Factors Affecting Medical Students’ Selection: RESULTS
Of the 2,908 students to whom a survey was sent, 88 surveys were returned for insufficient address, resulting in a total of 2,820 surveys presumably received by students. A total of 1,043 students returned completed questionnaires, for a response rate of 37%. Of these respondents, 38 were IMG and were excluded from all analyses. Another eight respondents did not indicate their gender and were not included in the analysis. The demographic characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1. No information was available on the demographic characteristics of nonrespondents due to the confidentiality of the NRMP list.
Table 1. Characteristics of fourth year medical students applying to the 1999 NRMP in internal medicine who responded to the survey
| Men (%) |
Women (%) |
|
|
Characteristics |
(n=546) |
(n=451) |
| Age (years) |
*27.9 ± 5.1 |
•28.1 ± 5.2 |
| Ethnicity | ||
| Caucasian/white |
334 (61) |
258 (57) |
| Latino/Hispanic |
38(7) |
18(4) |
| African American/black |
10(2) |
13(3) |
| American Indian/Native American |
3(<1) |
1 (<1) |
| Pacific Islander |
4 (1) |
5 (1) |
| Asian/Asian American |
135 (25) |
131 (29) |
| Mixed |
18(3) |
16(4) |
| Unknown |
4(1) |
9(2) |
| Marital Status | ||
| Married |
170 (31) |
127 (28) |
| Single with significant other |
208 (38) |
190 (42) |
| Single |
168 (31) |
133 (30) |
| Perceived Class Rank | ||
| Top 25% |
320 (59) |
260 (58) |
| Middle 50% |
189 (35) |
152 (34) |
| Bottom 25% |
18(3) |
17(4) |
| Unknown |
19(3) |
22(5) |
| * Mean ± standard deviation; eight respondents were excluded because gender was | ||
| not reported | ||
The factors described as important to all residency applicants in choosing a residency program are presented in Table 2. The factors felt to be most important were good house staff morale, the academic reputation of the program, a positive interview experience, the variety of clinical experiences and location near spouse or significant other.
buy revatio
Table 2. Importance of factors in choosing an Internal Medicine Residency Program as rated by 1,005 applicants to the 1999 NRMP in Internal Medicine and the difference in the importance placed on those factors by gender
| Men | Women |
P Valuef |
|
|
Factor |
Mean ± SE | Mean ± SE | |
| Location Characteristics | |||
| Location near spouse/SO** |
3.9 ±0.11 |
4.3 ±0.12 |
0.0001 |
| Job opportunities for spouse/SO |
3.4 ±0.11 |
3.9 ±0.13 |
0.0002 |
| Cultural activities in area |
3.4 ± 0.07 |
3.4 ± 0.08 |
0.4 |
| Location near family |
3.3 ± 0.09 |
3.5 ±0.10 |
0.05 |
| Ethnic diversity of city |
3.3± 0.08 |
3.6 ± 0.09 |
0.001 |
| Educational opportunities for spouse/SO |
3.0 ±0.13 |
3.2 ±0.15 |
0.3 |
| Location near friends |
2.7 ± 0.09 |
2.7 ± 0.09 |
0.7 |
| Common political values in area |
2.1 ±0.08 |
2.3 ±0.09 |
0.02 |
| Good environment for children |
2.8 ±0.11 |
2.8 ±0.13 |
0.9 |
| Recreational activities in area |
3.2 ± 0.07 |
3.2± 0.08 |
0.4 |
| Weather in area |
2.9 ± 0.08 |
2.8 ± 0.09 |
0.04 |
| Cost of living |
2.6 ±0.08 |
2.6 ± 0.09 |
