Advertisement

A Qualitative, Cross-Sectional Study of Positive and Negative Comments of Residency Programs Across 9 Medical and Surgical Specialties

      Abstract

      IMPORTANCE

      Residency applicants often use social media to discuss the positive and negative features of prospective training programs. An examination of the content discussed by applicants could provide guidance for how a medical education faculty can better engage with prospective trainees and adapt to meet the educational expectations of a new generation of digital-native physicians.

      OBJECTIVE

      The objective was to identify unstructured social media data submitted by residency applicants and categorize positive and negative statements to determine key themes.

      DESIGN

      The study design was qualitative analysis of a retrospective cohort.

      SETTING

      Publicly available datasets were used.

      PARTICIPANTS

      The participants were anonymized medical trainees applying to residency training positions in 9 specialties—dermatology, general surgery, internal medicine, obstetrics/gynecology, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, pediatrics, and radiology—from 2007 to 2017.

      MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

      After we developed a standardized coding scheme that broke comments down into major features, themes, and subthemes, all unstructured comments were coded by two independent researchers. Positive and negative comments were coded separately. Frequency counts and percentages were recorded for each identified feature, theme, and subtheme. The percent positive and negative comments by specialty were also calculated.

      RESULTS

      : Of the 6314 comments identified, 4541 were positive and 1773 were negative. Institution was the most commonly cited major feature in both the positive (n = 767 [17%]) and negative (n = 827 [47%]) comments. Geography was the most cited theme, and City, Cost of Living, and Commute were commonly cited subthemes. Training was the next most cited major feature in both positive (n = 1005 [22%]) and negative (n = 291 [16%]) comments, with Clinical Training being more commonly cited compared to Research Opportunities. Overall, 72% of comments from all were positive; however, the percent of comments that were positive comments varied significantly across the 9 specialties. Pediatrics (65%), dermatology (66%), and internal medicine (68%) applicants were more likely to express negative comments compared with the global average, but physical medicine and rehabilitation (85%), radiology (82%), otolaryngology (81%), and plastic surgery (80%) applicants were more likely to express positive comments.

      CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

      This qualitative analysis of positive and negative themes as posted by applicants in recent matching years is the first and provides new detailed insights into the motivations and desires of trainees.

      Keywords

      Introduction

      For digital-native millennial medical students, social media is a natural form of communication.
      • Greysen SR
      • Kind T
      • Chretien KC
      Online professionalism and the mirror of social media.
      • Hopkins L
      • Hampton BS
      • Abbott JF
      • et al.
      To the point: medical education, technology, and the millennial learner.
      The social media environment is expansive and rapidly changing, with weekly social media use among 18- to 24-year-olds increasing from 89% to 98% from 2014 to 2016.

      Villanti AC, Johnson AL. Social Media media Use use and Access access to Digital digital Technology technology in US Young young Adults adults in 2016. J Med Internet Res. Jun 7 2017;19(6):e196.

      The average number of social media sites that a young adult visits weekly is 7.6,

      Villanti AC, Johnson AL. Social Media media Use use and Access access to Digital digital Technology technology in US Young young Adults adults in 2016. J Med Internet Res. Jun 7 2017;19(6):e196.

      and a higher education level is associated with increased social media use.

      Social Media Fact SheetPew Internet. Social media fact sheet. Available at http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/, Accessed on April 12th, 2018.

