Article Text
Abstract
The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) for pain medicine fellowships marked its 10th anniversary in 2023, coinciding with growing discussions within the Association of Pain Program Directors (APPD) regarding the program’s future in the context of a recent decline of applicants into pain medicine. This letter explores the rationale behind reassessing the NRMP’s utility for pain medicine, examining historical and current trends, and considering the implications of withdrawing from the match. Despite a recent decline in applicants and an increase in unfilled positions, the APPD advocates for continued participation in the match. The match ensures equitable and stable recruitment, preventing the chaotic pre-match environment of competitive, early offers. Data from similar specialties highlight the pitfalls of non-match systems, such as increased applicant pressure and reduced program visibility. The APPD supports maintaining the NRMP match while implementing reforms like preference signaling to address evolving challenges. The APPD aims to preserve the match’s benefits and ensure a stable future for pain medicine fellowship recruitment.
- EDUCATION
- CHRONIC PAIN
- Internship and Residency
Data availability statement
Data sharing not applicable as no data sets generated and/or analysed for this study.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data sharing not applicable as no data sets generated and/or analysed for this study.
Footnotes
X @kohanlynn, @SMoeschlerMD, @Byalamuru
Contributors The idea of the article and its content and writing was taken as a collaborative process by all the authors listed who contributed to the genesis of the idea, research/referencing, writing, editing and finalizing the article. AKA is the 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 LK - institutional funding from FUSMObile, Averitas, Vertex – not relevant to paper.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.