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.     

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.     

Advertise Right by Addressing the Concerns: An Evaluation of Women's/Breast Imaging Radiology Fellowship Website Content for Prospective Fellows

PurposeFellowship is an important part of postgraduate medical training as it facilitates advanced training in a subspecialty of interest. Internet is the most readily available and frequently used tool for acquiring information about the fellowship programs by residents worldwide. The aim of this study was to analyze the content of the websites of American and Canadian breast/women's imaging fellowship programs.MethodsThe content of active Canadian and American breast/women's imaging fellowship websites was collected and analyzed in August 2019 using 27 different criteria in the categories of application process, recruitment, education, research, clinical work, and incentives. The fellowship program without a webpage were excluded from the study.ResultsOut of 76 active breast/women's imaging Radiology fellowship programs in the US and Canada, 75 had dedicated fellowship websites available for analysis. One program was excluded due to lack of a dedicated website. On average, websites showcased 11 of the 27 criteria (40.0%). The category with the least prevalent information was incentives especially career placement after completion of the fellowship (1/75, 1.3%). Majority of the programs around 80.0% (60/75) had adequate information about the application process and requirements.The mean number of schools satisfying the different groups of criteria differed (P< 0.01); more schools satisfied the application criteria (60.5/75; 79.6% ± 20.3%) than the incentives (12.8/75; 16.8% ± 8.2%) and recruitment (24.5/75; 32.2% ± 29.7%) criteria.ConclusionMajority of the breast and women's imaging fellowship websites lack important information. Providing comprehensive online information about the program and application process may help the applicants to choose the best suited program for their academic needs and career progression.     

Trends in Radiology Fellowship Training: A Canadian Review 2009-2011

Purpose

To assess the percentage, type, and location of radiology fellowships chosen by graduating Canadian residents between 2009 and 2011.

Methods

A short e-mail questionnaire was sent to the radiology program directors at all 16 institutions in Canada that provide English or French residency. The responses were collected between December 6, 2010, and May 20, 2011.

Results

A 75% response rate was observed for the survey: 76%–79% residents were enrolled in radiology fellowship training. In 2009–2010, 72%–73% of residents remained in Canada. This dropped to 51% in 2011. In 2009–2010, 22%–23% of residents chose U.S.-based radiology training. This rose to 49% in 2011. Europe was chosen by 0%–4% of residents: all of whom were French-speaking residents, and all programs were in France. Relatively consistent percentages of radiology residents choose abdominal (19%–30%), cardiac (4%–7%), musculoskeletal (12%–20%), and pediatrics (2%–5%) from year to year. Greater variability was noted in chest (2%–9%), women's imaging (0%–14%), intervention radiology (6%–18%), and neuroradiology (2%–18%). Radiology fellowships in split subspecialties, which were available at a small number of institutions, were chosen by 8%–9% of the residents.

Conclusions

Nearly 4 of 5 residents choose radiology fellowship training. In 2011, there was a 2-fold increase in the number of residents who chose training in the United States. This may be a 1-year outlier but should be observed. A wide range of fellowships were chosen, with consistent numbers in some core fellowships and variability in others year to year. Limited exploration of the rationale for, or employability value of, radiology fellowship choices has been done in Canada. Nearly 1 of 10 residents chose split radiology fellowships, an option limited by availability at few centers. The value of expanding this option is worthy of investigation.     

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.     

Assessment of US Radiology Residency Program Websites in the COVID-19 Era

ObjectiveTo provide an updated evaluation of radiology residency program websites in light of virtual interviewing during the COVID-19 pandemic and encourage programs to improve the quality of their online website presence.MethodsWe evaluated the websites of 197 US radiology residency programs between November and December 2021 for the presence or absence of 30 metrics. The metrics chosen are those considered important by applicants when choosing a program and have been used in other similar papers.ResultsOf the 197 programs, 192 (97.5%) had working websites. The average radiology residency website had 16 of 30 (54%) metrics listed on their websites. Five programs did not have accessible websites and were not included in the analysis. The most comprehensive website had 29 of 30 (97%) of metrics listed and the least comprehensive website had 2 of 30 (7%). There is a statistically significant difference in website comprehensiveness between top 20 and non–top 20 radiology program websites.ConclusionAlthough radiology residency program websites have generally become more comprehensive over time, there is still room for improvement, especially in times of virtual interviews when residency applicants are becoming more and more reliant on program websites to gain essential information about a program. Some key areas to include are diversity and inclusion initiatives, resident wellness, applicant information, program benefits, and showcase of people in the program.