National Impact of Virtual Residency Interview Format on the Integrated Vascular Surgery Match

Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) required that residency interviews be conducted virtually, instead of the traditional in-person format. Previous survey studies have indicated that vascular surgery (VS) residency applicants favor remote interviews, noting sufficient exposure to the program, location and residents, with minimal travel-related cost and time burden. However, the overall impact of the virtual interview on objective measures of VS residency match have not been examined.

Residency application and match-related data were collected from National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Main Residency Match reports. In-person interview cycles (2010-2019) were compared with virtual interview cycles (2020-2024). Metrics of VS specialty popularity included total applicants per position and position fill rate. Metrics of VS competitiveness included overall match rate, first-choice match rate, and proportion of unmatched applicants.

NRMP interview cycles from 2010 to 2024.

All VS residency applicants from 2010 to 2024.

The total number of VS programs (68.8 ± 7.9 vs 42.3 ± 11.2), positions (86.2 ± 10.2 vs 48.8 ± 14.3), and applicants (164.8 ± 10.6 vs 96.3 ± 18.3) were significantly higher during the virtual interview cycles (p < 0.001 each). Similar increases were noted in total ACGME-accredited programs, positions, and applicants (p < 0.001 each). Measures of VS specialty popularity, including applicants per position (1.9 ± 0.3 vs 2.1 ± 0.5, p = 0.54) and position fill rate (99.1% ± 1.1% vs 97.2% ± 2.9%, p = 0.20), remained unchanged when comparing in-person and virtual interview cycles. In comparison, the proportion of applicants per position (1.8 ± 0.0 vs 1.9 ± 0.1) and position fill rate (93.9% ± 0.8% vs 95.9% ± 0.5%) across all ACGME-accredited programs were both significantly lower during the virtual interview years (p < 0.001 each). At the same time, the percentage of overall applicants applying into VS increased from 0.18% (±0.03%) to 0.26% (±0.02%) in the virtual era (p < 0.001). Three metrics for specialty competitiveness were also examined. For VS residency programs, overall match rate (52.0% ± 7.1% vs 48.7% ± 10.2%, p = 0.53) and percentage of unmatched applicants (48.0% ± 7.1% vs 51.3% ± 10.2%, p = 0.53) remained unchanged, whereas the proportion of applicants matching at their first choice (41.5% ± 2.9% vs 59.2% ± 13.5%, p = 0.01) was lower during the virtual interview cycles. In comparison, overall match rate was greater (53.2% ± 0.8% vs 49.3 ± 2.1%) and the proportion of unmatched applicants were lower (46.8% ± 0.8% vs 50.7% ± 2.1%, p = 0.001) across all ACGME-accredited programs during the virtual interview years.

The study period of virtual recruitment saw no change in VS popularity, suggesting that this approach does not detract interested applicants. However, VS did become a more competitive residency, with fewer applicants matching at their first choice. Potential hybrid approaches, such as the protocol described within the VISIT trial, may offer viable alternatives that capitalize on the strengths of both virtual recruitment and face-to-face engagement.