International Journal of
Radiation Oncology biology
physics
www.redjournal.org
Education Original Article
Results of the 2012-2013 Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology (ARRO) Job Search and Career Planning Survey of Graduating Residents in the United States Malcolm D. Mattes, MD,* Jordan Kharofa, MD,y Youssef H. Zeidan, MD, PhD,z Kaity Tung, BA,* Vinai Gondi, MD,x,k and Daniel W. Golden, MD{, for the ARRO Education Subcommittee Departments of Radiation Oncology, *New York Methodist Hospital, Brooklyn, New York; yMedical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; zStanford University, Stanford, California; xUniversity of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center, Madison, Wisconsin; kCentral Dupage Hospital Cancer Center, Warrenville, Illinois; and {Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois Received Aug 15, 2013, and in revised form Sep 15, 2013. Accepted for publication Sep 18, 2013.
Summary Graduating radiation oncology residents were surveyed to determine the timeline used by postgraduate year 5 radiation oncology residents during the job application process and the factors most important to them when deciding on a first job. These results provide a resource for residents to use when applying for a job, and for employers to understand what aspects
Purpose/Objective(s): To determine the timeline used by postgraduate year (PGY)-5 radiation oncology residents during the job application process and the factors most important to them when deciding on a first job. Methods and Materials: In 2012 and 2013, the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology conducted a nationwide electronic survey of PGY-5 radiation oncology residents in the United States during the final 2 months of their training. Descriptive statistics are reported. In addition, subgroup analysis was performed. Results: Surveys were completed by 180 of 314 residents contacted. The median time to start networking for the purpose of employment was January PGY-4; to start contacting practices, complete and upload a curriculum vitae to a job search website, and use the American Society of Radiation Oncology Career Center was June PGY-4; to obtain letters of recommendation was July PGY-5; to start interviewing was August PGY-5; to finish interviewing was December PGY5; and to accept a contract was January PGY-5. Those applying for a community position began interviewing at an earlier average time than did those applying for an academic position (PZ.04). The most important factors to residents when they evaluated job offers included (in order from most to least important) a collegial environment, geographic location, emphasis on best patient care, quality of support staff and facility, and multidisciplinary approach to
Reprint requests to: Malcolm D. Mattes, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Methodist Hospital, 506 6th St, Brooklyn, NY 11215. Tel: (718) 780-3677; E-mail: [email protected] Preliminary data from 2011 were presented at the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Career Seminar at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), Miami Beach, FL, October 3-6, 2011. Conflict of interest: V. Gondi has received payment for the Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Phys, Vol. 88, No. 1, pp. 25e32, 2014 0360-3016/$ - see front matter Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.09.033
development of educational presentations from the American Board of Medical Specialties. The authors declare no other conflicts of interest. AcknowledgmentdThe authors thank Shripal Bhavsar, Andrew Trister, Mohindra Pranshu, and Richard Bakst of the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Education Subcommittee for their additional effort and Cristin Watson, Lisa Cheak, and Kathy Thomas of the American Society of Radiation Oncology for administrative support.
26
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
Mattes et al.
of a first job are considered most important by graduating residents.
patient care. Factors that were rated significantly different between subgroups based on the type of position applied for included adequate mentoring, dedicated research time, access to clinical trials, amount of time it takes to become a partner, geographic location, size of group, starting salary, and amount of vacation and days off. Conclusions: The residents’ perspective on the job application process over 2 years is documented to provide a resource for current and future residents and employers to use. Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc.
Introduction Founded in 1982, the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology (ARRO) has represented radiation oncology residents in the United States and has conducted surveys of these residents for almost 3 decades (1-8). These surveys have provided unique insights into radiation oncology residency training. In 2011, ARRO recognized the need for residents to better understand the processes involved with finding and solidifying postresidency employment opportunities. The first phase of this project was to survey graduating residents to determine which factors were most important to them when deciding on a first job, and also what timeline was used to complete important tasks of the job application process. The results from the first 2 years of the survey distribution are reported here.
