Some Perceptions Differ, Match Outcomes Do Not: A Multisite Retrospective Cross-Sectional Comparison of Virtual vs. In-Person Recruitment.

Background: Virtual interviewing for residency provides considerable savings. Its impact on match outcomes remains unclear.

Objective: Evaluate the impact of virtual residency recruitment on program and applicant assessment and match outcomes.

Design: Cross-sectional survey, September 2020-July 2021 PARTICIPANTS: Faculty interviewers and 2019 and 2020 PGY-1 classes at three academic internal medicine residencies.

Main measures: Survey items rating effectiveness of interview format, preference for future interview format, and perceived impact on diversity.

Key results: A total of 247/436 faculty (57%) interviewers responded. Faculty perceived that in-person interviews enhanced applicant assessment (3.23 ± 0.38, p < 0.01) and recruitment of the most qualified applicants (p < 0.01) but did not impact recruitment of a racially or gender diverse class (3.03 ± 0.99, p = 0.95 and 3.09 ± 0.76, p = 0.14 respectively). They also did not demonstrate a preference for future interview formats. A total of 259/364 matched applicants responded, corresponding to a 76% response rate in the in-person cohort and a 66% response rate for virtual. Trainees were equally likely to match at their top choice when interviewing virtually vs. in-person (p = 0.56), and racial/ethnic and gender composition of the incoming class also did not differ (p = 0.81 and p = 0.19 respectively). Trainees perceived many aspects of the institution were better assessed in-person, though the impact varied according to assessment domain. Trainees who interviewed in-person preferred in-person formats. Of those who interviewed virtually, 47% preferred virtual and 54% preferred in-person. There were no predictors of virtual preference for future interview formats.

Conclusions: Faculty and applicants who experienced virtual recruitment had no preference for future recruitment format. Virtual recruitment had no impact on the racial/gender diversity of matched classes or on applicants matching at their top-ranked institution. Institutions should consider the potential non-inferiority of virtual interviews with financial and other benefits when making decisions about future interview formats.