Remote interviews for medical residency selection during the initial COVID-19 crisis: a national survey.

BACKGROUND: Medical training programs candidate's interview is an integral part of the residency matching process. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, conducting these interviews was challenging due to infection prevention restrains (social distancing, namely) and travel restrictions. E-interviews were implemented by the Saudi Commission for Healthcare Specialties (SCFHS) since the matching cycle of March 2020 to hold the interviews in a safer virtual environment while maintaining the same matching quality and standards. AIM: This study was conducted to assess the medical training residency program applicants' satisfaction, stress, and other perspectives for the (SCFHS) March 2020 Matching-cycle conducted through an urgently implemented E-interviews process. METHOD: A cross-sectional, nationwide survey (Additional file 1) was sent to 4153 residency-nominated applicants to the (SCFHS) March 2020 cycle. RESULTS: Among the 510 candidates who responded, 62.2% applied for medical specialties, 20.2% applied for surgical specialties, and 17.6% applied for critical care and emergency specialties. Most respondents (61.2%) never had previous experience with web-based video conferences. Most respondents (80.2%) used the Zoom application to conduct the current E-interviews, whereas only 15.9% used the FaceTime application. 63.3% of the respondents preferred E-interviews over in-person interviews, and 60.6% rated their experience as very good or excellent. 75.7% of the respondents agreed that all their residency program queries were adequately addressed during the E-interviews. At the same time, 52.2% of them agreed that E-interviews allowed them to represent themselves accurately. 28.2% felt no stress at all with their E-interviews experience, while 41.2% felt little stressed and only 8.2% felt highly stressed. The factors that were independently and inversely associated with applicants' level of stress with E-interviews experience were their ability to represent themselves during the interviews (p = 0.001), cost-savings (p < 0.001), their overall rating of the E-interviews quality (p = 0.007) and the speed of the internet connection (p < 0.006). CONCLUSION: Videoconferencing was implemented on an urgent basis during the COVID-19 pandemic in the medical residency application process in Saudi Arabia. It was perceived as an adequate and promising tool to replace in-person interviews in the future. Applicants' satisfaction was mainly driven by good organization, cost-saving, and their ability to present themselves. Future studies to enhance this experience are warranted.

Utilizing asynchronous email interviews for health research: overview of benefits and drawbacks.

OBJECTIVE: Through collating observations from various studies and complementing these findings with one author's study, a detailed overview of the benefits and drawbacks of asynchronous email interviewing is provided. Through this overview, it is evident there is great potential for asynchronous email interviews in the broad field of health, particularly for studies drawing on expertise from participants in academia or professional settings, those across varied geographical settings (i.e. potential for global public health research), and/or in circumstances when face-to-face interactions are not possible (e.g. COVID-19). RESULTS: Benefits of asynchronous email interviewing and additional considerations for researchers are discussed around: (i) access transcending geographic location and during restricted face-to-face communications; (ii) feasibility and cost; (iii) sampling and inclusion of diverse participants; (iv) facilitating snowball sampling and increased transparency; (v) data collection with working professionals; (vi) anonymity; (vii) verification of participants; (viii) data quality and enhanced data accuracy; and (ix) overcoming language barriers. Similarly, potential drawbacks of asynchronous email interviews are also discussed with suggested remedies, which centre around: (i) time; (ii) participant verification and confidentiality; (iii) technology and sampling concerns; (iv) data quality and availability; and (v) need for enhanced clarity and precision.