Methods and Materials The survey was developed by the authors of this report, primarily using as a guide the information presented at the 2010 ARRO Career Seminar. The survey was composed of 5 main questions. The first question asked when the resident initiated each of a series of tasks as he or she applied for jobs. Categories included the following: start requesting letters of recommendation, start networking with the thought of looking for a job, start contacting practices looking for a job, use the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Career Center (either online or at the annual meeting), complete a curriculum vitae and upload it to the ASTRO Career Center website (or other job search website), start getting interviews, finish interviewing, have a lawyer review the contract, accept a contract, and complete all of the employer’s necessary paperwork. The second and third questions assessed how many applications each resident submitted and how many indepth interviews each resident went on before accepting an offer. The fourth question asked residents to rate on a Likert scale (1-3) how knowledgeable they felt about the job application process during each year of residency. The fifth question asked residents to indicate on a Likert scale (1-5) how a variety of factors influenced their decision to accept an employment offer. These factors were randomized in a different order for every respondent to reduce bias resulting from the ordering of factors. Residents were given the opportunity to add written comments after every question. Several questions were included in the 2013 survey that were not included in the 2012 survey (age and marital status of applicant, whether the applicant had children, number of firm offers received, type of position accepted, level of satisfaction with the position accepted, and whether the accepted position was at the applicant’s institution of training). The concept of a firm offer was not explicitly defined in the survey but was intended to mean an offer for employment received by the applicant used to develop
a contract that could be signed by all parties involved. All other factors were the same for both years. The survey was disseminated by e-mail using SurveyGizmo to postgraduate year 5 (PGY-5) residents in May and June of 2012 and 2013, the final months before the completion of residency training. The first page of the survey provided information on the investigator (ARRO), length of the survey (5-10 minutes), and purpose of the study. Participation was voluntary, and no incentives were offered for completion of the survey. Residents were encouraged to complete every question, although they were allowed to skip any questions they preferred not to answer. Only completed questions and sections of the survey for each respondent were included in the analysis. The responses were anonymous, and residents were not asked to report their specific training programs. Through use of an e-mail invitation that uniquely tied the survey link to a given e-mail address, it was ensured that each respondent filled out only a single survey. Respondents were able to edit or go back to previous questions until the survey was submitted, at which point no further editing was possible. As many as 5 reminder e-mails were sent to residents who did not respond to the survey, although residents who did respond were not sent any further invitations to take the survey. To protect against unauthorized access to personal information, the SurveyGizmo account was password protected, and Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) encryption was enabled. The survey was initially sent out to graduating residents in 2011 through a weblink in a series of ARROgrams as a pilot study to assess the usability and functionality of the questionnaire, although these data are not included Table 1
Demographics of respondents Characteristic
Year 2012 2013 Sex Female Male Location of training program Northeast Atlantic coast South Midwest Southwest West coast Other Type of position applied for Academic only Community only Both academic and community Other/fellowship
No. of respondents
%
86 94
48% 52%
53 127
29% 71%
46 14 38 46 7 26 3
26% 8% 21% 26% 4% 14% 1%
55 41 79 5
31% 23% 44% 3%
Volume 88 Number 1 2014
2012-2013 ARRO career planning survey
27
Fig. 1. Pie charts showing (A) the proportion of respondents who submitted a given number of applications and (B) the proportion of respondents who went on a given number of in-depth interviews before accepting a job offer. in the subsequent analysis. Statistical analysis was performed with Microsoft Excel 2007 and Stata, version 12.1. The c2 test, Fisher exact test, 2-tailed Student t test, 1-way analysis of variance, pairwise correlation, and Spearman r correlation were used where appropriate in order to compare subgroups of respondents. A P value of
Radiation Oncology biology
physics
www.redjournal.org
Education Original Article
Results of the 2012-2013 Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology (ARRO) Job Search and Career Planning Survey of Graduating Residents in the United States Malcolm D. Mattes, MD,* Jordan Kharofa, MD,y Youssef H. Zeidan, MD, PhD,z Kaity Tung, BA,* Vinai Gondi, MD,x,k and Daniel W. Golden, MD{, for the ARRO Education Subcommittee Departments of Radiation Oncology, *New York Methodist Hospital, Brooklyn, New York; yMedical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; zStanford University, Stanford, California; xUniversity of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center, Madison, Wisconsin; kCentral Dupage Hospital Cancer Center, Warrenville, Illinois; and {Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois Received Aug 15, 2013, and in revised form Sep 15, 2013. Accepted for publication Sep 18, 2013.
Summary Graduating radiation oncology residents were surveyed to determine the timeline used by postgraduate year 5 radiation oncology residents during the job application process and the factors most important to them when deciding on a first job. These results provide a resource for residents to use when applying for a job, and for employers to understand what aspects
Purpose/Objective(s): To determine the timeline used by postgraduate year (PGY)-5 radiation oncology residents during the job application process and the factors most important to them when deciding on a first job. Methods and Materials: In 2012 and 2013, the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology conducted a nationwide electronic survey of PGY-5 radiation oncology residents in the United States during the final 2 months of their training. Descriptive statistics are reported. In addition, subgroup analysis was performed. Results: Surveys were completed by 180 of 314 residents contacted. The median time to start networking for the purpose of employment was January PGY-4; to start contacting practices, complete and upload a curriculum vitae to a job search website, and use the American Society of Radiation Oncology Career Center was June PGY-4; to obtain letters of recommendation was July PGY-5; to start interviewing was August PGY-5; to finish interviewing was December PGY5; and to accept a contract was January PGY-5. Those applying for a community position began interviewing at an earlier average time than did those applying for an academic position (PZ.04). The most important factors to residents when they evaluated job offers included (in order from most to least important) a collegial environment, geographic location, emphasis on best patient care, quality of support staff and facility, and multidisciplinary approach to
Reprint requests to: Malcolm D. Mattes, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Methodist Hospital, 506 6th St, Brooklyn, NY 11215. Tel: (718) 780-3677; E-mail: [email protected] Preliminary data from 2011 were presented at the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Career Seminar at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), Miami Beach, FL, October 3-6, 2011. Conflict of interest: V. Gondi has received payment for the Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Phys, Vol. 88, No. 1, pp. 25e32, 2014 0360-3016/$ - see front matter Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.09.033
development of educational presentations from the American Board of Medical Specialties. The authors declare no other conflicts of interest. AcknowledgmentdThe authors thank Shripal Bhavsar, Andrew Trister, Mohindra Pranshu, and Richard Bakst of the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Education Subcommittee for their additional effort and Cristin Watson, Lisa Cheak, and Kathy Thomas of the American Society of Radiation Oncology for administrative support.
