Breast Imaging Fellowship Match: Applicants' Perspectives of Years Two and Three

Michelle V Lee; Janine T Katzen; Rend Al-Khalili; Sadia Choudhery; Gary Whitman; Rachel Brem

doi:10.1093/jbi/wbaa065

Breast Imaging Fellowship Match: Applicants' Perspectives of Years Two and Three

J Breast Imaging. 2020 Sep 24;2(5):471-477. doi: 10.1093/jbi/wbaa065.

Authors

Michelle V Lee¹, Janine T Katzen², Rend Al-Khalili³, Sadia Choudhery⁴, Gary Whitman⁵, Rachel Brem⁶

Affiliations

¹ Augusta University at the Medical College of Georgia, Department of Radiology, Augusta, GA.
² Weill Cornell Medicine, Department of Radiology, New York, NY.
³ Georgetown University School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Washington, DC.
⁴ Mayo Clinic, Department of Radiology, Rochester, MN.
⁵ The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Radiology, Houston, TX.
⁶ The George Washington University, Department of Radiology, Washington, DC.

PMID: 38424908
DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbaa065

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to summarize the results of a survey distributed by the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) to assess applicants' experience with the 2018 and 2019 Breast Imaging Fellowship Match process.

Methods: In this institutional review board-exempt study, the SBI issued an anonymous survey to all matched applicants in an attempt to gauge their experience with the 2018 and 2019 Match process.

Results: The survey was sent to all 2018 and 2019 matched applicants and 105/236 (45%) responses were received. The majority (75%, 79/105) of respondents reported a positive experience with the Match, with at least a 4/5 rating, and only 3% (5/105) reported a rating below 3/5. There was some improvement in 2019, with 86% (24/28) of respondents reporting at least a 4/5 rating compared to 71% (55/77) in 2018. No respondent reported a score below a 3/5 rating in 2019. The most commonly cited issues with the Match were the timing of the Match process, the need for a universal application, and the burden of travel. Location and program reputation were the two most important factors contributing to the final rank order of programs.

Conclusion: The great majority of applicants felt that the Match created a positive experience. Planned areas of improvement include the implementation of a universal application, the transition to virtual interviews, and a condensed timeline. These measures are likely to increase applicant satisfaction and provide a fair and efficient experience for future breast radiologists.

Keywords: Fellowship Match; breast imaging; education; fellowship; training.