Purpose: To compare in-person and virtual breast fellowship interview experiences from the perspective of fellowship program directors (PDs) and applicants.
Materials and Methods: Three separate anonymous, email delivered, voluntary surveys were developed for PDs, applicants who participated in in-person interviews in 2019-2020, and applicants who participated in virtual interviews in 2020-2021. Survey responses were obtained between 6/10/21 and 9/8/21. Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to analyze the PD responses to questions regarding the two interview cycles. Chi square and Fisher’s Exact Tests were used to analyze the applicant responses from the two interview cycles.
Results: Completed surveys were received from 56% (53/95) PDs, 19% (23/123) in-person interview applicants, and 38% (49/129) virtual interview applicants.
PDs reported no significant difference in number of applications received, number of applicants interviewed, geographic regions represented by the applicant pool, number of interview days offered or format of interviews. Cost of virtual interviews was significantly lower (p <0.001). Regarding preferences, PDs offered a range of responses, with similar numbers expressing a preference for virtual and in-person interviews.
Virtual applicants reported no difference in the number of programs applied to or geographic region of programs compared to their in-person counterparts. Both groups reported that scheduled time to speak with current fellows was very important, and both groups preferred to interview with 2-4 faculty members in a one-on-one format.
Cost was significantly different between the groups (p < 0.001), with 71% of virtual applicants reporting a cost of $0 compared to 0% of in-person applicants, and 57% of in-person applicants reporting a cost >$1500 compared to 0% of virtual applicants. In addition, more in-person applicants listed cost as a barrier compared to virtual applicants (48% [11/23] versus 14% [7/49], p=0.002). In-person applicants preferred in-person interviews and virtual applicants preferred virtual interviews (p=0.01).
Conclusion: Virtual interviews provide a reasonable alternative to in-person interviews for breast imaging fellowship applicants with decreased cost being the main advantage. Virtual applicants expressed a preference for virtual interviews, while in-person applicants preferred in-person interviews, and PD preference was mixed. Responses about the interview experience can help programs tailor the interview day to applicants’ needs.
Clinical Relevance Statement: Virtual interviews could be an option for future breast imaging fellowship application cycles, beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, to reduce overall cost while providing adequate information for decision making for both applicants and PDs.
