Neurosurgery Program Directors' Perspectives on the Role of Research in Residency Matching: A Qualitative Study

Given growing concerns about an "arms race" among medical students to increase research output, it is essential to examine the role of research in the neurosurgery selection process by analyzing the diverse perspectives of program directors (PDs) nationwide.

All neurosurgery PDs were contacted to participate in structured interviews with purposive criterion-based sampling and thematic analysis. Those who agreed were asked eight open-ended questions regarding the role of medical student research in residency selection. Their responses were analyzed using qualitative research techniques.  Results: A total of 31 (26.31%) PDs agreed to participate in interviews. Overall, research was viewed as a marker of interest and dedication to neurosurgery, with a focus on evaluating the quality of the journal the work was published, the authorship status of the student, and the ability to explain research. Most PDs interviewed value research experiences they determine to be of high quality over the pure quantity of research produced, but do not favor either basic science or clinical-based research. PDs also reported accounting for access to research support staff, infrastructure, and opportunity when assessing the research experience of applicants. Many PDs are concerned with the previously mentioned medical student research "arms race," voicing concern over a decrease in research quality as a potential long-term result. However, others believe that the increasing quantity of papers can be attributed to the competitive and demanding nature of neurosurgery.

While neurosurgery PDs value medical student research as a metric for interest and dedication to the field, opinions vary regarding the "arms race" of research as the number of publications per applicant continues to steadily increase, prompting discussions regarding potential solutions to preserve the quality of academic research moving forward.