Finding the Perfect Match: Factors That Influence Family Medicine Residency Selection.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Residency program selection is a significant experience for emerging physicians, yet there is limited information about how applicants narrow their list of potential programs. This study examines factors that influence residency program selection among medical students interested in family medicine at the time of application. METHODS: Medical students with an expressed interest in family medicine were invited to participate in a 37-item, online survey. Students were asked to rate factors that may impact residency selection on a 6-point Likert scale in addition to three open-ended qualitative questions. Mean values were calculated for each survey item and were used to determine a rank order for selection criteria. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors that predict a strong interest in urban, suburban, and rural residency programs. Logistic regression was also used to identify factors that predict a strong interest in academic health center-based residencies, community-based residencies, and community-based residencies with an academic affiliation. RESULTS: A total of 705 medical students from 32 states across the country completed the survey. Location, work/life balance, and program structure (curriculum, schedule) were rated the most important factors for residency selection. Logistic regression analysis was used to refine our understanding of how each factor relates to specific types of residencies. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have implications for how to best advise students in selecting a residency, as well as marketing residencies to the right candidates. Refining the recruitment process will ensure a better fit between applicants and potential programs. Limited recruitment resources may be better utilized by focusing on targeted dissemination strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".