Interviewing for Family Medicine Residency: In-Person, Virtual, or Hybrid?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the impact of interviewing format changes on the family medicine (FM) residency interviewing process. Specifically, we compare applicant cost and time expenditures in traditional in-person, virtual-only, and hybrid interview years. We also report student perceptions of the virtual-only and hybrid interview processes.

METHODS: Applicants for first-year FM residency positions via the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) completed a survey questionnaire in 2019-2020 (in-person interviewing only), 2020-2021 (virtual only), and 2021-2022 (hybrid). Statistical analyses included analysis of variance for questions related to applications, interviews, ranked programs, cost, and time spent. We used thematic analysis to code narrative comments about the interviewing experience for the virtual-only and hybrid years.

RESULTS: Seventy-one FM applicants responded (response rate 63.4%). Costs for the in-person interview year were significantly higher ($2,394.70±$1,961.20) than the virtual ($646.80±$846.60, P=.0001) and hybrid years ($903.30±$793.40, P=.001). Days spent per applicant on in-person interviews was also significantly higher (25.9±7.9,) than virtual (14.9±7.6, P=.0001) and hybrid years (14.3±7.0, P<.0001). For virtual and hybrid years, thematic analyses identified five categories: "feelings related to interviewing," "suggestions for future," "convenience/logistics of interviewing," "perceived fit of program," and "cost/time of interviewing," that further elucidated applicant experiences.

CONCLUSIONS: Virtual interviewing works well for overall cost and time, but other aspects such as perceived fit with programs and equity need to be considered before residency programs adopt fully virtual or hybrid interviewing in future years.