For Residents

In a sea of blonde hair and blue eyes, my black hair and brown eyes stood out. At the time, I was a medical student and one of the few people of color rotating through the inpatient child psychiatric unit. While I was aware I looked “different,” I discovered that my young patients had an unbridled curiosity about such differences. Common questions I received included “Where are you from? Why are your eyes so small? Is it because you eat rice?” Their questions were never of malicious intent, but rather due to my patient’s unfamiliarity with the Asian-American community and with Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) communities in general.

Therefore, it came as no surprise that my BIPOC patients could keenly detect similarities. I could see their eyes widen, a spark of recognition, surprise, or even perhaps relief, when they saw my dark hair or the color of my skin. For members of minority racial/ethnic groups in a predominantly White society, there is a special kinship with other underrepresented BIPOC individuals. We are a community; our shared experiences of discrimination and disadvantages bind us together.

Perhaps it was because of our similarities that my BIPOC patients felt comfortable sharing their most intimate secrets: struggling with social anxiety due to language barriers in school, feeling anxious about balancing their familial expectations vs being “American,” or wishing they were dead due to the color of their skin. It hurt to hear this from my patients. My BIPOC patients’ narratives shared a common theme of fear. Fear that others wouldn’t understand their experiences. Fear that no one would understand their pain. When I reflect upon my own experiences with racism, from microaggressions to outright threats, I am reminded of my own fears, loneliness, and pain. It is these experiences that fuel every BIPOC medical student, resident, and physician to provide culturally sensitive care to patients and promote greater mental health for the BIPOC community.

Why diversity matters

Diversity is important in health care. Our patients come from various backgrounds and cultural experiences. A 2019 survey recruited participants who self-identified with >1 race or as a member of an interracial family relationship, to evaluate their preferences in clinicians.¹ Through thematic evaluation of participants’ responses, researchers noted that participants expressed a preference for clinicians who identified as a person of color.¹ Participants desired clinicians who were culturally sensitive, who could connect and empathize with their experiences as people of color.¹ Ultimately, by having a diverse array of clinicians, health care systems ensure that medical professionals can make important connections with patients due to shared experiences.

I remember talking to a mother about her daughter’s suicide attempt. During our conversation, the mother began to shake her head. “She doesn’t have depression,” she exclaimed. “She needs to snap out of it.” As I listened to her, I was reminded of my own grandmother.

My grandmother struggled with depression throughout her life, yet she was adamant she was “fine.” For my grandmother, her insistence that she did not have depression was rooted in shame. In our community, depression was not viewed as a disease, but rather a moral failing. My patient’s mother shared a similar attitude towards depression, believing her daughter was struggling due to her lack of willpower.

As the only person of color on the treatment team, I understood the importance of helping others on the team to also understand the mother’s perspective—doing so changed the dynamics of the relationship between the team and the family. Rather than having an antagonistic view of the mother who seemed to be callous of her daughter’s needs, the team viewed her differently; she was now understood as a mother who was overwhelmed and lacked an understanding of the disease. This changed the treatment team’s focus. The first step was to educate the family about depression, before providing therapeutic and medication treatments.

To fully understand the patient, the physician must place the story in the correct context, recognizing how the intersectionality of race, sexuality, socioeconomic status, and culture impact mental health. I am now a resident, and as a physician, my primary goal is to be an advocate for patients. To improve patient care, we must continue to find ways to improve diversity in the field of psychiatry. One crucial way is for clinicians to share their stories and be vulnerable with our colleagues, as our patients are with us. Through sharing our personal narratives, we further honor and encourage greater diversity.

In a sea of blonde hair and blue eyes, my black hair and brown eyes stood out. At the time, I was a medical student and one of the few people of color rotating through the inpatient child psychiatric unit. While I was aware I looked “different,” I discovered that my young patients had an unbridled curiosity about such differences. Common questions I received included “Where are you from? Why are your eyes so small? Is it because you eat rice?” Their questions were never of malicious intent, but rather due to my patient’s unfamiliarity with the Asian-American community and with Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) communities in general.

