Work

Program Leaders’ Plans, Perceptions, and Anticipated Effects of Preference Signaling Before Implementation in Ophthalmology

Year: 2025

Type: article

Abstract: Purpose: To assess the plans, perceptions, and anticipated effects of preference signaling on the 2024e2025 match cycle among ophthalmology program directors and associate program directors. Methods: A 16-item questionnaire was distributed to 177 ophthalmology program directors and associate program directors prior to the start of the 2024e2025 application cycle. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 71 ophthalmology program directors and associate directors (40 % response rate). Sixty-two program leaders (89 %) planned to incorporate signaling into the application review process. The most common plan was to give additional consideration throughout the application review process (n ¼ 45 [63 %]) followed by additional consideration later in the review process during interview offers (n ¼ 18 [25 %]). Signaling was ranked relatively low for resident selection compared with other metrics. Most program leaders reported that signaling would benefit residency programs (n ¼ 64 [90 %]) and applicants (n ¼ 71 [96 %]). Most respondents thought that implementing preference signaling would not affect the number of applications received this year (n ¼ 52 [73 %]) or submitted per applicant (n ¼ 50 [70 %]). Most respondents (n ¼ 58 [83 %]) indicated that applicants who signaled their program would be more likely to receive an interview. Many responded they would prefer more signals to be offered. Conclusion: In the inaugural year of preference signaling in ophthalmology, program leaders planned to use signals to give additional consideration to applicants. Despite this intention, preference signaling was ranked low among the factors most important for resident selection. Program leaders reported that preference signaling would benefit both programs and applicants, with the most agreed-upon benefit being an increased chance of receiving an interview at signaled programs. However, program leaders responded that using seven signals would not lead to a decrease in application volume.

Source: Journal of Academic Ophthalmology

DOI: 10.62199/2475-4757.1307