We have located links that may give you full text access.
Recruitment behavior and program directors: how ethical are their perspectives about the match process?
Family Medicine 2000 April
OBJECTIVE: This study examined family practice residency directors' perspectives on the 1999 National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) process and identified directors' expectations for students' recruitment behavior.
METHODS: Subjects were the family practice residency program directors. A 22-item written questionnaire was mailed to each director. The questions related to the directors' perceptions of the following issues: applicants interviewing in more than one specialty, communication initiated by programs or applicants, commitments made to applicants and by applicants, ethical dilemmas faced by the program director, and the NRMP process itself. Descriptive statistics were reported.
RESULTS: Only a few of the residency program directors (9.1%) felt that it was ethically wrong for an applicant to interview in more than one specialty. However, most program directors (83%) indicated that the knowledge of an applicant interviewing in more than one specialty had a "significant" negative or "some" negative effect on the applicant's rank order. Ninety-five percent of program directors indicated that they engage in follow-up communication with applicants following the formal interview. Almost all program directors (98%) reported that at least some applicants contact them following the formal interview to inform them that the program was a "high" or No. 1 rank-order choice. The majority of program directors (94%) felt that the NRMP process placed their program in the position of having to be dishonest with applicants to match their top choices.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study indicate that the actions of many program directors and applicants may not be consistent with the written policies of the NRMP.
METHODS: Subjects were the family practice residency program directors. A 22-item written questionnaire was mailed to each director. The questions related to the directors' perceptions of the following issues: applicants interviewing in more than one specialty, communication initiated by programs or applicants, commitments made to applicants and by applicants, ethical dilemmas faced by the program director, and the NRMP process itself. Descriptive statistics were reported.
RESULTS: Only a few of the residency program directors (9.1%) felt that it was ethically wrong for an applicant to interview in more than one specialty. However, most program directors (83%) indicated that the knowledge of an applicant interviewing in more than one specialty had a "significant" negative or "some" negative effect on the applicant's rank order. Ninety-five percent of program directors indicated that they engage in follow-up communication with applicants following the formal interview. Almost all program directors (98%) reported that at least some applicants contact them following the formal interview to inform them that the program was a "high" or No. 1 rank-order choice. The majority of program directors (94%) felt that the NRMP process placed their program in the position of having to be dishonest with applicants to match their top choices.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study indicate that the actions of many program directors and applicants may not be consistent with the written policies of the NRMP.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app