Therefore, it came as no surprise that my BIPOC patients could keenly detect similarities. I could see their eyes widen, a spark of recognition, surprise, or even perhaps relief, when they saw my dark hair or the color of my skin. For members of minority racial/ethnic groups in a predominantly White society, there is a special kinship with other underrepresented BIPOC individuals. We are a community; our shared experiences of discrimination and disadvantages bind us together.

Perhaps it was because of our similarities that my BIPOC patients felt comfortable sharing their most intimate secrets: struggling with social anxiety due to language barriers in school, feeling anxious about balancing their familial expectations vs being “American,” or wishing they were dead due to the color of their skin. It hurt to hear this from my patients. My BIPOC patients’ narratives shared a common theme of fear. Fear that others wouldn’t understand their experiences. Fear that no one would understand their pain. When I reflect upon my own experiences with racism, from microaggressions to outright threats, I am reminded of my own fears, loneliness, and pain. It is these experiences that fuel every BIPOC medical student, resident, and physician to provide culturally sensitive care to patients and promote greater mental health for the BIPOC community.

Why diversity matters

Diversity is important in health care. Our patients come from various backgrounds and cultural experiences. A 2019 survey recruited participants who self-identified with >1 race or as a member of an interracial family relationship, to evaluate their preferences in clinicians.¹ Through thematic evaluation of participants’ responses, researchers noted that participants expressed a preference for clinicians who identified as a person of color.¹ Participants desired clinicians who were culturally sensitive, who could connect and empathize with their experiences as people of color.¹ Ultimately, by having a diverse array of clinicians, health care systems ensure that medical professionals can make important connections with patients due to shared experiences.

I remember talking to a mother about her daughter’s suicide attempt. During our conversation, the mother began to shake her head. “She doesn’t have depression,” she exclaimed. “She needs to snap out of it.” As I listened to her, I was reminded of my own grandmother.

My grandmother struggled with depression throughout her life, yet she was adamant she was “fine.” For my grandmother, her insistence that she did not have depression was rooted in shame. In our community, depression was not viewed as a disease, but rather a moral failing. My patient’s mother shared a similar attitude towards depression, believing her daughter was struggling due to her lack of willpower.

As the only person of color on the treatment team, I understood the importance of helping others on the team to also understand the mother’s perspective—doing so changed the dynamics of the relationship between the team and the family. Rather than having an antagonistic view of the mother who seemed to be callous of her daughter’s needs, the team viewed her differently; she was now understood as a mother who was overwhelmed and lacked an understanding of the disease. This changed the treatment team’s focus. The first step was to educate the family about depression, before providing therapeutic and medication treatments.

To fully understand the patient, the physician must place the story in the correct context, recognizing how the intersectionality of race, sexuality, socioeconomic status, and culture impact mental health. I am now a resident, and as a physician, my primary goal is to be an advocate for patients. To improve patient care, we must continue to find ways to improve diversity in the field of psychiatry. One crucial way is for clinicians to share their stories and be vulnerable with our colleagues, as our patients are with us. Through sharing our personal narratives, we further honor and encourage greater diversity.

In a sea of blonde hair and blue eyes, my black hair and brown eyes stood out. At the time, I was a medical student and one of the few people of color rotating through the inpatient child psychiatric unit. While I was aware I looked “different,” I discovered that my young patients had an unbridled curiosity about such differences. Common questions I received included “Where are you from? Why are your eyes so small? Is it because you eat rice?” Their questions were never of malicious intent, but rather due to my patient’s unfamiliarity with the Asian-American community and with Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) communities in general.

Therefore, it came as no surprise that my BIPOC patients could keenly detect similarities. I could see their eyes widen, a spark of recognition, surprise, or even perhaps relief, when they saw my dark hair or the color of my skin. For members of minority racial/ethnic groups in a predominantly White society, there is a special kinship with other underrepresented BIPOC individuals. We are a community; our shared experiences of discrimination and disadvantages bind us together.