      This environment allows information that may have been shared only among a group of friends to instead be publicly posted and shared broadly.
      • Merchant RM
      • Volpp KG
      • Asch DA
      Learning by listening—improving health care in the era of Yelp.
      To this end, medical students and residents are using social media to study, network, discuss patient encounters, job hunt, share research, and more. However, research surrounding medical trainees and social media has largely been limited to professionalism.
      • DeCamp M
      • Koenig TW
      • Chisolm MS
      Social media and physicians’ online identity crisis.
      • Go PH
      • Klaassen Z
      • Chamberlain RS
      Attitudes and practices of surgery residency program directors toward the use of social networking profiles to select residency candidates: a nationwide survey analysis.
      Listening to the voice of patients on platforms such as Yelp has been suggested as a way to understand their needs and improve the experience of health care.
      • Merchant RM
      • Volpp KG
      • Asch DA
      Learning by listening—improving health care in the era of Yelp.
      Similarly, listening to the digital voice of students and residents may allow for improvement in the delivery of medical education.
      For most medical students, the transition from medical student to resident is formative, and the selection of a residency program represents a critical decision, but there is a limited understanding of how modern medical school seniors use social media to assess residency programs. We hypothesized that unstructured social media data created by medical students regarding residency selection will provide new, valuable, and renewable insights on their expectations and preferences for residency training. The National Resident Match Program (NRMP) Applicant Survey provides some insights into candidate preferences, but it is only periodically published and has limited breadth, given its structured design and limited dissemination.

      National Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee, Results of the 2017 NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type. Washington, DC: National Resident Matching Program; 2017.

      A better understanding of the contemporary expectations of medical students would allow residency programs to better recruit and engage prospective learners while adapting to meet the educational expectations of a new generation of physicians.

      METHODS

      We performed an Internet search of key social media sources: Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, Student Doctor Network (SDN), Aunt Minnie, and Otomatch. We selected postings using the following terms: “residency match list,” “interview experiences,” and “residency rank list.” We identified postings related to 9 specialties: dermatology, general surgery, internal medicine, obstetrics/gynecology, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, pediatrics, and radiology. All searches were conducted within 1 week of the rank list deadline for the 2017 NRMP match (February 22, 2017). This study is exempt from Northwestern Institutional Review Board approval, because it used only publicly available datasets.
      A standardized coding scheme was developed (see Supplement 1, available online). The scheme included 3 nested levels: major features, themes, and subthemes. Comments were coded to the highest level of specificity possible; for example, “The city is expensive” is coded as Institution (major feature) > Geography (theme) > Cost of Living (subtheme). Two authors (LA, BD) coded all unstructured comments using NVIVO v11 (QSR International, Burlington, Mass). Discrepancies were discussed (SX, LA, BD) until a consensus was reached. We determined the proportion of positive comments by specialty using Stata v14 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas) with a logit transform to calculate 95% confidence intervals. We used a logistic regression model to compare the proportion of comments that were positive within each specialty. Specialties were identified as having a greater proportion of positive comments than overall (odds ratio [OR] > 1.0, P < .05), a lower proportion of positive comments than overall (OR < 1.0, P < 0.05), or not significantly different than average.

