Violations And Disparities In Integrated Vascular Surgery Residency Match
Arash Fereydooni, MD MS MHS1, Joel L. Ramirez, MD2, Katherine L. Morrow, MD3, Sabina Sorondo, MD1, Jason T. Lee, MD1, Dawm M. Coleman, MD4, Venita Chandra, MD1.
1Stanford School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA, 3Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, 4University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
OBJECTIVES: Integrated vascular surgery residency (IVSR) applicant perspective about the Match process has been rarely studied, yet has important implications on trainee recruitment. We sought to better understand the nature of the interview process, and post-interview communication and its impact on students’ ranking choices.
METHODS: A voluntary and anonymous survey was sent to students who matched to IVSR in 2020, inquiring about interviews, post-interview communications and factors influencing students’ rank-lists.
RESULTS: 70 of the 73 matched students completed the survey (96% response rate; 23 female and 47 male). Applicants reported they were asked questions about their other programs of interest (81.4%), top choice programs (65.7%), marital-status (32.9%), family-planning (7.1%) and religion (1.4%) during interviews. Female applicants were more frequently asked questions about family-planning (17.4% vs 2.1%; P<.01) and marital-status (52.5% vs 23.4%; P <.01) compared to male applicants.
After interviews, 92.9% of applicants notified their top choice program of their ranking preference (Table). 61.4% of applicants received post-interview communication with regards to ranking from at least one program, initiated by program directors in 81.3% of instances. Among these applicants, 58.1% reported that the post-interview communication had an impact on their rank-list and 46.5% matched at a program by which they were contacted. 5.7% of applicants were asked by a program to reveal their ranking of the program and 11.4% were promised by a program to be ranked first if the applicant reciprocally ranked them first.
Female and male applicants weighed program culture, operative volume, mentorship and prestige equally in making their rank-list. However, female applicants weighed the sub-internship experience, personal relationships in certain cities, dedicated professional development years and large female representation in the program more heavily (P<.02).
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into the interview experience and impactful factors for the IVSR. Both female and male applicants were asked a high number of questions about personal matters unrelated to medical school performance. Female applicants, however, experienced a higher proportion of these instances, particularly regarding family-planning. These findings demonstrate the factors that are important to applicants in the match process and raises awareness of issues in the interview and recruitment process. 
Back to 2021 Abstracts