1.0 |
| Location near spouse’s/SO’s family |
2.6 ±0.10 |
2.3 ±0.12 |
0.01 |
| Politics supportive of minorities |
2.3 ± 0.08 |
2.7 ± 0.09 |
0.0001 |
| Program Characteristics | |||
| Academic reputation of program |
4.4 ± 0.05 |
4.4 ± 0.06 |
0.7 |
| Good house staff morale |
4.5 ± 0.05 |
4.6 ± 0.05 |
0.1 |
| Variety of clinical experiences offered |
4.0 ± 0.06 |
4.1 ±0.07 |
0.07 |
| Ethnic diversity of patients |
3.4 ± 0.08 |
3.7 ± 0.09 |
0.0002 |
| Good on-call schedule |
3.3 ± 0.07 |
3.5 ± 0.08 |
0.04 |
| Number of hospitals rotated through |
3.0 ± 0.07 |
3.2 ± 0.08 |
0.07 |
| Research opportunities |
3.0 ± 0.09 |
2.8 ± 0.09 |
0.6 |
| Gender diversity of house staff |
2.3 ± 0.08 |
3.2 ± 0.09 |
0.0001 |
| Gender diversity of faculty |
2.2 ± 0.08 |
3.2 ± 0.09 |
0.0001 |
| Number of residents in the program |
2.7 ± 0.08 |
2.9 ± 0.08 |
0.04 |
| Emphasis on primary care |
2.5 ±0.09 |
2.0 ±0.10 |
0.001 |
| Ethnic diversity of house staff |
1.7 ± 0.08 |
2.1 ±0.09 |
0.0001 |
| Academics supportive of minorities |
2.7 ± 0.09 |
2.1 ±0.10 |
0.0001 |
| Amount of vacation |
2.6 ± 0.08 |
2.7 ± 0.08 |
0.5 |
| Good salary |
2.8 ± 0.07 |
2.7 ± 0.08 |
0.06 |
| Supportive of applicants with children |
2.3 ±0.12 |
2.7 ±0.13 |
0.0004 |
| Ethnic diversity of faculty |
2.5 ± 0.08 |
2.9 ± 0.09 |
0.0001 |
| Maternity/paternity leave policy |
2.0 ± 0.08 |
2.5 ± 0.09 |
0.0001 |
| Other financial incentives |
2.0 ± 0.07 |
1.8 ±0.08 |
0.007 |
| Serving medically indigent |
3.3 ± 0.08 |
3.7 ± 0.09 |
0.0002 |
| Recruitment | |||
| Positive interview experience |
4.1 ±0.07 |
4.3 ± 0.07 |
0.009 |
| Feeling of being wanted/recruited |
3.5 ± 0.08 |
3.7 ± 0.09 |
0.1 |
| Prior experience at the program |
2.8 ±0.11 |
2.8 ±0.13 |
0.4 |
| Amount of minority recruitment |
2.2 ± 0.07 |
2.4 ± 0.08 |
0.02 |
| Same gender of interviewer |
1.2 ± 0.05 |
1.5 ± 0.05 |
0.0001 |
| Same ethnicity interviewer |
1.3 ± 0.04 |
1.4 ± 0.04 |
0.07 |
| Plans after Residency | |||
| Fellowship opportunities in area |
3.6 ± 0.09 |
3.4 ±0.10 |
0.02 |
| Desired location to live after residency |
3.4 ± 0.09 |
3.3 ±0.10 |
0.04 |
| Job opportunities in area |
3.2 ± 0.09 |
3.2 ±0.10 |
0.8 |
| Advising | |||
| Advice of a role model |
3.2 ± 0.08 |
3.2 ± 0.09 |
0.8 |
| Advice of dean |
2.7 ± 0.08 |
2.7 ± 0.09 |
1.0 |
| Advice of friend |
2.7 ± 0.08 |
2.7 ± 0.08 |
0.6 |
| * Indicates adjusted mean response on a five-point Likert scale where 1 =not important, 3=somewhat important, and 5=very important; | |||
| t P value represents the result of the ANCOVA comparing responses by gender and controlling for ethnicity, marital status, age and | |||
| class rank; **SO: significant other | |||
Regression analysis demonstrated no significant interaction among gender, ethnicity, age and marital status. However, class ranking in the top third of the class was significantly negatively associated with URM status [OR 0.09 (95% CI 0.04-0.02)]. All variables were adjusted for in the ANCOVA results described below and in Tables 2 and 3. Results presented depict adjusted means, SE and corresponding p values.