      RESULTS

      Three online resources—SDN, Aunt Minnie, and Otomatch—yielded results that met our search criteria. The most recent relevant posting groups were identified, and up to 3 per specialty were mined for comments. Focusing on the 3 most recent forums and threads by year allowed for a more contemporary analysis. For dermatology, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, internal medicine, and radiology, the forums used corresponded with the 2014–2015, 2015–2016, or 2016–2017 NRMP match cycles. For the remaining specialties, earlier groups were used representing match cycles 2007–2008 (obstetrics/gynecology), 2011–2012 (physical medicine and rehabilitation), and 2012–2013 (general surgery and pediatrics). These postings yielded 6314 total comments (4541 positive and 1773 negative entries) specifically related to individual residency programs. On SDN alone, these comments accounted for more than 1.2 million aggregate views.
      Of the positive comments (Figure 1A), Institution was the most commonly cited major feature (n = 1323 [29%]), and Geography was the most cited theme (n = 767 [17%]). City (n = 312 [7%]), Cost of Living (n = 121 [3%]), and Cultural and Leisure Activities (n = 104 [2%]) were the most commonly cited subthemes. Training was the next most cited major feature (n = 1005 [22%]), and Clinical Training (n = 655 [14%]) was more commonly cited than Research Opportunities (n = 238 [5%]). Resident Experience was another commonly cited feature with important themes and subthemes, including Likeable Residents (n = 248 [5%]), Successful Fellowship Placements (n = 197 [4%]), and Perceived Resident Happiness (n = 188 [4%]). Table 1 highlights representative comments from each of these themes and subthemes. Institution was also the most commonly cited negative feature (n = 827 [47%]; see Figure 1B), with Geography being the most cited theme (n = 637 [36%]), and City (n = 191 [11%]), Commute (n = 112 [6%]), and Cost of Living (n = 88 [5%]) being the most cited subthemes (Figure 1B). Training was the next most cited major feature (n = 291 [16%]); again, Clinical Training (n = 226 [13%]) was cited much more commonly than Research (n = 49 [3%]). A summary of major features by specialty is included in the supplementary materials available online.
      Fig 1
      Figure 1Positive (A) and negative (B) factors considered across all specialties shown in sunburst hierarchical plots. The inner rings represent broader themes, and the outer rings represent subthemes. Of the 6314 comments coded, 4541 were positive and 1773 were negative as specifically related to applicant descriptions of individual residency programs. These comments accounted for more than 1.2 million aggregate views.
      Table 1Most Commonly Mentioned Positive and Negative Major Features, Themes, and Subthemes and Representative Comments
      Major FeatureThemeSubthemeSample Positive CommentSample Negative Comment
      InstitutionGeographyCity“Arguably one of the best places for young people to live”“Not a great city”
      Cost of living“Great cost of living”“Expensive area to live”
      Cultural and leisure activities“Lots of things to do”“Really bland small city with not much to do”
      Commute“Great public transportation options”“Lots of driving to clinical sites”
      TrainingClinical trainingSubspecialty training“Great pulm/critical care department”“Weaker in peds derm and allergy”
      Surgical training“Great operative volume, especially in flaps”“Seemed to be weaker in hand surgery”
      Research training“Basic science tinnitus and hearing loss research available”“No funded clinical research”
      Resident experienceLikeable residents“Residents were warm & cordial during dinner”“Residents seemed cliquey”
      Career developmentSuccessful fellowship placement“Excellent fellowship match list to outstanding institutions”“Most recent fellowship match didn't seem great”
      Perceived happiness of residents“Residents seem very happy here”“Residents don't seem very happy”
      Figure 2 shows the percent of positive comments across the 9 specialties. Overall, 72% of comments were positive; however, there were significant differences across specialties. Pediatrics (65%), dermatology (66%), and internal medicine (68%) applicants were more likely to express negative comments compared to the global average, whereas physical medicine and rehabilitation (85%), radiology (82%), otolaryngology (81%), and plastic surgery (80%) applicants were more likely to express positive comments.
      Fig 2
      Figure 2Percentages (and 95% confidence intervals) of positive comments across specialty type out of a total of 6314 comments; numbers in parentheses indicate the comments in that specialty type. The dashed vertical line indicates the overall proportion of positive comments.

      DISCUSSION

      Understanding the preferences of residency candidates can provide guidance to residency programs. Medical students are highly active in social media within the context of rating specific residency programs across numerous specialties, and our results provide a review of positive and negative themes posted by applicants in recent matching cycles. Despite differences in the length of training and nature of training in primary, subspecialty, and surgical specialties, the valued features and themes were largely concordant, including Geography, Clinical Training, and Resident Experience.
      Nested within Resident Experience, Likable Residents and Perceived Resident Happiness were repeated themes across several specialties. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has made resident wellness initiatives a recent key focus,
      • Jennings ML
      • Slavin SJ
      Resident wellness matters: optimizing resident education and wellness through the learning environment.
      and our data suggest that improving the well-being of current residents would positively impact resident recruitment. Geography was the most commonly cited positive and negative theme and also the most important factor in prior studies, including the 2017 NRMP Applicant Survey.

      National Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee, Results of the 2017 NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type. Washington, DC: National Resident Matching Program; 2017.

