Bias Reduction Practices in Underrepresented Groups in Ophthalmology Resident Recruitment

Best recruitment practices for increasing diversity are well established, but the adoption and impact of these practices in ophthalmology residency recruitment are unknown.

To describe the adoption of bias reduction practices in groups underrepresented in ophthalmology (URiO) residency recruitment and determine which practices are effective for increasing URiO residents.

This cross-sectional survey study used an 18-item questionnaire included in the online survey of the Association of University Professors in Ophthalmology (AUPO) Residency Program Directors. Data collection occurred from July 2022 to December 2022. The data were initially analyzed on January 16, 2023. Participants included residency program directors (PDs) in the AUPO PD listserv database.

Descriptive analysis of resident selection committee approaches, evaluation of applicant traits, and use of bias reduction tools. Primary outcome was diversity assessed by presence of at least 1 resident in the last 5 classes who identified as URiO, including those underrepresented in medicine (URiM), lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual plus, or another disadvantaged background (eg, low socioeconomic status). Multivariate analyses of recruitment practices were conducted to determine which practices were associated with increased URiO and URiM.

Among 106 PDs, 65 completed the survey (61.3%). Thirty-nine PDs used an interview rubric (60.0%), 28 used interview standardization (43.0%), 56 provided at least 1 bias reduction tool to their selection committee (86.2%), and 44 used postinterview metrics to assess diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts (67.7%). Application filters, interview standardization, and postinterview metrics were not associated with increased URiO. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed larger residency class (odds ratio [OR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.09-1.65; P = .01) and use of multiple selection committee bias reduction tools (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.13-1.92; P = .01) were positively associated with increased URiO, whereas use of interview rubrics (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.87; P = .001) and placing higher importance of applicant interest in a program (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.92; P = .02) were negatively associated. URiM analyses showed similar associations.

Ophthalmology residency interviews are variably standardized. In this study, providing multiple bias reduction tools to selection committees was associated with increased URiO and URiM residents. Prioritizing applicant interest in a program may reduce resident diversity. Interview rubrics, while intended to reduce bias, may inadvertently increase inequity.