Perhaps it was because of our similarities that my BIPOC patients felt comfortable sharing their most intimate secrets: struggling with social anxiety due to language barriers in school, feeling anxious about balancing their familial expectations vs being “American,” or wishing they were dead due to the color of their skin. It hurt to hear this from my patients. My BIPOC patients’ narratives shared a common theme of fear. Fear that others wouldn’t understand their experiences. Fear that no one would understand their pain. When I reflect upon my own experiences with racism, from microaggressions to outright threats, I am reminded of my own fears, loneliness, and pain. It is these experiences that fuel every BIPOC medical student, resident, and physician to provide culturally sensitive care to patients and promote greater mental health for the BIPOC community.

Why diversity matters

Diversity is important in health care. Our patients come from various backgrounds and cultural experiences. A 2019 survey recruited participants who self-identified with >1 race or as a member of an interracial family relationship, to evaluate their preferences in clinicians.¹ Through thematic evaluation of participants’ responses, researchers noted that participants expressed a preference for clinicians who identified as a person of color.¹ Participants desired clinicians who were culturally sensitive, who could connect and empathize with their experiences as people of color.¹ Ultimately, by having a diverse array of clinicians, health care systems ensure that medical professionals can make important connections with patients due to shared experiences.

I remember talking to a mother about her daughter’s suicide attempt. During our conversation, the mother began to shake her head. “She doesn’t have depression,” she exclaimed. “She needs to snap out of it.” As I listened to her, I was reminded of my own grandmother.

My grandmother struggled with depression throughout her life, yet she was adamant she was “fine.” For my grandmother, her insistence that she did not have depression was rooted in shame. In our community, depression was not viewed as a disease, but rather a moral failing. My patient’s mother shared a similar attitude towards depression, believing her daughter was struggling due to her lack of willpower.

As the only person of color on the treatment team, I understood the importance of helping others on the team to also understand the mother’s perspective—doing so changed the dynamics of the relationship between the team and the family. Rather than having an antagonistic view of the mother who seemed to be callous of her daughter’s needs, the team viewed her differently; she was now understood as a mother who was overwhelmed and lacked an understanding of the disease. This changed the treatment team’s focus. The first step was to educate the family about depression, before providing therapeutic and medication treatments.

To fully understand the patient, the physician must place the story in the correct context, recognizing how the intersectionality of race, sexuality, socioeconomic status, and culture impact mental health. I am now a resident, and as a physician, my primary goal is to be an advocate for patients. To improve patient care, we must continue to find ways to improve diversity in the field of psychiatry. One crucial way is for clinicians to share their stories and be vulnerable with our colleagues, as our patients are with us. Through sharing our personal narratives, we further honor and encourage greater diversity.

Diversity of health care professionals improves medical outcomes and quality of life in patients. ¹ There is a lack of diversity in dermatology, with only 4.2% of dermatologists identifying as Hispanic and 3% identifying as African American, ² possibly due to a lack of early exposure to dermatology among high school and undergraduate students, a low number of underrepresented students in medical school, a lack of formal mentorship programs geared to underrepresented students, and implicit biases. ^1-4 Furthermore, the field is competitive, with many more applicants than available positions. In 2022, there were 851 applicants competing for 492 residency positions in dermatology. ⁵ Thus, it is important to educate young students about dermatology and understand root causes as to why the number of u nderrepresented in medicine (UiM) dermatologists remains stagnant.

According to Pritchett et al,⁴ it is crucial for dermatologists to interact with high school and college students to foster an early interest in dermatology. Many racial minority students do not progress from high school to college and then from college to medical school, which leaves a substantially reduced number of eligible UiM applicants who can progress into dermatology.⁶ Increasing the amount of UiM students going to medical school requires early mediation. Collaborating with pre-existing premedical school organizations through presentations and workshops is another way to promote an early interest in dermatology.⁴ Special consideration should be given to students who are UiM.

