Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Svider PF, Gupta A, Johnson AP, et al. Evaluation of Otolaryngology Residency Program Websites. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;140(10):956–960. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2014.1714
Prior to applying or interviewing, most prospective applicants turn to the Internet when evaluating residency programs, making maintenance of a comprehensive website critical. While certain “intangibles” such as reputation may not be communicated effectively online, residency websites are invaluable for conveying other aspects of a program. Prior analyses have reported that certain criteria such as research experience and didactics are important considerations for applicants.
To evaluate the comprehensiveness of otolaryngology residency websites.
Design and Participants
Review of otolaryngology residency program websites. Websites of 99 civilian residency programs were searched for the presence of 23 criteria.
Main Outcomes and Measures
Presence of 23 criteria for application process, incentives, instruction, research, clinical training, and other.
Only 5 programs contained at least three-quarters of the criteria analyzed; on average programs reported less than 50% of information sought. Among the 99 residency program websites, a description of the following criteria was noted: comprehensive faculty listing (88%), didactics (80%), contact e-mail (77%), current residents (74%), description of facilities (70%), intern schedule (70%), research requirements (69%), otolaryngology rotation schedule (64%), other courses (61%), ERAS (Electronic Residency Application Service) link (55%), year-to-year responsibility progression (47%), call schedule (40%), active/past research projects (37%), area information (34%), message from the program director (33%) or chair (23%), selection criteria (30%), salary (directly on site) (23%), surgical statistics (18%), parking (9%), and meal allowance (7%). The mean (SD) percentage present of factors encompassing “clinical training” was 55% (23%), significantly higher than the mean (SD) percentage of factors covered under the “incentives” category (19% [11%]; P = .01). The proportion of overall criteria present on websites did not differ on organizing programs by region (range, 42%-49%). Sites for “large” programs (≥3 residents per year) were more comprehensive (49% vs 42%; P = .04).
Conclusions and Relevance
While further survey of prospective applicants would be invaluable in determining which factors are of greatest interest, many residency websites appear to be inadequately comprehensive. Despite the relative comprehensiveness of criteria relevant to clinical training when compared with other aspects of websites such as incentives, several crucial aspects of training are still not addressed in many sites.
Prior to applying or interviewing, most prospective applicants turn to the Internet when evaluating residency programs, making maintenance of a comprehensive site critical. Although there have been no surveys specific to otolaryngology applicants, myriad studies questioning applicants for other residencies have confirmed this trend, while others have identified numerous areas for improvement.1-7 Furthermore, prior analyses have indicated that certain criteria such as comprehensiveness of subspecialty experience, research experience, and didactics may be important considerations for otolaryngology applicants.8,9
Because securing an otolaryngology residency position may be a competitive process,10 applicants oftentimes apply to an excessive amount of programs, particularly if there is difficulty evaluating differences among programs. Addressing any shortcomings in program websites may have significant implications on the residency recruitment process because it may allow applicants to better ascertain which programs may be a better “fit” and consistent with his or her career aspirations. Our objective was to evaluate the comprehensiveness of otolaryngology residency websites, with the goal of identifying areas for improvement.
This project evaluated publically available online websites for information about programs written for prospective applicants to look up freely online, and because this project did not encompass Human Subjects Research, it did not require institutional review board approval as per the standing policy of Rutgers New Jersey Medical School.
The American Medical Association FREIDA (Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database) was accessed for a listing of otolaryngology residency programs in September 2013. All included websites were each searched by the authors (P.F.S., A.G., and A.P.J.) for the presence of absence of criteria listed in the Box. Of note, information was only considered to be addressed on program sites if it was directly available. In other words, links to information not found on the otolaryngology departmental or residency website were not counted.
Link to ERAS (Electronic Residency Application Service)
Salary (directly on website)a
Benefits (directly on website)a
Parking (directly on website)a
Meal allowance (directly on website)a
Information about surrounding area
Specific extra courses (eg, temporal bone course, anatomy course, plastics course)
Description of didactics
Active/past research projects in department
Comprehensive faculty listings (including name, training, subspecialty)
Current resident listings
Intern year schedule (postgraduate year 1)
Rotation schedule (postgraduate years 2-5)
Surgical case/responsibility progression
Career placement (past residents)
Surgical statistics (either general overall numbers or specific cases)
Message from the chairperson
Message from the program director
Included only if information directly on otolaryngology residency program/department website rather than general link leading to graduate medical education office, other institutional-specific website.
