Table 2.
Types of PGY3 positions respondents thought should be offered
| QUESTION | PGY1 AND PGY2, % ANSWERING YES (95% CI) N = 136 | PGY3, % ANSWERING YES (95% CI) N = 27 | PROGRAM DIRECTORS AND COORDINATORS, % ANSWERING YES (95% CI) N = 61 | TOTAL , % ANSWERING YES (95% CI) N = 224 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Should the length of training be flexible?* | 85.3 (78.2–90.8) | 77.8 (57.7–91.3) | 63.3 (50.6–75.8) | 78.6 (72.6–83.8) |
| Should tailored or self-directed programs be offered?* | 93.6 (90.6–98.4) | 85.2 (66.3–95.8) | 81.7 (70.0–90.6) | 90.6 (86.0–94.1) |
| Should training be linked to return-of-service agreements? | 17.8 (11.6–25.1) | 3.7 (0.1–19.0) | 14.8 (7.0–26.2) | 15.2 (10.7–20.6) |
| Should re-entry candidates have specific allocated positions? | 39.5 (31.4–48.4) | 37 (19.4–57.6) | 52.5 (39.3–65.4) | 42.9 (36.3–49.6) |
| Should re-entry candidates be considered with current residents in the same applicant pool? | 36.4 (28.7–45.5) | 33.3 (16.5–54.0) | 45.9 (33.1–59.2) | 38.8 (32.4–45.6) |
PGY–postgraduate year.
*
Program directors were significantly less likely than PGY1 and PGY2 residents to support flexible length of training (P = .001) or tailored or self-directed programs (P = .01).