      • Nuthalapaty FS
      • Jackson JR
      • Owen J
      The influence of quality-of-life, academic, and workplace factors on residency program selection.
      Although location is intrinsic and immutable, subtheme analysis illuminates how a program could best present itself, a nuance lacking in the NRMP dataset. As an example, programs could address the issues of cost of living, commuting, and cultural activities by highlighting reasonable living options, public transportation or ridesharing, concerts, sporting events, and outdoor activities during interviews and on their websites.
      The variation in positive comments by specialty has several implications. Programs with more critical applicants could focus on addressing perceived negative features during interviews. Programs with more positive applicants could focus their attention on accentuating their strengths. Ultimately, the skew toward more positive or negative comments may also reflect applicants of a certain specialty being more critical or more willing to share negative opinions.
      There are several limitations to this analysis. The majority of comments originated on a single site, SDN, with the notable exceptions of radiology and otolaryngology. Because comments are posted anonymously, we were unable to control for characteristics of the commenter. Although we cannot say how many unique posters contributed to the comments, the total number of views of each page would suggest that the information shared was disseminated widely. Studies of “lurkers” in social media settings have found that many find just reading the content is enough, suggesting that individuals who view without posting may still be influenced by what they read.
      • Nonnecke B
      • Andrews D
      • Preece J
      • Voutour R
      Online lurkers tell why.
      The significant range in the number of comments among the different specialties reflects specialty-specific variability in the use of social media. Finally, our data cannot provide the relative importance of each theme to respondents. Although NRMP provides a weighted average of the importance of a feature, the majority of items fall within a narrow range.
      The use of social media comes naturally to millennial learners, who tend to be collaborative, inclusive, and desiring of feedback.
      • Hopkins L
      • Hampton BS
      • Abbott JF
      • et al.
      To the point: medical education, technology, and the millennial learner.
      It is not surprising that residency applicants commonly use social media to discuss and obtain peer feedback with regard to potential residency programs. Our results demonstrate that social media can be a useful, unstructured data source that offers some advantages compared to traditional, structured survey approaches. Such data allow for a more stratified understanding of the motivations and desires of current applicants. In medical schools, faculty have already begun to adapt to the needs of millennial learners by soliciting their feedback, leading to the de-emphasizing of traditional lectures in favor of small groups and team-based activities.
      • Schwartzstein RM
      • Roberts DH
      Saying goodbye to lectures in medical school—paradigm shift or passing fad?.
      • Pettit RK
      • McCoy L
      • Kinney M
      What millennial medical students say about flipped learning.
      • Rodriguez RG
      • Hawley-Molloy JS
      Revamping journal club for the millennial learner.
      Residency programs might consider the online comments of applicants in order to recruit the strongest applicants and adapt to their changing preferences and expectations for post-graduate training. Medical educators themselves should consider participating directly in social media to, for example, dispel rumors, in addition to establishing a safe, anonymous platform for engaging with prospective residents.

      Supplementary Data

      Supplementary material accompanying this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.05.019