Among the general medical school curriculum, requirements for exposure to dermatology are not high. In one study, the median number of clinical and preclinical hours required was 10. Furthermore, 20% of 33 medical schools did not require preclinical dermatology hours (hours done before medical school rotations begin and in an academic setting), 36% required no clinical hours (rotational hours), 8% required no dermatology hours whatsoever, and only 10% required clinical dermatology rotation.³ Based on these findings, it is clear that dermatology is not well incorporated into medical school curricula. Furthermore, curricula have historically neglected to display adequate representation of skin of color.⁷ As a result, medical students generally have limited exposure to dermatology³ and are exposed even less to presentations of dermatologic issues in historically marginalized populations.⁷

Given the paucity of research on UiM students’ perceptions of dermatology prior to medical school, our cross-sectional survey study sought to evaluate the level of interest in dermatology of UiM premedical undergraduates. This survey specifically evaluated exposure to dermatology, preconceived notions about the field, and mentorship opportunities. By understanding these factors, dermatologists and dermatology residency programs can use this information to create mentorship opportunities and better adjust existing programs to meet students’ needs.

Methods

A 19-question multiple-choice survey was administered electronically (SurveyMonkey) in May 2020 to premedical students at Howard University (Washington, DC). One screening question was used: “What is your major?” Those who considered themselves a science major and/or with premedical interest were allowed to complete the survey. All students surveyed were members of the Health Professions Society at Howard University. Students who were interested in pursuing medical school were invited to respond. Approval for this study was obtained from the Howard University institutional review board (FWA00000891).

The survey was divided into 3 sections: Demographics, Exposure to Medicine and Dermatology, and Perceptions of Dermatology. The Demographics section addressed gender, age, and race/ethnicity. The Exposure to Medicine and Dermatology section addressed interest in attending medical school, shadowing experience, exposure to dermatology, and mentoring. The Perceptions of Dermatology section addressed preconceived notions about the field (eg, “dermatology is interesting and exciting”).

Statistical Analysis—The data represented are percentages based on the number of respondents who answered each question. Answers in response to “Please enter any comments” were organized into themes, and the number of respondents who discussed each theme was quantified into a table.

A total of 271 survey invitations were sent to premedical students at Howard University. Students were informed of the study protocol and asked to consent before proceeding to have their responses anonymously collected. Based on the screening question, 152 participants qualified for the survey, and 152 participants completed it (response rate, 56%; completion rate, 100%). Participants were asked to complete the survey only once.

Demographics—Eighty-four percent of respondents identified as science majors, and the remaining 16% identified as nonscience premedical. Ninety-four percent of participants identified as Black or African American; 3% as Asian or Asian American; and the remaining 3% as Other. Most respondents were female (82%), 16% were male, and 2% were either nonbinary or preferred not to answer. Ninety-nine percent were aged 18 to 24 years, and 1% were aged 25 to 34 years (Table 1).

Exposure to Medicine and Dermatology—Ninety-three percent of participants planned on attending medical school, and most students developed an interest in medicine from an early age. Ninety-six percent cited that they became interested in medicine prior to beginning their undergraduate education, and 4% developed an interest as freshmen or sophomores. When asked what led to their interest in medicine, family influence had the single greatest impact on students’ decision to pursue medicine (33%). Classes/school were the second most influential factor (24%), followed by volunteering (15%), shadowing (13%), other (7%), and peer influence (3%)(Figure 1).

Many (56%) premedical students surveyed had shadowing experience to varying degrees. Approximately 18% had fewer than 8 hours of shadowing experience, 24% had 8 to 40 hours, and 14% had more than 40 hours. However, many (43%) premedical students had no shadowing experience (Figure 2). Similarly, 30% of premedical students responded to having a physician as a mentor.