26
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
Mattes et al.
of a first job are considered most important by graduating residents.
patient care. Factors that were rated significantly different between subgroups based on the type of position applied for included adequate mentoring, dedicated research time, access to clinical trials, amount of time it takes to become a partner, geographic location, size of group, starting salary, and amount of vacation and days off. Conclusions: The residents’ perspective on the job application process over 2 years is documented to provide a resource for current and future residents and employers to use. Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc.
Introduction Founded in 1982, the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology (ARRO) has represented radiation oncology residents in the United States and has conducted surveys of these residents for almost 3 decades (1-8). These surveys have provided unique insights into radiation oncology residency training. In 2011, ARRO recognized the need for residents to better understand the processes involved with finding and solidifying postresidency employment opportunities. The first phase of this project was to survey graduating residents to determine which factors were most important to them when deciding on a first job, and also what timeline was used to complete important tasks of the job application process. The results from the first 2 years of the survey distribution are reported here.
Methods and Materials The survey was developed by the authors of this report, primarily using as a guide the information presented at the 2010 ARRO Career Seminar. The survey was composed of 5 main questions. The first question asked when the resident initiated each of a series of tasks as he or she applied for jobs. Categories included the following: start requesting letters of recommendation, start networking with the thought of looking for a job, start contacting practices looking for a job, use the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Career Center (either online or at the annual meeting), complete a curriculum vitae and upload it to the ASTRO Career Center website (or other job search website), start getting interviews, finish interviewing, have a lawyer review the contract, accept a contract, and complete all of the employer’s necessary paperwork. The second and third questions assessed how many applications each resident submitted and how many indepth interviews each resident went on before accepting an offer. The fourth question asked residents to rate on a Likert scale (1-3) how knowledgeable they felt about the job application process during each year of residency. The fifth question asked residents to indicate on a Likert scale (1-5) how a variety of factors influenced their decision to accept an employment offer. These factors were randomized in a different order for every respondent to reduce bias resulting from the ordering of factors. Residents were given the opportunity to add written comments after every question. Several questions were included in the 2013 survey that were not included in the 2012 survey (age and marital status of applicant, whether the applicant had children, number of firm offers received, type of position accepted, level of satisfaction with the position accepted, and whether the accepted position was at the applicant’s institution of training). The concept of a firm offer was not explicitly defined in the survey but was intended to mean an offer for employment received by the applicant used to develop
a contract that could be signed by all parties involved. All other factors were the same for both years. The survey was disseminated by e-mail using SurveyGizmo to postgraduate year 5 (PGY-5) residents in May and June of 2012 and 2013, the final months before the completion of residency training. The first page of the survey provided information on the investigator (ARRO), length of the survey (5-10 minutes), and purpose of the study. Participation was voluntary, and no incentives were offered for completion of the survey. Residents were encouraged to complete every question, although they were allowed to skip any questions they preferred not to answer. Only completed questions and sections of the survey for each respondent were included in the analysis. The responses were anonymous, and residents were not asked to report their specific training programs. Through use of an e-mail invitation that uniquely tied the survey link to a given e-mail address, it was ensured that each respondent filled out only a single survey. Respondents were able to edit or go back to previous questions until the survey was submitted, at which point no further editing was possible. As many as 5 reminder e-mails were sent to residents who did not respond to the survey, although residents who did respond were not sent any further invitations to take the survey. To protect against unauthorized access to personal information, the SurveyGizmo account was password protected, and Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) encryption was enabled. The survey was initially sent out to graduating residents in 2011 through a weblink in a series of ARROgrams as a pilot study to assess the usability and functionality of the questionnaire, although these data are not included Table 1
Demographics of respondents Characteristic
Year 2012 2013 Sex Female Male Location of training program Northeast Atlantic coast South Midwest Southwest West coast Other Type of position applied for Academic only Community only Both academic and community Other/fellowship
No. of respondents
%
86 94
48% 52%
53 127
29% 71%
46 14 38 46 7 26 3
26% 8% 21% 26% 4% 14% 1%
55 41 79 5
31% 23% 44% 3%
Volume 88 Number 1 2014
2012-2013 ARRO career planning survey
27
Fig. 1. Pie charts showing (A) the proportion of respondents who submitted a given number of applications and (B) the proportion of respondents who went on a given number of in-depth interviews before accepting a job offer. in the subsequent analysis. Statistical analysis was performed with Microsoft Excel 2007 and Stata, version 12.1. The c2 test, Fisher exact test, 2-tailed Student t test, 1-way analysis of variance, pairwise correlation, and Spearman r correlation were used where appropriate in order to compare subgroups of respondents. A P value of