      Supplement 1

      Positive Coding Schema
      • 1
        Faculty
        • a
          Academic
        • b
          Aligned research
        • c
          Available or relatable
        • d
          Broad range of faculty interests
        • e
          Chair
          • i
            Aligned research interests
          • ii
            Available or relatable
          • iii
            Experienced
          • iv
            Honest
          • v
            Impressive or prestigious
          • vi
            Involved
          • vii
            Kind
          • viii
            Likeable
          • ix
            Supportive
        • f
          Experienced
        • g
          Impressive or prestigious
        • h
          Kind
        • i
          Likeable
        • j
          Number of faculty
          • i
            Large (increased opportunities)
          • ii
            Small (intimate)
        • k
          Program Director
          • i
            Aligned research interests
          • ii
            Available or relatable
          • iii
            Experienced
          • iv
            Honest
          • v
            Impressive or prestigious
          • vi
            Involved
          • vii
            Kind
          • viii
            Likeable
          • ix
            Supportive
        • l
          Sufficient supervision of clinical practice
        • m
          Support resident career development
        • n
          Support resident education
        • o
          Support resident research
        • p
          Supportive
      • 2
        Good Training
        • a
          Clinical training experience
          • i
            Continuity
          • ii
            Electives
          • iii
            Externships
          • iv
            Global health, international opportunities
          • v
            Good subspecialty experience
          • vi
            Good surgical/procedural experience
          • vii
            High acuity/volume
          • viii
            Other experience
          • ix
            Preparation for future attending job
            • 1
              Good academic practice training
            • 2
              Good private practice training
        • b
          External, outside training opportunities
          • i
            Business
          • ii
            Education
          • iii
            Ethics
          • iv
            Global/ public health
          • v
            Innovation
          • vi
            Law
        • c
          Research opportunities, strength of areas of concentration
          • i
            Basic science
          • ii
            Clinical
          • iii
            Health services, health policy
          • iv
            Other
        • d
          Sufficient autonomy
      • 3
        Institution
        • a
          Features
          • i
            Academic or library resources
          • ii
            Community program
          • iii
            County or underserved population
          • iv
            Diversity of institution
          • v
            Endowment
          • vi
            External certifications (ex. level 1 trauma, stroke)
          • vii
            Facilities
          • viii
            Health information technology (EHR)
          • ix
            Pharmaceutical company interactions
          • x
            Private
          • xi
            Public
          • xii
            Size (number of sites)
          • xiii
            VA
        • b
          Fellowship opportunities
          • i
            Number of fellowship spots
          • ii
            Presence of intended fellowship
        • c
          Geography
          • i
            City
          • ii
            Coastal
          • iii
            Commute
          • iv
            Cost of living
          • v
            Cultural and leisure activities
          • vi
            Diversity
          • vii
            Mix of rural and city
          • viii
            Near family connections
          • ix
            Near friend connections
          • x
            Opportunities for significant other
          • xi
            Relationship to nearby program
          • xii
            Rural
          • xiii
            Safety
          • xiv
            Weather
        • d
          Reputation
          • i
            NIH ranking
          • ii
            Other rankings
          • iii
            US News ranking
        • e
          Visa sponsorships
          • i
            H-1B
          • ii
            J1
      • 4
        Intangible Positive Features
        • a
          Clinically oriented program
        • b
          Culture match/fit
          • i
            Fit with faculty culture
          • ii
            Fit with institutional culture
          • iii
            Fit with resident culture
          • iv
            Supportive
        • c
          Research-oriented program
        • d
          Service-oriented program
      • 5
        Interactions with Other Trainees
        • a
          Fellows
        • b
          Nurse practitioners
        • c
          Physician assistants
      • 6
        Interview Day Experience
        • a
          Experience with co-applicants
        • b
          Faculty interaction during visit
        • c
          Food
          • i
            Breakfast
          • ii
            Lunch
          • iii
            Pre-interview dinner
        • d
          Gifts
        • e
          Overall organization and logistics
        • f
          Program offered financial assistance
        • g
          Resident interaction during visit
        • h
          Staff interaction during visit
        • i
          Travel cost
      • 7
        Resident Experience
        • a
          Camaraderie amongst residents
        • b
          Career development
          • i
            Successful fellowship placements
            • 1
              External fellowship placement
            • 2
              Internal fellowship placement
          • ii
            Successful job placement
        • c
          Educational experience
          • i
            Academic time
          • ii
            Didactics
          • iii
