Integrity of the National Resident Matching Program for Radiation Oncology: National Survey of Applicant Experiences
Integrity of the National Resident Matching Program for Radiation Oncology: National Survey of Applicant Experiences
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.02.032
复制
发表时间：
2015-07-01
影响因子：
7
通讯作者：
Kusano, Aaron S.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Holliday, Emma B.;Thomas, Charles R., Jr.;Kusano, Aaron S.
目的：本研究的目的是调查放射肿瘤科申请者的经历，并评估可能与既定伦理标准相抵触的行为的流行率。方法和材料：通过国家居民匹配计划(NRMP)向所有2013名国内放射肿瘤学住院医师计划的申请者发出匿名调查。问题包括人口统计学、对观察到的行为的调查，以及对面试和配对过程的看法。提供了描述性统计数据。结果：171人中有87人收回了问卷，回复率为51%。共收集到82份完整的调查问卷进行分析。78名受访者(95.1%)报告被问到至少一个与NRMP行为准则相冲突的问题。当被问及他们还在哪里面试时，表示，这个问题让他们感到不舒服。45名受访者(54.9%)报告了面试后通过节目主动联系，31名(37.8%)感到有压力做出保证。15名受访者(18.3%)报告称，在比赛日之前，他们被告知了自己的排名位置，或者他们的排名是为了匹配，其中27%的人表示，这些信息影响了他们对节目的排名。一半的受访者认为申请者经常做出不诚实或误导性的保证，三分之一的人报告他们认为他们希望的匹配结果可以通过故意误导项目来改善，超过三分之二的人认为他们的排名可以通过让他们所在机构的教师直接联系他们的项目来提高。结论：放射肿瘤学申请者报告了与NRMP书面政策相冲突的行为的高发率。不鼓励面谈后的沟通，以提高公平性，支持未来放射肿瘤学家的职业发展。(C)2015 Elsevier Inc.保留所有权利。
Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the experiences of radiation oncology applicants and to evaluate the prevalence of behaviors that may be in conflict with established ethical standards.Methods and Materials: An anonymous survey was sent to all 2013 applicants to a single domestic radiation oncology residency program through the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). Questions included demographics, survey of observed behaviors, and opinions regarding the interview and matching process. Descriptive statistics were presented. Characteristics and experiences of respondents who matched were compared with those who did not match.Results: Questionnaires were returned by 87 of 171 applicants for a 51% response rate. Eighty-two questionnaires were complete and included for analysis. Seventy-eight respondents (95.1%) reported being asked at least 1 question in conflict with the NRMP code of conduct. When asked where else they were interviewing, 64% stated that this query made them uncomfortable. Forty-five respondents (54.9%) reported unsolicited post-interview contact by programs, and 31 (37.8%) felt pressured to give assurances. Fifteen respondents (18.3%) reported being told their rank position or that they were "ranked to match" prior to Match day, with 27% of those individuals indicating this information influenced how they ranked programs. Half of respondents felt applicants often made dishonest or misleading assurances, one-third reported that they believed their desired match outcome could be improved by deliberately misleading programs, and more than two-thirds felt their rank position could be improved by having faculty from their home institutions directly contact programs on their behalf.Conclusions: Radiation oncology applicants report a high prevalence of behaviors in conflict with written NRMP policies. Post-interview communication should be discouraged in order to enhance fairness and support the professional development of future radiation oncologists. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.