Regarding exposure to dermatology, 42% of premedical students had none. However, 58% of students had exposure to dermatology by being a patient themselves, 40% through seeing a dermatologist with a family member, 21% through seeing a dermatologist on television or social media, 5% through shadowing or volunteering, 3% through mentorship, and 1% through dermatology research (Figure 3).

Of students who said they were interested in dermatology (32%), 16% developed their interest before undergraduate education, while 9% developed interest in their freshman or sophomore year and 7% in their junior or senior year of undergraduate education. Three percent of respondents indicated that they had a dermatology mentorship.

Perceptions of Dermatology—To further evaluate the level of interest that UiM premedical students have in the field of dermatology, students were asked how much they agree or disagree on whether the field of dermatology is interesting. Sixty-three percent of the students agreed that the field of dermatology is interesting, 34% remained uncertain, and 3% disagreed. Additionally, students were asked whether they would consider dermatology as a career; 54% of respondents would consider dermatology as a career, 30% remained uncertain, and 16% would not consider dermatology as a career choice.

Nearly all (95%) students agreed that dermatologists do valuable work that goes beyond the scope of cosmetic procedures such as neuromodulators, fillers, chemical peels, and lasers. Some students also noted they had personal experiences interacting with a dermatologist. For example, one student described visiting the dermatologist many times to get a treatment regimen for their eczema.

Overall themes from the survey are depicted in Table 2. Major themes found in the comments included the desire for more dermatology-related opportunities, mentorship, exposure, connections, and a discussion of disparities faced by Black patients and students within dermatology. Students also expressed an interest in dermatology and the desire to learn more about the specialty.

Comment

Interest in Dermatology—In this cross-sectional survey study of 152 UiM undergraduate students, it was found that many students were interested in dermatology as a career, and more than 70% would be interested in attending events that increased exposure to the field of dermatology. Of the students who had any exposure to dermatology, less than 5% had shadowed an actual dermatologist. The survey showed that there is great potential interest in exposing UiM undergraduate students to the field of dermatology. We found that UiM students are interested in learning more about dermatology, with 80% indicating that they would be willing to participate in dermatology-focused events if they were available. Overall, students mentioned a lack of opportunities, mentorship, exposure, and connections in dermatology despite their interest in the field.

Racial Disparities in Dermatology—Additionally, students discussed disparities they encountered with dermatology due to a lack of patient-provider race concordance and the perceived difference in care when encountering a race-concordant dermatologist. One student noted that they went to multiple White dermatologists for their eczema, and “it wasn’t until I was evaluated by a Black dermatologist (diagnosed with eczema as well) [that I was] prescribed . . . the perfect medication.” Another student noted how a Black dermatologist sparked their interest in getting to know more about the field and remarked that they “think it is an important field that lacks representation for Black people.” This research stresses the need for more dermatology mentorship among UiM undergraduates.

Family Influence on Career Selection—The majority of UiM students in our study became interested in medicine because of family, which is consistent with other studies. In a cross-sectional survey of 300 Pakistani students (150 medical and 150 nonmedical), 87% of students stated that their family had an influence on their career selection.⁸ In another study of 15 junior doctors in Sierra Leone, the most common reasons for pursuing medicine were the desire to help and familial and peer influence.⁹ This again showcases how family can have a positive impact on career selection for medical professionals and highlights the need for early intervention.

Shadowing—One way in which student exposure to dermatology can be effectively increased is by shadowing. In a study evaluating a 30-week shadowing program at the Pediatric Continuity Clinic in Los Angeles, California, a greater proportion of premedical students believed they had a good understanding of the job of a resident physician after the program’s completion compared to before starting the program (an increase from 78% to 100%).¹⁰ The proportion of students reporting a good understanding of the patient-physician relationship after completing the program also increased from 33% to 78%. Furthermore, 72% of the residents stated that having the undergraduates in the clinic was a positive experience.¹⁰ Thus, increasing shadowing opportunities is one extremely effective way to increase student knowledge and awareness of and exposure to dermatology.