            Emphasis on boards preparation
          • iv
            High board passage rates
        • d
          Impressive track record/background of residents
          • i
            Academic performance of residents
          • ii
            Prestige of medical schools
          • iii
            Research output of current residents
        • e
          Likeable residents
        • f
          Perceived resident happiness
        • g
          Positive work-life balance
        • h
          Resident class size
        • i
          Resident feedback is taken seriously
      • 8
        Staff Support
        • a
          Administrative support
        • b
          Ancillary clinical staff
        • c
          GME support
        • d
          Research staff support
      • 9
        Workplace Characteristics
        • a
          Benefits
          • i
            Disability insurance
          • ii
            Health insurance
          • iii
            Life insurance
          • iv
            Paternal/maternal leave
        • b
          Block schedule
        • c
          Hours
          • i
            Call
          • ii
            Good hours
          • iii
            Meets duty hours
        • d
          Perks
        • e
          Salary
          • i
            Moonlighting opportunities
      Negative Coding Schema
      • 1
        Faculty
        • a
          Chair
          • i
            Inexperienced
          • ii
            Not academic
          • iii
            Not available or relatable
          • iv
            Not honest
          • v
            Not impressive or prestigious
          • vi
            Not involved
          • vii
            Not kind
          • viii
            Not likeable
          • ix
            Not supportive
          • x
            Research interests not aligned
        • b
          Inexperienced
        • c
          Lack of faculty support for resident research
        • d
          Lack of sufficient supervision of clinical practice
        • e
          Lack of support for resident career development
        • f
          Lack of support of residency education
        • g
          Limited range of faculty interests
        • h
          Not academic
        • i
          Not available or relatable
        • j
          Not impressive or prestigious
        • k
          Not kind
        • l
          Not likeable
        • m
          Not supportive
        • n
          Number of faculty
          • i
            Large (overwhelming, decreased intimacy)
          • ii
            Small (limiting)
        • o
          Program Director
          • i
            Inexperienced
          • ii
            Not academic
          • iii
            Not available or relatable
          • iv
            Not honest
          • v
            Not impressive or prestigious
          • vi
            Not involved
          • vii
            Not kind
          • viii
            Not likeable
          • ix
            Not supportive
          • x
            Research interests not aligned
      • 2
        Poor Training
        • a
          Clinical training experience
          • i
            Continuity
          • ii
            Electives
          • iii
            Externships
          • iv
            Global health, international opportunities
          • v
            Low acuity or volume
          • vi
            Other experience
          • vii
            Poor subspecialty experience
          • viii
            Poor surgical/procedural experience
          • ix
            Preparation for future attending job
            • 1
              Poor academic practice training
            • 2
              Poor private practice training
        • b
          External, outside training opportunities
          • i
            Business
          • ii
            Education
          • iii
            Ethics
          • iv
            Global / public health
          • v
            Innovation
          • vi
            Law
        • c
          Insufficient autonomy
        • d
          Research opportunities, strength of areas of concentration
          • i
            Basic science
          • ii
            Clinical
          • iii
            Health services, health policy
          • iv
            Other
      • 3
        Institution
        • a
          Features
          • i
            Academic or library resources
          • ii
            Community program
          • iii
            County or underserved population (lack of)
          • iv
            Diversity of institution
          • v
            Endowment
          • vi
            External certifications (ex. level 1 trauma, stroke)
          • vii
            Facilities
          • viii
            Health information technology (EHR)
          • ix
            Pharmaceutical company interactions
          • x
            Private
          • xi
            Public
          • xii
            Size (number of sites)
          • xiii
            VA
        • b
          Fellowship opportunities
          • i
            Number of fellowship spots
          • ii
            Lack of intended fellowship
        • c
          Geography
          • i
            City
          • ii
            Coastal
          • iii
            Commute
          • iv
            Cost of living
          • v
            Cultural and leisure activities
          • vi
            Diversity
          • vii
            Mix of rural and city
          • viii
            Near family connections
          • ix
            Near friend connections
          • x
            Opportunities for significant other
          • xi
            Relationship to nearby program
          • xii
            Rural
          • xiii
            Safety
          • xiv
            Weather
        • d
          Reputation
          • i
            NIH ranking
          • ii
            Other rankings
          • iii
            US News ranking
        • e
          Visa sponsorships
          • i
            H-1B
          • ii
            J1
      • 4
        Intangible Negative Features
        • a
          Clinically oriented program
        • b
          Culture match/fit
