SKIN May 2019 Volume 3 Issue 3 Copyright 2018 The National Society for Cutaneous Medicine 208 RESEARCH LETTER Factors Influencing Dermatology Rank List Preferences Among Successful Applicants Giselle Prado MD1, Ryan M Svoboda MD, MS2, Alex Glazer, MD3, Aaron S Farberg, MD4, Darrell S Rigel, MD, MS5 1National Society for Cutaneous Medicine, New York, NY 2Department of Dermatology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 3Department of Dermatology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 4Department of Dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 5Ronald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY A recent study has suggested that increasing the number of residency positions would help alleviate the shortage of dermatologists.1 Filling these positions would be straightforward using the demand from the existing applicant pool, however choosing the applicants that best “fit” with a program remains a challenge.2 Several studies have looked at applicant factors that predict success of matching, but no recent studies have determined the factors that influence how applicants order their rank list. Current Dermatology residents throughout the U.S. were invited to participate in an anonymous validated 10 question survey. Demographic questions included: gender, marital status, and number of dermatology programs applied to, interviewed with, and ranked. Respondents were asked to choose the top 5 reasons for ranking a residency program higher or lower on their rank list.3 The first 100 respondents were included in the study. The average number of residency programs applied to was 57.6, the mean number of programs interviewed at was 8.2, and the mean number of programs ranked was 8.5. (Table 1) Most respondents matched within their top 3 choices on their rank list. Table 1: Resident respondent characteristics. Characteristic Percent Mean No. Programs Applied 57.6 Mean No. Programs Interviewed 8.2 Mean No. Programs Ranked 8.5 Gender Male 48.0 Female 51.0 Unanswered 1.0 Relationship Status Single 38.0 Married/ Domestic Partnership 61.0 Unanswered 1.0 Children Yes 27.0 No 72.0 Unanswered 1.0 Matched in top 3 Yes 86.0 No 14.0 SKIN May 2019 Volume 3 Issue 3 Copyright 2018 The National Society for Cutaneous Medicine 209 Interestingly, geographic location was the top reason for both ranking programs higher and lower. (Table 2) Reputation and prestige of the sponsoring institution also influenced higher and lower ranking. Other frequently cited reasons for ranking a program higher were: personal experience from prior rotation, perceived quality of current residents, and perceived camaraderie among residents. When ranking a program lower, respondents were typically concerned with: perceived stability of the department, work- life balance, and personal interactions with residents on interview day. Factors such as perceived environment for women and minorities, employment benefits, and elective opportunities were not as high a priority. However, in contrast to a previous study4, there were no significant differences in preferences when selections were stratified by gender, marital status, and having children. Other specialties have also noted the importance of geographic location among resident rank lists.3 Although the overwhelming majority of dermatology residency positions are filled1, nonetheless this information may be valuable to residency program leadership in order to more effectively highlight the strengths of their location. This may include a presentation on local attractions, accessibility, and a description of a typical day in the life of a resident. While some of these factors are fixed, other factors such as the applicant experience on interview day and perceptions of the department could be better optimized. Residency programs can maximize applicant perceptions by highlighting the successes and camaraderie of the current resident cohort. For example, the interview day experience could be enhanced by scheduling interviews so there are no long periods of waiting. Providing the applicants an opportunity to engage in fun activities with current residents during downtime between interviews may leave applicants with a more positive view of the experience. In turn, the applicants the program attracts will be a better “match” to the program. Program Directors and Chairs may benefit from the findings of this study as they engage in their residency recruitment process. Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None. Funding: None. Corresponding Author: Giselle Prado, MD National Society for Cutaneous Medicine New York, NY drgiselleprado@gmail.com References: 1. Jayakumar KL, Lipoff JB. Trends in the dermatology residency match from 2007 to 2018: Implications for the dermatology workforce. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(3):788-790. 2. National Resident Matching Program. The Match, National Resident Matching Program. 2019. http://www.nrmp.org/. 3. Auriemma MJ, Whitehair CL. How Prospective Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Trainees Rank Residency Training Programs. PM&R. 2018;10(3):286-292. 4. Long EM, Clarke J, Sceppa J, Miller J. A perfect match: factors involved in dermatology residency applicant’s decision making. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;50(3):Supplement P83. mailto:drgiselleprado@gmail.com http://www.nrmp.org/ SKIN May 2019 Volume 3 Issue 3 Copyright 2018 The National Society for Cutaneous Medicine 210 Table 2: Factors affecting rank list ordered by frequency of selection. Position Factors that Impact Higher Position % Factors that Impact Lower Position % 1 Geographic Location 55.0 Geographic Location 53.0 2 Personal Experience from Prior Rotation at Department 44.0 Perceived Stability of Dermatology Department 33.0 3 Perceived Quality of Current Residents 39.0 Work-Life Balance 31.0 4 Perceived Camaraderie Among Current Residents 35.0 Personal Interactions with Current Residents on Interview Day 30.0 5 Reputation and Prestige of Sponsoring Institution 32.0 Reputation and Prestige of Sponsoring Institution 28.0 6 Work-Life Balance 31.0 Perceived Quality of Clinical Facilities 26.0 7 Proximity to Family 28.0 Perceived Quality of Current Residents 23.0 8 Perceived Quality of Didactic Curriculum 26.0 Size of Program 23.0 9 Size of Program 26.0 Call Schedule 22.0 10 Diversity of Patient Population 26.0 Geographic Preference of Spouse 7.0 11 Personal Interactions with Current Residents on Interview Day 24.0 Impression of Program Director from Interview Day 20.0 12 Perceived Stability of Dermatology Department 24.0 Proximity to Family 19.0 13 Geographic Preference of Spouse 19.0 Perceived Camaraderie Among Current Residents 18.0 14 Impression of Program Director from Interview Day 17.0 Cost of Living 18.0 15 Perceived Quality of Clinical Facilities 14.0 Perceived Quality of Didactic Curriculum 15.0 16 Mentor/Colleague/Ad visor Recommendation 11.0 Personal Experience from Prior Rotation at Department 15.0 17 Research Opportunities 11.0 Diversity of Patient Population 14.0 18 Cost of Living 10.0 Availability of Free Meals for Residents 13.0 19 Placement of Recent Graduates into Desired Fellowships 10.0 Perceived Environment for Minorities 11.0 20 Call Schedule 5.0 Elective Opportunities Offered 10.0 21 Elective Opportunities Offered 3.0 Mentor/Colleague/Ad visor Recommendation 10.0 SKIN May 2019 Volume 3 Issue 3 Copyright 2018 The National Society for Cutaneous Medicine 211 22 Program’s willingness to Allow & Pay for Conference Attendance 3.0 Research Opportunities 10.0 23 Employment Benefits 2.0 Perceived Environment for Women 8.0 24 Perceived Environment for Minorities 2.0 Placement of Recent Graduates into Desired Fellowships 8.0 25 Perceived Environment for Women 2.0 Employment Benefits 7.0 26 Availability of Free Meals for Residents 0.0 Program’s willingness to Allow & Pay for Conference Attendance 6.0