Differences in Applicant Perceptions of Virtual Interviews Between Integrated Plastic Surgery and Subspecialty Fellowship Applicants.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to survey and compare integrated plastic surgery and plastic surgery subspecialty fellowship applicants on their experiences with virtual interviews and to determine if there are differences between them. DESIGN: An IRB-approved survey study was conducted using the Qualtrics platform. SETTING: The study was conducted at the Johns Hopkins University and the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore Maryland. PARTICIPANTS: Applicants that applied to 1) the Johns Hopkins/University of Maryland or the University of California San Diego integrated plastic surgery residency programs, 2) craniofacial surgery fellowship, and 3) microsurgery, hand surgery, or burn surgery fellowship at the Johns Hopkins University were selected to participate in the survey. RESULTS: A total of 94 surveys were completed by residency applicants and 55 by fellowship applicants. After the interview season, 80% of fellowship applicants recommended virtual interviews compared to 61.7% of residency applicants (p = 0.03). Fellowship applicants reported significantly less issues with self-advocacy and did not view the virtual interview process as significant of a detriment when meeting program residents/staff, viewing the hospital/surrounding area, and learning about the program (p < 0.05). A higher percentage of fellowship applicants interviewed at multiple programs during a single day compared to residency applicants (56.4% vs 27.7%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A higher proportion of fellowship applicants prefer virtual interviews, which associated with key differences in perceptions, expectations, and priorities. Our data supports that fellowship programs may wish to continue virtual interviews even after COVID-related restrictions are lifted, because fellows are equally able to self-advocate in a virtual format while benefiting from cost and time savings; fellowship programs would also gain the cost and time savings from this model as well.

Integrated Plastic Surgery Residency Applicant Perceptions of Virtual Interviews.

PURPOSE: The 2020-2021 interview cycle for integrated plastic surgery applicants was the first to be held virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we detail the largest study on integrated plastic surgery applicant perceptions after the virtual interview cycle. METHODS: A 35-question institutional review board-approved survey was distributed to medical students who had applied to the Johns Hopkins/University of Maryland or University of California San Diego integrated residency programs during the 2020-2021 interview cycle. Survey questions assessed the structure, strengths, and weaknesses of the exclusively virtual interview process. Survey administration and data collection were performed using the Qualtrics platform. RESULTS: Of 318 distributed surveys, 94 were completed. In addition, 91.5% of respondents preferred in-person interviews before the interview season, whereas 54.3% preferred in-person interviews afterward. Applicants who favored virtual interviews did not view being unable to physically meet with program staff as a detriment (P = .001) and felt they could effectively advocate for themselves (P = .002). Overall, the most cited strengths were the ability to complete more interviews (P = .01) and cost benefits (P = .02). Criticisms were directed at the impersonal nature of the exchange (86.2%), lack of physical tour (56.4%), and difficulties at self-advocacy (52.1%). CONCLUSION: Preference for virtual interviews increased from 7.5% to 34.0% after the virtual interview cycle. For several students, the ideal interview structure permits both in-person and virtual interviews to maximize flexibility. Augmenting with virtual city tours and one-on-one interviews may mitigate the impersonal nature of virtual interviews as perceived by some applicants.