          • i
            Fit with faculty culture
          • ii
            Fit with institutional culture
          • iii
            Fit with resident culture
          • iv
            Not supportive
        • c
          Research-oriented program
        • d
          Service-oriented program
      • 5
        Interactions with Other Trainees
        • a
          Fellows
        • b
          Nurse practitioners
        • c
          Physician assistants
      • 6
        Interview Day Experience
        • a
          Experience with co-applicants
        • b
          Faculty interaction during interview/visit
        • c
          Food
          • i
            Breakfast
          • ii
            Lunch
          • iii
            Pre-interview dinner
        • d
          Gifts
        • e
          Overall organization and logistics
        • f
          Program did not offer financial assistance
        • g
          Resident interaction during visit
        • h
          Staff interaction during visit
        • i
          Travel cost
      • 7
        Resident Experience
        • a
          Camaraderie amongst residents
        • b
          Career development
          • i
            Unsuccessful fellowship placements
            • 1
              External fellowship placement
            • 2
              Internal fellowship placement
          • ii
            Unsuccessful job placement
        • c
          Educational experience
          • i
            Academic time
          • ii
            Didactics
          • iii
            Emphasis on boards preparation
          • iv
            Low board passage rates
        • d
          Negative work-life balance
        • e
          Not likeable residents
        • f
          Perceived resident unhappiness
        • g
          Resident class size
        • h
          Resident feedback is not taken seriously
        • i
          Track record/background of residents
          • i
            Academic performance of residents
          • ii
            Prestige of medical schools
          • iii
            Research output of current residents
      • 8
        Staff Support
        • a
          Administrative support
        • b
          Ancillary clinical staff
        • c
          GME support
        • d
          Research staff support
      • 9
        Workplace Characteristics
        • a
          Benefits
          • i
            Disability insurance
          • ii
            Health insurance
          • iii
            Life insurance
          • iv
            Paternal/maternal leave
        • b
          Block schedule
        • c
          Hours
          • i
            Exceeds duty hours
          • ii
            High call
          • iii
            Poor hours
        • d
          Perks
        • e
          Salary
          • i
            Moonlighting opportunities
      Tabled 1
      Positive ThemesNegative Themes
      SpecialtyMajor FeatureCount (%)SpecialtyMajor FeatureCount (%)
      PMR203 (5)PMR35 (2)
      Institution53 (26)Institution21 (60)
      Training Experience47 (23)Training Experience3 (9)
      Resident Experience32 (16)Resident Experience4 (11)
      Faculty43 (21)Workplace Characteristics3 (9)
      Workplace Characteristics12 (6)interview Day Experience2 6)
      Interview Day Experience12 (6)Faculty1 (3)
      Radiology251 (6)Radiology56 (3)
      Institution70 (28)Institution35 (63)
      Training Experience26 (10)Training Experience2 (4)
      Resident Experience86 (34)Resident Experience8 (14)
      Faculty31 (12)Workplace Characteristics4 (7)
      Workplace Characteristics29 (12)interview Day Experience5 (9)
      Interview Day Experience6 (2)Faculty0
      ENT1115 (25)ENT267 (15)
      Institution332 (30)Institution116 (43)
      Training Experience249 (22)Training Experience56 (21)
      Resident Experience208 (19)Resident Experience21 (8)
      Faculty217 (19)Workplace Characteristics22 (8)
      Workplace Characteristics43 (4)interview Day Experience22 (8)
      Interview Day Experience50 (4)Faculty14 (5)
      Plastics152 (3)Plastics39 (2)
      Institution24 (16)Institution14 (36)
      Training Experience38 (25)Training Experience13 (33)
      Resident Experience55 (36)Resident Experience1 (3)
      Faculty26 (17)Workplace Characteristics10 (26)
      Workplace Characteristics6 (4)interview Day Experience0
      Interview Day Experience2 (1)Faculty1 (3)
      General Surgery11 (1)General Surgery3 (1)
      Institution6 (55)Institution0
      Training Experience4 (36)Training Experience1 (33)
      Resident Experience1 (9)Resident Experience2 (67)
      Faculty0Workplace Characteristics0
      Workplace Characteristics0interview Day Experience0
      Interview Day Experience0Faculty0
      OBGYN165 (4)OBGYN60 (3)
      Institution46 (28)Institution20 (33)
      Training Experience40 (24)Training Experience10 (17)
      Resident Experience34 (21)Resident Experience14 (23)
      Faculty11 (7)Workplace Characteristics4 (7)
      Workplace Characteristics10 (6)interview Day Experience8 (13)
      Interview Day Experience20 (12)Faculty0
      Internal Medicine1270 (28)Internal Medicine604 (34)
      Institution409 (32)Institution309 (51)
      Training Experience247 (19)Training Experience52 (9)
      Resident Experience289 (23)Resident Experience109 (18)
      Faculty183 (14)Workplace Characteristics36 (6)
      Workplace Characteristics52 (4)interview Day Experience32 (5)
      Interview Day Experience14 (1)Faculty12 (2)
      Dermatology1093 (24)Dermatology559 (32)
      Institution285 (26)Institution235 (42)
      Training Experience303 (27)Training Experience137 (25)
      Resident Experience210 (19)Resident Experience71 (12)
      Faculty216 (20)Workplace Characteristics23 (4)
      Workplace Characteristics41 (4)interview Day Experience35 (6)
      Interview Day Experience27 (2)Faculty46 (8)
      Pediatrics281 (6)Pediatrics150 (8)
      Institution98 (35)Institution77 (51)
      Training Experience51 (18)Training Experience17 (11)
      Resident Experience53 (19)Resident Experience15 (10)
      Faculty0Workplace Characteristics14 (9)
      Workplace Characteristics27 (10)interview Day Experience7 (5)
      Interview Day Experience6 (2)Faculty3 (2)

