CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 33Medical Education and AdmissionsInnovations in Medical EducationEmployer Branding and e-HRM

Virtual interviewing for graduate medical education recruitment and selection: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 80

Open access
Daniel, Michelle, Gottlieb, Michael, Wooten, Darcy, Stojan, Jennifer, Haas, Mary R. C., Bailey, Jacob, Evans, Sean, Lee, Daniel +18 more·2022·Medical Teacher
DOI 10.1080/0142159x.2022.2130038
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused graduate medical education (GME) programs to pivot to virtual interviews (VIs) for recruitment and selection. This systematic review synthesizes the rapidly expanding evidence base on VIs, providing insights into preferred formats, strengths, and weaknesses. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, ERIC, PsycINFO, MedEdPublish, and Google Scholar were searched from 1 January 2012 to 21 February 2022. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument. Findings were reported according to Best Evidence in Medical Education guidance. RESULTS: One hundred ten studies were included. The majority (97%) were from North America. Fourteen were conducted before COVID-19 and 96 during the pandemic. Studies involved both medical students applying to residencies (61%) and residents applying to fellowships (39%). Surgical specialties were more represented than other specialties. Applicants preferred VI days that lasted 4-6 h, with three to five individual interviews (15-20 min each), with virtual tours and opportunities to connect with current faculty and trainees. Satisfaction with VIs was high, though both applicants and programs found VIs inferior to in-person interviews for assessing 'fit.' Confidence in ranking applicants and programs was decreased. Stakeholders universally noted significant cost and time savings with VIs, as well as equity gains and reduced carbon footprint due to eliminating travel. CONCLUSIONS: The use of VIs for GME recruitment and selection has accelerated rapidly. The findings of this review offer early insights that can guide future practice, policy, and research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0142159x.2022.2130038

Cites

120 of 120 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This technological democratization is mirrored in the diverse origin of publications with almost a third from regions outside of the traditional North American or European academic hubs, more than found in most recently published BEME reviews.

    “This technological democratization is mirrored in the diverse origin of publications with almost a third from regions outside of the traditional North American or European academic hubs, more than found in most recently published BEME reviews (Daniel et al. 2022;Doyle et al. 2023;Hamza et al. 2023;Li S et al. 2023).”

    From A scoping review of artificial intelligence in medical education: BEME Guide No. 84 (2024) · cites this paper as Daniel et al. 2022