Dermatology Mentors—Although 32% of students were interested in dermatology, 3% of students had mentorship in dermatology. In prior studies, it has been shown that mentorship is of great importance in student success and interest in pursuing a specialty. A report from the Association of American Medical Colleges 2019 Medical School Graduation Questionnaire found that the third most influential factor (52.1%) in specialty selection was role model influence.¹¹ In fact, having a role model is consistently one of the top 3 influences on student specialty choice and interest in the last 5 years of survey research. Some studies also have shown mentorship as a positive influence in specialty interest at the undergraduate and graduate levels. A study on an undergraduate student interest group noted that surgeon mentorship and exposure were positive factors to students’ interests in surgery.¹² In fact, the Association of American Medical Colleges noted that some surgical specialties, such as orthopedic surgery, had 45% of respondents who were interested in the specialty before medical school pursue their initial preference in medical school.¹³ Another survey corroborated these findings; more orthopedic-bound students compared with other specialties indicated they were more likely to pursue their field because of experiences prior to medical school.¹⁴

One of the reasons students might not have been exposed to as many opportunities for mentorship in dermatology is because the specialty is one of the smaller fields in medicine and tends to be concentrated in more well-resourced metropolitan areas.¹⁵ Dermatologists make up only 1.3% of the physician workforce.¹⁶ Because there might not be as much exposure to the field, students might also explore their interests in dermatology through other fields, such as through shadowing and observing primary care physicians who often treat patients with dermatologic issues. Skin diseases are a common reason for primary care visits, and one study suggested dermatologic diseases can make up approximately 8.4% of visits in primary care.¹⁷

Moreover, only 1% of medical schools require an elective in dermatology.¹⁸ With exposure being a crucial component to pursuing the specialty, it also is important to pursue formal mentorship within the specialty itself. One study noted that formal mentorship in dermatology was important for most (67%) respondents when considering the specialty; however, 39% of respondents mentioned receiving mentorship in the past. In fact, dermatology was one of the top 3 specialties for which respondents agreed that formal mentorship was important.¹⁹

Mentorship also has been shown to provide students with a variety of opportunities to develop personally and professionally. Some of these opportunities include increased confidence in their personal and professional success, increased desire to pursue a career in a field of interest, networking opportunities, career coaching, and support and research guidance.²⁰ A research study among medical students at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, New York, found that US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores, clinical grades, and the chance of not matching were important factors preventing them from applying to dermatology.²¹

Factors in Dermatology Residency Selection—A survey was conducted wherein 95 of 114 dermatology program directors expressed that among the top 5 criteria for dermatology resident selection were Step 1 scores and clinical grades, supporting the notion that academic factors were given a great emphasis during residency selection.²² Furthermore, among underrepresented minority medical students, a lack of diversity, the belief that minority students are seen negatively by residencies, socioeconomic factors, and not having mentors were major reasons for being dissuaded from applying to dermatology.²¹ These results showcase the heightened importance of mentors for underrepresented minority medical students in particular.

In graduate medical education, resources such as wikis, social networking sites, and blogs provide media through which trainees can communicate, exchange ideas, and enhance their medical knowledge.^23,24 A survey of 9606 osteopathic medical students showed that 35% of 992 respondents had used social media to learn more about residencies, and 10% believed that social media had influenced their choice of residency.²⁵ Given the impact social media has on recruitment, it also can be employed in a similar manner by dermatologists and dermatology residency programs to attract younger students to the field.

Access to More Opportunities to Learn About Dermatology—Besides shadowing and mentorship, other avenues of exposure to dermatology are possible and should be considered. In our study, 80% of students agreed that they would attend an event that increases exposure to dermatology if held by the premedical group, which suggests that students are eager to learn more about the field and want access to more opportunities, which could include learning procedures such as suturing or how to use a dermatoscope, attending guest speaker events, or participating in Learn2Derm volunteer events.