      References

        • Greysen SR
        • Kind T
        • Chretien KC
        Online professionalism and the mirror of social media.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2010; 25: 1227-1229
        • Hopkins L
        • Hampton BS
        • Abbott JF
        • et al.
        To the point: medical education, technology, and the millennial learner.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218: 188-192
      1. Villanti AC, Johnson AL. Social Media media Use use and Access access to Digital digital Technology technology in US Young young Adults adults in 2016. J Med Internet Res. Jun 7 2017;19(6):e196.

      2. Social Media Fact SheetPew Internet. Social media fact sheet. Available at http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/, Accessed on April 12th, 2018.

        • Merchant RM
        • Volpp KG
        • Asch DA
        Learning by listening—improving health care in the era of Yelp.
        JAMA. 2016; 316: 2483-2484
        • DeCamp M
        • Koenig TW
        • Chisolm MS
        Social media and physicians’ online identity crisis.
        JAMA. 2013; 310: 581-582
        • Go PH
        • Klaassen Z
        • Chamberlain RS
        Attitudes and practices of surgery residency program directors toward the use of social networking profiles to select residency candidates: a nationwide survey analysis.
        J Surg Educ. 2012; 69: 292-300
      3. National Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee, Results of the 2017 NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type. Washington, DC: National Resident Matching Program; 2017.

        • Jennings ML
        • Slavin SJ
        Resident wellness matters: optimizing resident education and wellness through the learning environment.
        Acad Med. 2015; 90: 1246-1250
        • Nuthalapaty FS
        • Jackson JR
        • Owen J
        The influence of quality-of-life, academic, and workplace factors on residency program selection.
        Acad Med. 2004; 79: 417-425
        • Nonnecke B
        • Andrews D
        • Preece J
        • Voutour R
        Online lurkers tell why.
        in: Proceedings of the Tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems. New York: Association for Information Systems, 2004
        • Schwartzstein RM
        • Roberts DH
        Saying goodbye to lectures in medical school—paradigm shift or passing fad?.
        N Engl J Med. 2017; 377: 605-607
        • Pettit RK
        • McCoy L
        • Kinney M
        What millennial medical students say about flipped learning.
        Adv Med Educ Pract. 2017; 8: 487-497
        • Rodriguez RG
        • Hawley-Molloy JS
        Revamping journal club for the millennial learner.
        J Grad Med Educ. 2017; 9: 377-378