the application process?†We drew on grounded theory to design a consensus codebook of emergent themes. Two independent reviewers then utilized the codebook to code individual responses (initial Cohen’s kappa = 0.85). Discordant codes were discussed to consensus. Statistical analyses were completed using SASv9.4 (SAS Institute). The Stanford Institutional Review Board deemed this study exempt.
We received 224 total responses from 65 and 159 trainees selfidentifying as UIM and non-UIM, respectively. Respondents attended 90 medical schools, representing 63% of fully accredited Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) medical schools. There were no significant differences among medical student, intern, and resident responses, so responses were collated into a general trainee group. Descriptions and examples of key themes are given in Table 1. The top three themes for UIM trainees were residency selection criteria (33, 50.8%), diversity and inclusion (30, 46.2%), and program information (26, 40.0%). The top three themes for non-UIM trainees were residency selection criteria (79, 49.7%), United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) scores (47, 30%), and application/interview logistics (47, 30%). Compared to non-UIM trainees, a significantly greater proportion of UIM trainees mentioned diversity and inclusion (46.2% vs 3.8%, P<0.001), program information (40.0% vs 24.5%, P=0.021), holistic review (30.8% vs 6.3%, P<0.001), UIM student outreach/pipeline programs (23.1% vs 0.6%, P<0.001), and mentorship (21.5% vs 8.2%, P=0.009) (Table 2).
UIM and non-UIM trainees believe increased transparency about interview selection criteria and application/interview day logistics would improve the application process. Several