Programs were organized by geographic location, as designated by US census bureau designated regions (Midwest, Northeast, South, and West). In addition, programs were organized by the size of their residencies for further analysis. Programs accepting 2 or fewer residents per year were considered “small” programs, while programs accepting at least 3 residents in any of their years were considered “large” programs. Of the 23 factors examined, the number of items addressed by individual websites was compared by these factors. In addition, the US News & World Report top-ranked hospitals for ear, nose, and throat were examined for the presence of primary clinical training sites for residency programs, and the comprehensiveness of the websites of “ranked” programs (those in the top 50) was compared with that of nonranked programs.11
χ2 Comparisons and Mann-Whitney tests/Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for comparison of categorical and continuous variables, respectively, with threshold for significance set at P < .05. SPSS version 20 software (IBM Corporation) was used for statistical analysis.
Of 106 programs, 100 were civilian US programs, and 99 had available websites that were evaluated in this analysis. Individual program websites contained a mean (SD) of 10.6 (3.5) of the 23 factors sought (46%). Only 5 programs contained at least three-quarters of the criteria analyzed.
Most sites had comprehensive faculty listings, descriptions of didactics, and a contact e-mail address for interested applicants, while fewer than one-quarter of programs listed incentives (other than information about the surrounding area), contained a message from the chairperson, and reported surgical statistics (Table 1).
When organizing programs by geographic region, no differences in the amount of information available on each website were noted (Table 2) (Kruskal-Wallis, P > .05). When evaluating programs based on size, “large” programs reported a greater mean (SD) number of criteria sought (11.2 [3.2] items) than “small” programs (9.7 [3.8] items) (P = .04) (Table 2). When comparing of programs whose primary clinical training sites were ranked by the US News & World Report rankings11 vs unranked programs, there was no difference in website comprehensiveness (46.1% [11.9%] of items vs 46.0% [17.1%] of items) (P > .05).
To our knowledge, this is the first analysis examining the comprehensiveness of otolaryngology residency program websites. However, a major limitation is the subjectivity in deciding which criteria to include. Our hope was to encompass a variety of domains, including (but not limited to) issues of great clinical relevance and those related to quality of life (Box). As the authorship of this article ranges from junior residents to senior faculty, we believe that we have touched on a broad range of concerns that may be pertinent to applicants. Nonetheless, there is variability in the degree to which each of the factors studied plays a role in an applicant’s investigation of a program, and there may be issues other than those identified that are sought by applicants researching programs. Consequently, further study with a survey would be complementary by discerning the degree to which our criteria are relevant.
Although there have been no previous studies to our knowledge examining the criteria otolaryngology residency applicants seek online, prior investigations focusing on the matching process offer guidance. The otolaryngology residency applicant survey in the article by Sharp et al9 revealed that comprehensiveness of subspecialties, resident satisfaction, location, and reputation were considered to be the most important criteria when ranking programs. The present analysis touches on several of these factors (Box). For example, most websites contained comprehensive faculty listings (Table 1), allowing an applicant the opportunity to judge the subspecialties represented among a program’s faculty.
“Resident satisfaction” is certainly a subjective factor that may be interpreted through a variety of ways and not likely to be articulated effectively through a website. However, there are several issues we examined that may be perceived to be in the domain of resident satisfaction: the majority of program websites did not address incentives (Table 1), call schedules, and general case numbers. In terms of “location,” the quality of a website has no bearing on this; however, only approximately one-third of programs contained sections describing the surrounding area, and this represents another potential target for improvement. No differences in online comprehensiveness were noted when organizing programs by geographic region (Table 2).
Residency and departmental websites often represent an applicant’s initial exposure to a program. Analyses examining multiple specialties3,5-7 have noted that nearly all applicants examine residency websites for information regarding a program. Furthermore, most applicants note that websites influence application decisions5,7 and that an easily navigable site may be an important factor in deciding where to apply.3 One survey of emergency medicine applicants noted that residency curriculum, medical facilities, faculty information, and resident information were the most important materials sought on sites, while the aesthetic quality of sites was considered least important.5 Similar to our present analysis, an investigation of general surgery residency websites found numerous areas for improvement in providing relevant information.6
One set of criteria few programs directly addressed included questions regarding benefits. Specifically, fewer than a quarter of programs included salary, benefits (such as health insurance), parking, and meal allowances on their sites (Table 1). Furthermore, fewer than half of programs offered information about their location or delineated the frequency of call responsibilities. While these are significant issues that affect quality of life, many applicants may feel uncomfortable contacting programs before interviews regarding these issues or discussing these questions during interviews. Applicants may believe that asking these questions may be perceived poorly by programs because several of these issues may not directly relate to clinical training. This potential issue emphasizes the importance of programs addressing these factors on their websites.
