Open AccessOpportunity for Improved Transparency on Otolaryngology Residency Websites for Prospective Applicants
Author(s) -
Mott Nicole M.,
Guduguntla Bhavna A.,
Bohm Lauren A.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
oto open
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2473-974X
DOI - 10.1177/2473974x211060825
Subject(s) - otorhinolaryngology , transparency (behavior) , medicine , demographics , inefficiency , prospective cohort study , publishing , medical education , family medicine , computer science , political science , surgery , demography , sociology , computer security , economics , microeconomics , law
Objective Otolaryngology residency applicants often struggle to gauge their competitiveness at programs due to the lack of information available, resulting in a rising number of applications. We aimed to evaluate otolaryngology websites for information pertaining to prospective applicants. Study Design Systematic content analysis. Setting Web. Methods We reviewed 50 otolaryngology websites from June to July 2021. We searched for information pertaining to the application process, including requirements, screening and/or selection processes, and average interviewee or matched resident statistics. Results All websites had a page for prospective applicants. Under half (n = 24, 48%) explicitly listed required application components. Only 23 (46%) mentioned the desired number of letters of recommendation, and only 2 (4%) noted the need for a letter from the department chair. The majority (n = 35, 70%) provided no information regarding the number of applications received or interviews granted. Most (n = 35, 70%) did not mention how candidates are evaluated. A minority (n = 14, 30%) provided very general metrics on which candidates are scored or ranked. Almost all (n = 49, 98%) did not mention screening processes in place to select applicants for interview. None provided information about the academic characteristics or demographics of their interviewed applicants, and only 1 (2%) included this information for matched applicants. Conclusion Otolaryngology websites contain limited information pertaining to the residency application process for prospective applicants, making it difficult for candidates to discern their competitiveness at programs and potentially contributing to match inefficiency.