Perspectives on virtual interviews and emerging technologies integration in family medicine residency programs: a cross-sectional survey study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background During the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, in-person interviews for the recruitment of family medicine residents shifted to online (virtual) interviews. The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to gather the ideas about virtual interviews of family medicine applicants (interviewees), and faculty and staff who interviewed these applicants (interviewers), and (2) to describe interviewers’ and interviewees’ opinions of use of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and virtual reality (VR) in the recruitment process as well as during clinical practice. Methods This was a cross-sectional survey study. Participants were both interviewers and candidates who applied to the McGill University Family Medicine Residency Program for the 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 cycles. Results The study population was constituted by N = 132 applicants and N = 60 interviewers. The response rate was 91.7% (55/60) for interviewers and 43.2% (57/132) for interviewees. Both interviewers (43.7%) and interviewees (68.5%) were satisfied with connecting through virtual interviews. Interviewers (43.75%) and interviewees (55.5%) would prefer for both options to be available. Both interviewers (50%) and interviewees (72%) were interested in emerging technologies. Almost all interviewees (95.8%) were interested in learning about AI and VR and its application in clinical practice with the majority (60.8%) agreeing that it should be taught within medical training. Conclusion Although experience of virtual interviewing during the COVID-19 pandemic has been positive for both interviewees and interviewers, the findings of this study suggest that it will be unlikely that virtual interviews completely replace in-person interviews for selecting candidates for family medicine residency programs in the long term as participants value aspects of in-person interviews and would want a choice in format. Since incoming family medicine physicians seem to be eager to learn and utilize emerging technologies such as AI and VR, educators and institutions should consider family physicians’ needs due to the changing technological landscape in family medicine education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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".