The impact of medical student research as a discussion topic during the residency interview process.

BACKGROUND: Students with a greater number of research experiences are more successful in the National Residency Match Program (NRMP.) As a result, approximately two-thirds of allopathic medical schools have implemented a scholarly research project (SP) as a part of their curriculum. While inclusion of an SP in the medical school curriculum increases research productivity, literature to date has not investigated the frequency with which it is a discussion topic during residency interviews. METHODS: One hundred twenty-three students from the graduating class of 2019 and 2020 at the University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix (UACOMP) completed a 17-question survey examining the student's SP and whether they completed additional research, with an overall response rate of 82.6%. Survey participants were asked to quantify how many residency interviewers asked about their SP or additional research during the interview process. RESULTS: Twenty-seven percent of interviewers asked students about their SP and 41% of interviewers asked students about additional non-SP research. 40% of interviewers asked about research overall to include SP and/or non-SP research. A greater percentage of interviewers (50%) asked students about their SP if they had undertaken additional research compared to interviewers of students who did not undertake additional research (29%, p = 0.0237). A greater percentage of interviewers at academic institutions (31%) asked students about their SP, compared with a smaller percentage of interviewers at predominantly non-academic programs (22%, p = 0.0054). There were no significant differences in the proportion of interviewers asking about the SP based on the type of specialty, competitiveness of specialty, relatedness project topic to specialty, and publication/presentation status of project. CONCLUSION: Student research experiences may serve as a frequent discussion topic during the residency interview. Approximately one-quarter of interviewers ask about the SP regardless of specialty, research topic, and publication/presentation status of the project. Students with additional research experiences beyond their SP may experience a higher percentage of interviewers asking about their SP. Also, students applying to predominantly academic programs may experience a higher proportion of interview questions about research compared to peers interviewing at non-academic programs.

Impact of Intravascular Brachytherapy on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Intravascular brachytherapy (VBT) is an established treatment for the management of in-stent restenosis (ISR). However, whether VBT is associated with improved patient reported outcomes unknown. METHODS: We evaluated 51 consecutive patients undergoing VBT in one or more coronary arteries from January 2018 to September 2019. Data on baseline characteristics, procedural outcomes and adverse events were obtained. All patients completed the Seattle Angina Questionnaire - 7 (SAQ-7) form before and after VBT at 1 month and 6 months. RESULTS: The mean age was 69 ± 9 years and 29 (57%) of patients were males. Procedural success was 94.1%. The mean summary SAQ-7 score improved significantly (53.2 ± 21 vs. 83 ± 19, p < .001) at 30-days. The median Quality of Life (QoL) component of SAQ-7 score was 31.3 (Interquartile Range [IQR]: 18.8, 62.5) and improved to 82.5 (IQR: 62.5, 100), p < .001 at 30 days and 87.5 [IQR: 75, 100), p < .001 at last follow up. Likewise, the median angina frequency component of the SQL-7 score pre-VBT was 55 (IQR: 45, 80) and improved significantly to 90 (IQR: 60, 100) at 30-days, p < .001 and 100 [IQR: 68.8, 100], p = .02 at last follow up. Lastly, the median activity component of the SAQ-7 score improved from 83.3 (IQR: 60-100) to 100 (IQR: 83, 100), p = .01 at 30-days. Thus, results were evident as early as 1 month and sustained at median follow up of 17 months. CONCLUSION: VBT is associated with improvement in patient reported outcome measures at short term and long term follow up.