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Addams A, Bletzinger RB, Sondheimer HM, White SE, Johnson LM. 2010. Roadmap to diversity: integrating holistic review practices into medical school admissions processes. Association of American Medical Colleges. [accessed 2022 July 9.] https://store.aamc.org/downloadable/download/sample/sample\_id/195/
  2. Allen KA. 2020. The Psychology of Belonging. Melbourne AU: Routledge.
  3. Armstrong A, Kroener L, Cohen J, Han CS, Nitti V, Rible R, Brennan K. 2021. The influence of virtual interviews on the fellowship match in obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN). Fertil Steril. 116(3):e75.
  4. Arthur ME, Aggarwal N, Lewis S, Odo N. 2021. Rank and match outcomes of in-person and virtual anesthesiology residency interviews. J Educ Perioper Med. 23(3):E664.
  5. Bamba R, Bhagat N, Tran PC, Westrick E, Hassanein AH, Wooden WA. 2021. Virtual interviews for the independent plastic surgery match: a modern convenience or a modern misrepresentation? J Surg Educ. 78(2):612-21.
  6. Carmody JB, Rosman IS, Carlson JC. 2021. Application fever: reviewing the causes, costs, and cures for residency application inflation. Cureus. 13(3):e13804.
  7. Caldwell LS, Lawler EA. 2021. Orthopedic surgery residency application process in 2020 - has diversity been affected? Iowa Orthop J. 41(1):1-4.
  8. Cotner CE, Mercadante SF, Shea JA. 2022. Assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on geographic residency placement relative to medical school location. J Grad Med Educ. 14(1):108-11.
  9. D'Angelo A-LD, D'Angelo JD, Beaty JS, Cleary RK, Hoedema RE, Mathis KL, Dozois EJ, Kelley SR. 2021. Virtual interviews - utilizing technological affordances as a predictor of applicant confidence. Am J Surg. 222(6):1085-92.
  10. Day RW, Taylor BM, Bednarski BK, Tzeng CD, Gershenwald JE, Lee JE, Grubbs EG. 2020. Virtual interviews for surgical training program applicants during COVID-19: lessons learned and recommendations. Ann Surg. 272(2):e144-47.
  11. Ding JJ, Has P, Hampton BS, Burrell D. 2022. Obstetrics and gynecology resident perception of virtual fellowship interviews. BMC Med Educ. 22(1):58.
  12. Elmorsi R, Asaad M, Ferry AM, Rajesh A, Maricevich RS. 2021. How real is a virtual interview? Perspectives of orthopaedic surgery residency directors. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 25(24):7829-32.
  13. Halse C. 2018. Theories and theorising of belonging. In Interrogating belonging for young people in schools . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
  14. Hemal K, Sarac BA, Boyd CJ, Runyan CM, Gosman AA, Janis JE. 2021. Applicant preferences for virtual interviews: insights from the 2020-21 integrated plastic surgery application cycle. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 9(7):e3732.
  15. Ho G, Davis J, Hindle AK, Heinz E. 2021. Virtual residency interviews: a survey of anesthesiology program director perspectives amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. J Educ Perioper Med. 23(4):E674.
  16. Hopson LR, Edens MA, Goodrich M, Kiemeney M, Werley EB, Kellogg A, Franzen D. 2020. Calming troubled waters: a narrative review of challenges and potential solutions in the residency interview offer process. West J Emerg Med. 22(1):1-6.
  17. Iwai Y, Lenze NR, Mihalic AP, Becnel CM, Stitzenberg KB. 2022. Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the residency match among surgical specialties. Surgery. 171(6):1512-18.
  18. Peyser A, Gulersen M, Nimaroff M, Mullin C, Goldman RH. 2021. Virtual obstetrics and gynecology fellowship interviews during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: a survey study. BMC Med Educ. 21(1):449.
  19. Rasendran C, Rahman S, Younis U, Wadhwa R, Kapadia M, Lass JH, Ohsie-Bajor LH. 2021. The impact of virtual interviews on the geographic distribution of ophthalmology match results in the 2020-2021 cycle. J Acad Ophthal. 13(02):e242-46.
  20. Strumpf Z, Miller C, Livingston D, Shaman Z, Matta M. 2021. Virtual interviews: challenges and opportunities for pulmonary disease and critical care medicine fellowship programs. ATS Sch. 2(4):535-43.
  21. Taylor M, Wallen T, Mehaffey JH, Shirafkan A, Brescia AA, Freeman K, Louis C, Watson J, Okereke I. 2022. Interviews during the pandemic: a thoracic education cooperative group and surgery residents project. Ann Thorac Surg. 113(2):663-68.
  22. Vallejo MC, Price SS, Vanek TW, Fuller KA, Nield LS, Cottrell SA, Ferrari ND. 2022. Virtual interviewing in the COVID-19 era: A survey of graduate program directors. J Dent Educ. 86(5):535-42.
  23. Van der Laan L, George R, Nesiama JA, Nagler J, Langhan ML, Yen K, Ngo TL, Rose JA, Caglar D, Kant S, et al. 2022. Virtual interviewing for pediatric emergency medicine fellowship a national survey. Pediatr Emerg Care. 38(4):e1207-12.
  24. Whisonant CT, Shahriari SR, Harrison J, Ederle A, Marley SJ, Dowdy-Sue HE, Borah G. 2021. Evaluating the integrated plastic surgery residency match during the novel Coronavirus pandemic. Cureus. 13(8):e16988.
  25. Zarate Rodriguez JG, Gan CY, Williams GA, Drake TO, Ciesielski T, Sanford DE, Awad MM. 2022. Applicants' perception of fit to residency programmes in the video-interview era: a large multidisciplinary survey. Med Educ. 56(6):641-50.
  26. Zhang R, Schappe A, Salyapongse N, Bentz M. 2022. To Zoom or not to Zoom: weighing the pros and cons of the virtual plastic surgery residency interview. Plast Reconstr Surg. 149(2):365e-66e.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Daniel, M., Gottlieb, M., Wooten, D., Stojan, J., Haas, M. R. C., Bailey, J., Evans, S., Lee, D., Goldberg, C., Fernandez, J., Jassal, S. K., Rudolf, F., Guluma, K., Lander, L., Pott, E., Goldhaber, N. H., Thammasitboon, S., Uraiby, H., Grafton-Clarke, C., Gordon, M., Pawlikowska, T., Corral, J., Partha, I., Kolman, K. B., Westrick, J., & Dolmans, D.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Rush University Medical Center (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK
  • School of Medicine, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
  • University of Lancashire (GB)
  • Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (IE)
  • University of Nevada, Reno (US)
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Daniel, Michelle
ORCID
Venue
Medical Teacher
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2022-11-12
Volume
44
Issue
12
Pages
1313-1331
ISSN
  • 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-187X
DOI
10.1080/0142159x.2022.2130038
OpenAlex
W4308834870
Cited by
33
References
120
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8
FWCI
1.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Medical Teacher (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CLOK (University of Central Lancashire) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical Education and Admissions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employer Branding and e-HRM
Keywords
virtual interviews, graduate medical education, residency recruitment, residency selection, fellowship selection, COVID-19 pandemic, applicant satisfaction, interview format, virtual tour, applicant ranking, cost and time savings, medical education equity, carbon footprint reduction
MeSH terms
COVID-19, Education, Medical, Education, Medical, Graduate, Fellowships and Scholarships, Humans, Internship and Residency, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review