Journey of candidates who were unmatched in the Canadian Residency Matching Service (CaRMS): A phenomenological study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Each year, a number of medical students are unmatched in the Canadian Residency Matching Service (CaRMs) match. Blog posts from previous unmatched students suggest that being unmatched is associated with significant stress. However, no studies have explored the collective experiences of candidates who are unmatched. This study seeks to explore the experiences of Canadian students who were unmatched in the first iteration of their CaRMS applications. METHODS: This was an interview-based qualitative study using a phenomenology approach to explore the perspectives of 15 Canadian participants from seven universities who had previously experienced being unmatched between 2011 and 2017 in CaRMS. Telephone interviews were conducted using a semi-structured guide focusing on the experiences in the following domains: the overall unmatched experience; perceived reasons leading to their unmatched status; resources employed; barriers experienced; recommendations; and, their eventual career outcomes. Field notes were analyzed independently by all authors using thematic analysis and authors independently identified major themes. To reconcile divergent impressions and better situate qualitative impressions of our participants, we used publicly available quantitative data from CaRMS to calculate relevant odds ratios. RESULTS: Our participants universally reported negative emotions, concerns regarding privacy and confidentiality breaches, and stigma faced. Systemic challenges faced by our participants included: lack of information, pressures perceived from undergraduate medical education to apply in the second iteration to specialties that they did not want, and logistical issues such as financial challenges, licensing and scheduling issues. The utility of peer support differed for individual participants, but all those who had support from other unmatched candidates felt that to be useful. CONCLUSIONS: Our participants reported significant challenges faced after being unmatched. Based on these experiences, we identified key areas of support needed for candidates through their unmatched journey.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».