Numerous criteria critical to the clinical training experience were included in the majority of websites analyzed (Table 1). Although we did not weigh the relative importance of the various criteria explored, factors falling under “clinical training” are likely considered among the most important by applicants. The mean (SD) percentage of the 9 factors encompassed under “clinical training” was 55% (23%) (Table 1). This was significantly higher than the mean (SD) of the 5 factors considered under the “incentives” category (19% [11%]) (P = .01) (Table 1), which are arguably far less important.
Despite the relative comprehensiveness of criteria relevant to clinical training, several crucial aspects of training are not addressed in many sites. The progression of surgical and clinical responsibility from year to year was detailed in only 47% of websites. Perhaps surprisingly, only 28% of websites commented on the career paths of past trainees and current senior residents. Both of these pieces of information are arguably important in representing the quality of training and the clinical direction one takes after going through a particular program. Detailed information regarding practice setting and fellowship placement may be helpful in directing an applicant toward a program that he or she believes to be consistent with his/her career aspirations.
While no differences in comprehensiveness were noted when organizing by geographic region (Kruskal-Wallis test, P > .05) (Table 2), “large” residency programs contained more of the criteria sought than “small” programs (11.2 items vs 9.7 items; P = .04). Although this difference was statistically significant, it is unlikely that a difference of 1 to 2 items is meaningful. However, this discrepancy may suggest that larger programs may have more resources to direct toward online development. Nonetheless, both cohorts contained less than half of the factors analyzed (Box) (Table 2), emphasizing that most programs have considerable room for improvement in their online sites.
Aside from the aforementioned use of a survey-based analysis to complement our findings, another limitation involves an inability to comment on other factors such as aesthetic qualities and ease of use with regard to these websites. The authors were interested conducting a succinct analysis of objective issues, looking for the presence or absence of 23 factors (Box) in an effort to use a reproducible methodology, and we believed that looking at stylistic aspects of websites would introduce a greater degree of subjectivity inconsistent with our objectives. Another limitation inherent to this topic is the inability of websites to articulate certain “intangibles,” such as program reputation and resident satisfaction. Despite these drawbacks, our hope is that this analysis serves as an important step toward improving online sites to allow prospective applicants an opportunity to make more informed decisions regarding what programs would potentially represent a good fit.
Our findings have considerable implications for the residency recruitment process and suggest several areas for improvement, as most applicants turn to the Internet when researching programs. Although further survey of prospective applicants would be invaluable in determining which factors are of greatest interest when examining residency program websites, many online sites appear to be inadequately comprehensive. Several important considerations such as comprehensive faculty listings, description of rotating facilities, rotation schedules, and description of didactics are described on most sites. However the majority of programs do not address crucial aspects of training such as progression of responsibilities, career paths of trainees, as well as quality-of-life measures including call responsibilities, salaries, and other benefits. Only 5 programs contained at least three-quarters of the criteria analyzed; on average, programs reported less than 50% of information sought.
Submitted for Publication: May 10, 2014; final revision received June 24, 2014; accepted June 30, 2014.
Corresponding Author: Peter F. Svider, MD, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Wayne State University School of Medicine, 4201 St Antoine, 5E-UHC, Detroit, MI 48201 (email@example.com).
Published Online: September 4, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2014.1714.
Author Contributions: Drs Svider and Gupta had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Study concept and design: All authors.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Svider, Gupta.
Drafting of the manuscript: Svider, Gupta, Johnson, Shkoukani, Eloy.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Svider, Gupta, Johnson, Zuliani, Eloy, Folbe.
Statistical analysis: Svider, Gupta, Johnson, Eloy.
Study supervision: Zuliani, Shkoukani, Eloy, Folbe.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
Previous Presentation: This study was presented at the annual Combined Otolaryngology Spring Meeting; May 16, 2014, Las Vegas, Nevada.