thank-you notes, with 55% reporting fear of being viewed unfavorably if such notes were not communicated. Sixty percent of applicants informed a program that they had ranked a program highly; 53% felt this PIC strategy would improve their standing on the rank order list, yet 46% reported feeling distressed by this obligation. A majority of applicants stated that they would feel relieved if programs explicitly discouraged PIC (89%) and that it would be preferable if programs prohibited applicants from notifying the program of their rank position (66%). Conclusions: Potential match violations occur at a high rate but are experienced at a minority of interviews. Postinterview communication occurs frequently, with applicants reporting resultant distress. Respondents stated that active discouragement of both thank-you notes/e-mails and applicants' notification to programs of their ranking would be preferred.},
doi = {10.1016/J.IJROBP.2016.08.009},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
issn = {0360-3016},
number = 3,
volume = 96,
place = {United States},
year = {2016},
month = {11}
}