The motivations for pursuing an interventional radiology (IR) residency differ from those that lead to diagnostic radiology (DR) residency or IR fellowships, according to new research in the Journal of the American College of Radiology.
The researchers, led by Daryl Goldman, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said understanding these motivations may help recruit top quality IR residency applicants.
“Prior research has sought to highlight certain factors that influence medical students’ choice to pursue DR and IR,” Goldman and colleagues wrote. “Additionally, due to the marked disparity in the number of women versus men in both DR and IR, a variety of these studies have focused on the differences in motivations between male and female applicants.”
The conclusions from previous studies have been conflicting. Perceived lack of patient contact, gender distribution in IR and competitiveness in the practice areas have been reasons dissuading medical students from careers in DR and IR.
Goldman and colleagues sought to compare the motivations of IR residency, IR fellowship and DR residency applicants using a questionnaire distributed to IR integrated residency and IR fellowship applicants for the 2018 National Residency Matching Program (NRMP). Their results were then combined with a 2016 survey issued to DR residency applicants who were asked the same questions.
The study included 202 DR residency respondents, 114 IR residency respondents and 70 IR fellowship respondents. Among the findings:
- Compared with DR respondents, IR residency respondents rated the following factors more positively: influence of a mentor, perceived job satisfaction, job market, salary, intellectual stimulation, the use of emerging or advanced technology and the visual nature of the field.
- Compared to IR respondents, DR respondents rated the following factors more positively: flexible work hours, physics and the competitiveness of the application process.
- Compared with IR fellowship respondents, IR residency respondents rated the following factors more positively: flexible work hours, the job market, physics and salary.
- Competitiveness negatively affected residency applicants.
Three factors differed significantly for both resident and fellow applicants: job market, salary and competitiveness.
“These factors could all be considered transient and may be reflective of the current excitement around the newly created IR residency pathway,” Goldman and colleagues wrote. “Job markets and salaries are volatile and difficult to predict. Although the prospects for both academic and private practice IT jobs seem strong, we hesitate to recruit too strongly around these aspects. However, it may be valuable to emphasize to prospective applicants the cyclical nature of the markets to allay any fears at the time of residency decision making.”
The researchers noted their findings are particularly important to residency and fellowship directors.
“By learning from these differences, including the importance of mentorship, perceived job satisfaction, intellectual stimulation, the use of emerging or advanced technology, and the visual nature of the field, we can better recruit future applicants to the field,” the researchers concluded. “Importantly, we must also pay attention to the double-edged sword of the competitiveness of the field, which allows for strong applicants, but also acts as a deterrent to some.”
As a senior news writer for TriMed, Subrata covers cardiology, clinical innovation and healthcare business. She has a master’s degree in communication management and 12 years of experience in journalism and public relations.