PD24-02 BIASES IN RESIDENCY MATCH INTERVIEWS: 2-YEAR COMPARISON AND HOW UROLOGY STACKS UP

You have accessJournal of UrologyEducation Research IV (PD24)1 Sep 2021PD24-02 BIASES IN RESIDENCY MATCH INTERVIEWS: 2-YEAR COMPARISON AND HOW UROLOGY STACKS UP Tasha Posid, Dinah Diab, Alicia Scimeca, Hayat Mohammed, Kathleen Puttmann, Erika Garza, Nicolette Payne, Steven Goldenthal, Vivian Wong, and Frank Begun Tasha PosidTasha Posid More articles by this author , Dinah DiabDinah Diab More articles by this author , Alicia ScimecaAlicia Scimeca More articles by this author , Hayat MohammedHayat Mohammed More articles by this author , Kathleen PuttmannKathleen Puttmann More articles by this author , Erika GarzaErika Garza More articles by this author , Nicolette PayneNicolette Payne More articles by this author , Steven GoldenthalSteven Goldenthal More articles by this author , Vivian WongVivian Wong More articles by this author , and Frank BegunFrank Begun More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002017.02AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Despite the development of the National Resident Matching Program code of conduct, evidence suggests that “illegal or coercive” interview questions were still being asked of applicants in recent years. This study sought to examine the prevalence of those topics comparatively in the 2019-2020 and the 2020-2021 interview cycles and whether the discussion of those topics impacted applicants’ ranking of that program or their perception of how that program would rank them. METHODS: Residency applicants were contacted at the completion of the last two interview seasons and completed a survey via REDCap. Respondents (2019-2020: N=136, n=79 Urology; 2020-2021: N=92, n=55 Urology) were asked about demographics, applications, and about the prevalence of inappropriate topics (e.g. religion, sexual orientation, marital status) they either volunteered themselves or were asked by interviewers directly. RESULTS: Applicants reported that sensitive topics were discussed in their interviews >50% of the time. Applicants were more likely to volunteer the information than be asked explicitly (p=0.003) and these topics were significantly more prevalent in the Urology Match compared to those applicants interviewing outside of Urology (p=0.004). This did not impact how applicants rated the program, but felt that this would impact how programs ranked them (p=0.002). Illegal questions were overwhelmingly asked by Senior Faculty (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: “Illegal and coercive” questions were still asked of applicants in the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 interview cycles and being asked these types of questions impacted how applicants felt the program would rank them. Our results suggest work is still needed to promote equity and diversity, as well as applicant comfort, during the Match process, particularly in Urology. Source of Funding: N/A © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e425-e426 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Tasha Posid More articles by this author Dinah Diab More articles by this author Alicia Scimeca More articles by this author Hayat Mohammed More articles by this author Kathleen Puttmann More articles by this author Erika Garza More articles by this author Nicolette Payne More articles by this author Steven Goldenthal More articles by this author Vivian Wong More articles by this author Frank Begun More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...