The Impact of Socioeconomic Factors on the 2022 Plastic Surgery Match.

BACKGROUND: In 2022, the plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) match faced unprecedented system-wide transitions that have redefined conventional measures of applicant success. This challenges the equitable assessment of student competitiveness and diversity in the field. METHODS: A survey of demography, application content, and 2022 match outcomes was distributed to applicants to a single PRS residency program. Comparative statistics and regression models were performed to assess the predictive value of factors in match success and quality. RESULTS: A total of 151 respondents (response rate 49.7%) were analyzed. Although step 1 and step 2 CK scores were significantly higher among matched applicants, neither examination predicted match success. Most respondents (52.3%) were women, although gender was also not significantly associated with match success. Underrepresented in medicine applicants made up 19.2% of responses and 16.7% of matches, and the plurality of respondents (22.5%) were raised with a household income ≥$300,000. Both Black race and household income ≤$100,000 were associated with lower odds of scoring above a 240 on either step 1 or step 2 CK (Black: OR, 0.03 and 0.06; P < 0.05 and P < 0.001; income: OR, 0.07-0.47 and 0.1 to 0.8, among income subgroups), receiving interview offers (OR, -9.4; P < 0.05; OR, -11.0 to -5.4), and matching into PRS (OR, 0.2; P < 0.05; OR, 0.2 to 0.5), compared with White and high-income applicants, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic inequities in the match process disadvantage underrepresented in medicine candidates and those from lower household incomes. As the residency match continues to evolve, programs must understand and mitigate the impacts of bias in various application components.

Mentorship is Critical: An Analysis of the 2022 Plastic Surgery Match.

BACKGROUND: As the second cycle impacted by COVID-19, the 2022 Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) Match maintained virtual interviews while offering a modest lift of subinternship restrictions. The residency application process continues to evolve, with changes such as pass/fail United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 reporting prompting programs to reconsider metrics of applicant success. It is critical to address the impact of board scores, mentorship, and resource availability on a diverse applicant population in the PRS Match. METHODS: A survey was electronically administered to students applying to a single institutional PRS residency program. The survey inquired about demographics, application statistics, mentorship experience, and match outcomes. Logistic regressions were modeled to assess for odds of matching into plastic surgery. RESULTS: In total, 151 responses were analyzed, a 49.7% response rate. Most participants were female (52.3%), White (68.9%), and not Hispanic/Latino (84.8%). The largest percentage of respondents had a faculty mentor only from their home institution (55.0%) and a resident mentor from only their home institution (32.3%). Participants with a faculty mentor from both a home and outside institution had 7.4 times the odds of matching into PRS ( P = 0.02) than students with no faculty mentorship. Students with dual-institution resident mentorship had 18.5 times higher the odds of matching compared with students with no resident mentorship ( P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Subjective metrics, rather than objective scores, had the most influence on successfully matching into plastic surgery. As the PRS Match continues to become increasingly competitive, it behooves programs to provide equitable access to resources such as mentorship.