Factors affecting orthopedic residency selection: a cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Annually, orthopedic residency programs rank and recruit the best possible candidates. Little evidence exists identifying factors that potential candidates use to select their career paths. Recent literature from nonsurgical programs suggests hospital, social and program-based factors influence program selection. We sought to determine what factors influence the choice of an orthopedic career and a candidate's choice of orthopedic residency program. METHODS: We surveyed medical student applicants to orthopedic programs and current Canadian orthopedic surgery residents (postgraduate year [PGY] 1-5). The confidential online survey focused on 3 broad categories of program selection: educational, program cohesion and noneducation factors. Questions were graded on a Likert Scale and tailed for mean scores. RESULTS: In total, 139 residents from 11 of 17 Canadian orthopedic programs (49% response rate) and 23 medical student applicants (88% response rate) completed our survey. Orthopedic electives and mandatory rotations were reported by 71% of participants as somewhat or very important to their career choice. Collegiality among residents (4.70 ± 0.6), program being the "right fit" (4.65 ± 0.53) and current resident satisfaction with their chosen program (4.63 ±0.66) were ranked with the highest mean scores on a 5-point Likert scale. CONCLUSION: There are several modifiable factors that residency programs may use to attract applicants, including early availability of clerkship rotations and a strong mentorship environment emphasizing both resident-resident and resident-staff cohesion. Desirable residency programs should develop early access to surgical and operative skills. These must be balanced with a continued emphasis on top-level orthopedic training.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".