2116 Neurosurgery Program Directors’ Perspectives on the Role of Research in the Match: A Qualitative Study

Le résumé fourni par la source

INTRODUCTION: As medical student research output reaches unprecedented levels, particularly in competitive fields like neurosurgery, concerns over a “research arms race” have emerged. With USMLE Step 1 now pass/fail and fewer objective application metrics, program directors (PDs) must assess research experiences more critically. This study qualitatively explores PDs’ perspectives on the role and assessment of medical student research during the residency match process. METHODS: Structured interviews were conducted with 31 U.S. neurosurgery PDs (26.3% response rate), selected via purposive criterion-based sampling. Eight open-ended questions were asked, covering five domains: impact on interview selection, ranking decisions, research type preferences, access disparities, and quality vs. quantity. Transcripts were inductively coded by two independent reviewers, with discrepancies adjudicated by a third coder. Axial codes and thematic analysis were used to identify major patterns in responses. RESULTS: PDs consistently valued research as a proxy for interest and commitment to neurosurgery, prioritizing quality over quantity. Quality was defined by journal caliber, authorship, and the applicant’s ability to articulate their work. While research mattered for interview selection at some programs, its weight diminished post-interview. Most PDs acknowledged disparities in access to research resources and adjusted expectations accordingly. Views on the “arms race” were mixed—some saw it as a problematic trend threatening research quality, while others viewed it as an inevitable feature of a highly competitive field. CONCLUSIONS: Neurosurgery PDs view medical student research as an important but nuanced factor in residency selection, favoring meaningful engagement over raw volume. While concerns about a research 'arms race' persist, efforts to reach policy consensus are ongoing. These findings underscore the importance of context, mentorship, and transparent communication between programs and applicants.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.