An Evaluation of the Content of Canadian Radiology Fellowship Websites

PurposeProspective radiology fellows utilize the internet to apply for radiology fellowship programs. The aim of this study was to analyze the online content of Canadian radiology fellowship websites.MethodsThe content of all active Canadian radiology fellowship websites were evaluated using 30 criteria in the following domains: application, recruitment, education and research, clinical work and benefits. Fellowships without websites were excluded from the study. The prevalence of assessed elements was compared to geography and Canadian medical school ranking.ResultsWe identified 107 active Canadian radiology fellowship programmes, of which 102 university fellowships (95.3%) had dedicated fellowship websites available for analysis. Of these 102 programs, the median score was 13/30 (43.0%). Websites of fellowship programs affiliated with top ranked medical schools contained more of the assessed criteria than middle and lower ranked schools (17.0 vs 13.0 vs 9.0, p < 0.0001)). Geographical difference was identified across Canada with Atlantic and Central Canada fellowship programs having significantly more criteria than Western programs (15.5 vs 16.0 vs 10.0, p < 0.001).ConclusionsMost Canadian radiology fellowship websites are devoid of content pertinent to prospective radiology fellows. Addressing deficiencies in online content may assist programs to inform and recruit residents into radiology fellowship programs.     

Canadian and American Emergency Radiology Fellowship Websites: An Evaluation of Content

PurposeThe internet is commonly employed by Radiology trainees to investigate and learn about potential fellowship programs. As a new and emerging subspecialty, Emergency Radiology requires strong internet presence and training program website content. This is vital to ensure good exposure of the fellowship programs to inform medical students, radiology trainees, and program directors, highlight unique aspects of a fellowship and raise awareness of the discipline at large.MethodsTo assess the standard and depth of information available online, Canadian and American Radiology fellowship websites were evaluated for content. Thirty-six criteria related to application process and recruitment, departmental structure, incentives, education, and research and clinical training were evaluated for presence or absence.ResultsSixteen Emergency Radiology fellowship program websites were assessed from the United States and Canada for 36 criteria across 5 individual areas; application process and recruitment, departmental structure, incentives, education and research, and clinical training. Overall there was an absence of information found across all 5 areas. In particular areas for improvement were identified in education and research, and incentives both with median values of 12.5% of criteria present.ConclusionMost Emergency Radiology fellowship program websites demonstrate several information deficiencies. This relative lack of comprehensive information represents an actionable opportunity for individual programs and the field to better educate trainees, program directors and the public about the unique training of Emergency Radiologists.     

Evaluation of Pediatric Radiology Fellowship Website Content in USA and Canada

PurposeProspective radiology fellows often rely on the internet to obtain valuable information regarding the application process as well as the unique qualities and aspects of different fellowship programs. The aim of this study was to analyze the content of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Pediatric Radiology Fellowship websites within the USA and Canadian Accredited Pediatric Radiology Fellowship program websites.MethodsAll active ACGME Pediatric Radiology fellowship websites as of October 2018 were evaluated using 26 criteria in the following domains: application process, recruitment, program structure, education, research, clinical care, and incentives. Fellowships without websites were excluded from the study. Canadian programs were compiled from a list obtained as of October 2018 from the Canadian Association of Radiologists fellowship directory. Each fellowship program was evaluated using the same 26 criteria as the US programs.Results45 active ACGME Pediatric Radiology fellowship programs and 9 Canadian programs were identified. 43 of the US fellowships (96%), and 8 of the Canadian fellowships (89%) had dedicated fellowship websites available for analysis. For US data, websites on average contained 8 out of the 26 data points (31%). Whereas, in Canada, websites on average contained 11 out of the 26 data points (41%).ConclusionMost fellowship websites demonstrate several information deficiencies. This presents an actionable opportunity for individual programs to better inform trainees, promote Pediatric Radiology, and attract the highest quality applicants.     

Fellowship directors' perceptions of the 2005 NRMP Radiology Fellowship Match

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study is to gauge radiology fellowship directors' experiences with the fellowship application process and perceptions of the National Resident Matching Program Radiology Fellowship Match, as well as compare these perceptions with those of senior residents. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An electronic survey was sent to 291 members of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology. Responses were compared directly with an earlier survey of senior residents who participated in the same cycle of the Fellowship Match. RESULTS: Sixty-seven respondents participated in the survey. Based on our estimates of the total number of US-based radiology subspecialty fellowship programs, this represents between 15.3% (67/438) and 24.2% (67/277) of all fellowship directors. Approximately three quarters (52/76 directors; 77.6%) participated in the Fellowship Match. Respondents believe that the match process makes the process fairer for all applicants (31/43 respondents; 70.5%) and primarily benefits residents (30/76 respondents; 60.0%), a significant difference compared with senior residents (P < .01). The majority of fellowship directors favor the current calendar and the ability to select internal candidates outside the Match. The majority of respondents believe that programs generally are not abiding by the rules of the Match (22/43 respondents; 51.2%), and at least 15 instances of rule violations were reported. A majority of fellowship directors favor continuing the Match in some form (26/42 respondents; 61.9%). CONCLUSION: Although there are significant differences in perception of the Match process between fellowship directors and senior residents, the majority of fellowship directors favor continuing the Match in some form. Several potential solutions, including explicit declaration of the number of available positions and strict enforcement of Match rules, may help improve the process in the future.     

An Assessment of Radiology Residency Program Websites

PurposeWhen prospective radiology residents decide where to apply to residency, many will use the Internet as a resource to garner information. Therefore, it is important for residency programs to produce and maintain an informative and comprehensive website. Here, we review 179 radiology residency program websites for 19 criteria including various aspects related to the residency application process, benefits, didactics, research, clinical training, and faculty leadership.MethodsWe evaluated 179 radiology residency program websites for the inclusion of 19 different criteria. Criteria for information not available directly on the website and links with no information were considered not present.ResultsOnly 12 of the 179 (6.7%) program websites had at least 80% of the 19 criteria. In addition, 41 programs (23%) had less than 50% of the criteria listed on their websites. Websites ranged from having 16% of the criteria to as much as 95%.ConclusionAlthough previous studies have shown that prospective radiology resident applicants are influenced by intangibles like current resident satisfaction and academic reputation, they have also shown that applicants are influenced by the educational curriculum, clinical training, program resources, research opportunities, and quality of faculty. Therefore, it is imperative to provide online resources for prospective candidates in an attempt for residency programs to remain competitive in recruiting high-quality US medical student graduates. These findings suggest there is room for improving the comprehensiveness of information provided on radiology residency program websites.