Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Factors involved in applicant interview selection and ranking for chronic pain medicine fellowship
  1. Vinicius Tieppo Francio1,
  2. Benjamin Gill2,
  3. Jonathan M Hagedorn3,
  4. Robert Pagan Rosado4,
  5. Scott Pritzlaff5,
  6. Timothy Furnish6,
  7. Lynn Kohan7 and
  8. Dawood Sayed8
  1. 1Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
  2. 2Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA
  3. 3iSpine Pain Physicians, Burnsville, Minnesota, USA
  4. 4Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  5. 5Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of California Davis, Davis, California, USA
  6. 6Department of Anesthesiology, UC San Diego, San Diego, California, USA
  7. 7Divsion of Pain Medicine/Department of Anesthesia, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
  8. 8Department of Anesthesiology, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Vinicius Tieppo Francio, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS 66045, USA; vtieppofrancio{at}kumc.edu

Abstract

Introduction Applicants to chronic pain medicine fellowship programs often express confusion regarding the importance of various selection criteria. This study sought to elucidate program directors’ considerations in applicant selection for fellowship interviews and ranking and to correlate these criteria with match statistics to provide a guide for prospective candidates.

Methods An electronic survey was sent to all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited chronic pain fellowship directors. The importance of various applicant characteristics were evaluated and compared with recent match data.

Results Fifty-seven program directors completed the survey. The most important factors involved in applicant interview selection were perceived commitment to the specialty, letters of recommendation from pain faculty, scholarly activities, and leadership experiences. Although completion of a pain rotation was valued highly, experience with procedures was of relatively low importance. There was no preference if rotations were completed within the responders’ department. Variability was noted when considering internal applicants or the applicant’s geographic location. When citing main factors in ranking applicants, interpersonal skills, interview impression and applicant’s fit within the institution were highly ranked by most responders.

Discussion Assessment of an applicant’s commitment to chronic pain is challenging. Most responders prioritize the applicant’s commitment to chronic pain as a specialty, scholarly activity, participation in chronic pain rotations, pain-related conferences and letters of recommendation from pain faculty. Chronic pain medicine fellowship candidates should establish a progressive pattern of genuine interest and involvement within the specialty during residency training to optimize their fellowship match potential.

  • chronic pain
  • pain medicine
  • education
  • internship and residency
  • analgesia

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Twitter @VinnyFrancioMD, @benjamin_gill, @jonhagedornmd, @RobertPaganMD, @ScottPritzlaff, @kohanlynn, @dsayed1

  • Contributors VTF, BG, RPR, JMH and SP contributed to study conception. VTF, BG, JMH, SP, TF, LK and DS contributed to study design. VTF, SP, TF, LK and DS contributed to study conduct. VTF and BG contributed to data analysis. All authors contributed to data interpretation and manuscript preparation. VTF is a guarantor.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.