University of Miami - Sylvester Cancer Center Coral Gables, FL
D. J. Lee1, C. Takita2, and B. A. Mahal2; 1Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, FL, 2Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami/Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, FL
Purpose/Objective(s): Radiation Oncology has experienced a drastic decline in residency applications, becoming a top user of the SOAP within 5 years (Bates et al., 2023). Programs can attract talent with informative online resources, which serve as first impressions before the application season (Lee et al., 2020). In 2016, Wakefield et al. found a significant lack of accessibility, availability and quantity of online information on U.S. radiation oncology residencies, with only 13% of websites containing =80% of information desired by applicants. In a post-COVID world where online resources are becoming ever more important, we aim to evaluate the comprehensiveness of residency program websites, common deficiencies across websites, and correlations between program characteristics and website comprehensiveness. Materials/
Methods: 88 radiation oncology residency programs, their websites, and characteristics including program size, match rate, accreditation status, and publication percentile were identified using the Doximity Residency Navigator, ACGME residency program list, and the 2019-2023 NRMP Match Results. Website comprehensiveness was evaluated based on 16 criteria, including information on didactics, clinical rotations, application requirements, current residents, alumni, salary/benefits, facility/technology and research, and the presence of a program video. Relationships between program characteristics and website comprehensiveness were evaluated using a Kruskal-Wallis t-test and linear regression. Results: Website comprehensiveness scores had a mean and median of 76.3% and 81.3%, respectively, and ranged from 18.8% to 100%. 9/16 criteria were present in =80% of websites. 3/16 criteria (information on call responsibilities, medical student clerkships, and social opportunities) were present in =60% of all websites. Programs accredited without warning had more comprehensive websites than programs accredited with warning (p < 0.01). Programs with a larger cohort of current residents (p = 0.007), higher number of spots offered in The Match (p = 0.008), and higher resident publication percentiles (p = 0.002) had more comprehensive websites. Conclusion: While the availability and quality of online information on U.S. radiation oncology residency programs have improved since the 2016 study by Wakefield et al., there is still ample room for improvement in information regarding crucial aspects of the residency experience - only 26.1% of websites contained information on call responsibilities and 58.0% contained information on social opportunities. Furthermore, only 54.6% of websites contained information on medical student clerkships, which serve as an important way of attracting new talent to the specialty. Areas for future investigation include relationships between match rates and program/location-specific characteristics (eg, region, cost of living, salary/benefits).