dutasteride hair loss
Table 3. Factors that differed in importance between URM* and Caucasian, and Asian and Caucasian applicants to the 1999 NRMP in Internal Medicine**
|
Factor |
White (n=597) | URM (n=92) | P Valuef (n=266) | Asian |
P Value* |
| Emphasis on primary care |
2.6 ± 0.06 |
2.9 + 0.15 |
0.05 |
2.8 ± 0.09 |
0.04 |
| Serving medically indigent |
3.3 ± 0.06 |
3.7 + 0.14 |
0.004 |
3.3 ± 0.08 |
0.96 |
| Good salary |
2.6 ± 0.05 |
2.9 + 0.13 |
0.02 |
2.8 ± 0.08 |
0.02 |
| Other financial incentives |
1.7 ± 0.05 |
2.0 + 0.12 |
0.02 |
2.0 ± 0.07 |
0.0001 |
| Amount of minority recruitment |
1.6 ± 0.05 |
2.9 + 0.12 |
O.0001 |
2.0 ± 0.07 |
O.0001 |
| Feeling of being wanted |
3.4 ± 0.06 |
3.8 + 0.14 |
0.01 |
3.6 ± 0.08 |
0.09 |
| Same ethnicity of interviewer |
1.2 ± 0.03 |
1.5 + 0.07 |
O.0001 |
1.4 ± 0.04 |
O.0001 |
| Ethnic diversity of faculty |
2.2 ± 0.06 |
3.1 +0.14 |
O.0001 |
2.7 ± 0.08 |
<0.0001 |
| Ethnic diversity of house staff |
2.3 ± 0.06 |
3.3 + 0.14 |
O.OOOl |
2.8 ± 0.08 |
<0.0001 |
| Ethnic diversity of patients |
3.3 ± 0.06 |
3.7 + 0.14 |
0.01 |
3.3 ± 0.08 |
0.86 |
| Ethnic diversity of city |
3.3 ± 0.06 |
3.6 + 0.14 |
0.04 |
3.4 ± 0.08 |
0.07 |
| Academic environment supportive of ethnic minorities |
2.3 ± 0.06 |
3.4 + 0.14 |
O.0001 |
2.9 ± 0.09 |
O.0001 |
| Political climate supportive of minorities |
2.0 ± 0.06 |
3.0 + 0.14 |
O.0001 |
2.2 ± 0.08 |
0.005 |
| * URM: underrepresented minorities; ** Responses are reported as mean ± SE; f P value represents the result of the ANCOVA comparing minority to Caucasian applicants and controlling for gender, marital status, age and class rank; % P value represents the result of the ANCOVA comparing Asian to Caucasian applicants and controlling for gender, marital status, age and class rank; 50 respondents did not answer the ethnicity question and are excluded from this analysis. | |||||
The importance placed on factors determining residency choice differed by applicant gender (Table 2). The greatest differences in importance were seen regarding issues of gender diversity, where women rated the gender diversity of the faculty and house staff as important factors in their choice of residency, whereas men did not. Although having a same-gender interviewer was more important to women than men, such an experience was not particularly important to applicants of either gender. While both men and women felt that a positive interview experience was important, it was somewhat more important to women. Women placed more importance than men on familial issues, such as the location of the residency program being near their spouse/significant other (SO) or spouse’s job, program support of applicants with children, and the presence of maternity and paternity leave policies. Men placed more importance on issues, such as the location of the residency program being near their spouse’s family and future fellowship opportunities.
Women placed a higher importance than men on issues of ethnic diversity in location and program characteristics when choosing a residency (Table 2). Women rated the following characteristics as more important than men: politics of the area being supportive of ethnic minorities; program academics supportive of ethnic minorities; serving the medically indigent; and the ethnic diversity of the city, patient population, house staff and faculty.
singulair tablets
Several factors differed in importance among URM, Caucasian and Asian applicants (Table 3). Of the factors that differed among these groups, those that were most important to minority applicants were serving the medically underserved; amount of minority recruitment; feeling of being wanted; and ethnic diversity of the city, patients, house staff and faculty. An academic environment supportive of ethnic minorities and a political climate supportive of minorities were also noted as more important to URM applicants.
Category: Main
Tags: ethnic minority, internal medicine, medical education, medical students, residency selection, women