Table 4.
Program director survey responses
| All PD (n = 52) N (%) | Median (IQR)* | |
|---|---|---|
| Recruitment offerings prior and during COVID-2019 pandemic | ||
| Before the COVID-19 pandemic (2019-2020 residency match cycle or earlier), did your program offer optional virtual recruiting opportunities for radiation oncology residency of any kind (eg, virtual meet and greet or program overviews?) | N = 48 | |
| Yes | 3 (6%) | |
| No | 45 (94%) | |
| Before the COVID-19 pandemic (2019-2020 residency match cycle or earlier), did your program offer any optional radiation oncology-specific second looks of any kind? | N = 48 | |
| Yes: in-person with formalized schedule of events | 1 (2%) | |
| Yes: in-person with informal schedule/standing offer to visit department | 8 (17%) | |
| Yes: virtual only | 1 (2%) | |
| No | 38 (79%) | |
| After the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021 residency match cycle or later), did your program offer any optional virtual recruiting opportunities for radiation oncology residency of any kind (eg, virtual meet and greet or program overviews?) | N = 48 | |
| Yes | 41 (85%) | |
| No | 7 (15%) | |
| Current and future second look offerings | ||
| During the 2022-2023 residency match cycle, did your program offer an optional radiation oncology-specific second look of any kind? | N = 48 | |
| Yes | 19 (40%) | |
| No | 29 (60%) | |
| Why did your program not offer an optional second look?† | N = 29 | |
| Not interested/did not see the added value. | 6 (21%) | |
| Was unaware this was an option, other programs were offering them. | 6 (21%) | |
| Institutional policy (hospital, GME) did not allow. | 11 (38%) | |
| Ethical concerns | 13 (45%) | |
| Financial limitations | 3 (10%) | |
| Concerns about NRMP rules/fines | 3 (10%) | |
| Other (have an institutional SLE for underrepresented minority students) | 1 (3%) | |
| I feel that not offering a second look was detrimental in our recruitment effort: | N = 29 | 3 (2, 3) |
| Strongly agree | 3 (10%) | |
| Agree | 8 (28%) | |
| Neutral | 12 (41%) | |
| Disagree | 4 (14%) | |
| Strongly disagree | 2 (7%) | |
| I plan on using the new NRMP program ROL voluntary locking option to offer a second look for this upcoming recruitment season: | N = 48 | |
| Yes | 11 (23%) | |
| No | 12 (25%) | |
| Unsure | 25 (52%) | |
| Second-look invitations | ||
| Who was invited to your second look? | N = 20 | |
| All applicants offered an interview, regardless of interview status. | 4 (20%) | |
| All applicants offered and completed the interview. | 14 (70%) | |
| Select applicant population (underrepresented minorities). | 2 (10%) | |
| Did messaging regarding the second look offering discuss it being optional vs mandatory? | N = 19 | |
| Yes | 19 (100%) | |
| No | 0 (0%) | |
| Did messaging regarding the second look offering discuss it not affecting the ROL? | N = 19 | |
| Yes | 18 (95%) | |
| No | 1 (5%) | |
| The second look offering was truly optional and did not affect our program's ROL in any way? | N = 19 | 1 (1, 1) |
| Strongly agree | 19 (100%) | |
| Characteristics of second look | ||
| What format was used for the second look? | N = 19 | |
| In-person with formalized schedule of events | 9 (47%) | |
| In-person with informal schedule/standing offer to visit the department | 8 (42%) | |
| Hybrid with in person and virtual | 1 (5%) | |
| Virtual only | 1 (5%) | |
| When was/were the second look(s) scheduled?† | N = 19 | |
| December | 1 (5%) | |
| January | 1 (5%) | |
| Early February (1-14): before submitting ROL | 6 (32%) | |
| Early February (1-14): after submitting ROL | 7 (37%) | |
| Late February (15-28): before submitting ROL | 5 (26%) | |
| Late February (15-28): after submitting ROL | 8 (42%) | |
| Prefer not to answer | 2 (11%) | |
| Which items were gifted to applicants in person or via postage for the second look? Please do not include any gifts related to the interview.† | N = 19 | |
| Food: includes meals, snacks, and beverages | 8 (42%) | |
| Printed literature on the program/department | 6 (32%) | |
| Logoed items: mugs/cups, pens, lanyard, bags | 4 (21%) | |
| Other (one night hotel) | 1 (5%) | |
| None | 10 (53%) | |
| In-person second look offerings | ||
| If your program offered a second look with an in-person component, what aspects were financially covered by your institution/department?† | N = 18 | |
| Travel (airfare, gas reimbursement, etc) | 2 (11%) | |
| Meals | 8 (44%) | |
| Accommodation/lodging (hotel, housing with a resident) | 4 (22%) | |
| Prefer not to answer‡ | 9 (50%) | |
| If your program offered an in person second look, what activities were offered?† | N = 18 | |
| Pre “second look” dinner with residents ± faculty | 4 (22%) | |
| Informative lecture about the department | 6 (33%) | |
| Physical tour of the facility | 13 (72%) | |
| Physical tour of the city | 4 (22%) | |
| “Meet and greet”/informal interaction time with residents | 14 (78%) | |
| “Meet and greet”/informal interaction time with program leadership | 9 (50%) | |
| “Meet and greet”/informal interaction time with faculty | 7 (39%) | |
| Prefer not to answer | 1 (6%) | |
Abbreviations: GME = Graduate Medical Education; N/A = not applicable; NRMP = National Residency Matching Program; ROL = rank order list; SLE = second look events.
⁎
Median and IQR calculated as follows: 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Disagree, 5 = Strongly Disagree.
†
Participants were allowed to select all that applied for these questions.
‡
Given the absence of a “nothing” option, 5 PDs clarified that no costs were covered.