Learn2Derm was a skin cancer prevention fair first organized by medical students at George Washington University in Washington, DC. Students and residents sought to deliver sunscreens to underserved areas in Washington, DC, as well as teach residents about the importance of skin health. Participating in such events could be an excellent opportunity for all students to gain exposure to important topics in dermatology.²⁶

General Opinions of Dermatology—General opinions about dermatology and medicine were collected from the students through the optional “Additional Comments” section. Major themes found in the comments included the desire for more opportunities, mentorship, exposure, connections, and a discussion of disparities faced by Black patients/students within dermatology. Students also expressed an interest in dermatology and the desire to learn more about the specialty. From these themes, it can be gleaned that students are open to and eager for more opportunities to gain exposure and connections, and increasing the number of minority dermatologists is of importance.

Limitations—An important limitation of this study was the potential for selection bias, as the sample was chosen from a population at one university, which is not representative of the general population. Further, we only sampled students who were premedical and likely from a UiM racial group due to the demographics of the student population at the university, but given that the goal of the survey was to understand exposure to dermatology in underrepresented groups, we believe it was the appropriate population to target. Additionally, results were not compared with other more represented racial groups to see if these findings were unique to UiM undergraduate students.

Conclusion

Among premedical students, dermatology is an area of great interest with minimal opportunities available for exposure and learning because it is a smaller specialty with fewer experiences available for shadowing and mentorship. Although most UiM premedical students who were surveyed were exposed to the field through either the media or being a dermatology patient, fewer were exposed to the field through clinical experiences (such as shadowing) or mentorship. Most respondents found dermatology to be interesting and have considered pursuing it as a career. In particular, race-concordant mentoring in dermatologic care was valued by many students in garnering their interest in the field.

Most UiM students wanted more exposure to dermatology-related opportunities as well as mentorship and connections. Increasing shadowing, research, pipeline programs, and general events geared to dermatology are some modalities that could help improve exposure to dermatology for UiM students, especially for those interested in pursuing the field. This increased exposure can help positively influence more UiM students to pursue dermatology and help close the diversity gap in the field. Additionally, many were interested in attending potential dermatology informational events.

Given the fact that dermatology is a small field and mentorship may be hard to access, increasing informational events may be a more reasonable approach to inspiring and supporting interest. These events could include learning how to use certain tools and techniques, guest speaker events, or participating in educational volunteer efforts such as Learn2Derm.²⁶

Future research should focus on identifying beneficial factors of UiM premedical students who retain an interest in dermatology throughout their careers and actually apply to dermatology programs and become dermatologists. Those who do not apply to the specialty can be identified to understand potential dissuading factors and obstacles. Ultimately, more research and development of exposure opportunities, including mentorship programs and informational events, can be used to close the gap and improve diversity and health outcomes in dermatology.

Diversity of health care professionals improves medical outcomes and quality of life in patients. ¹ There is a lack of diversity in dermatology, with only 4.2% of dermatologists identifying as Hispanic and 3% identifying as African American, ² possibly due to a lack of early exposure to dermatology among high school and undergraduate students, a low number of underrepresented students in medical school, a lack of formal mentorship programs geared to underrepresented students, and implicit biases. ^1-4 Furthermore, the field is competitive, with many more applicants than available positions. In 2022, there were 851 applicants competing for 492 residency positions in dermatology. ⁵ Thus, it is important to educate young students about dermatology and understand root causes as to why the number of u nderrepresented in medicine (UiM) dermatologists remains stagnant.

According to Pritchett et al,⁴ it is crucial for dermatologists to interact with high school and college students to foster an early interest in dermatology. Many racial minority students do not progress from high school to college and then from college to medical school, which leaves a substantially reduced number of eligible UiM applicants who can progress into dermatology.⁶ Increasing the amount of UiM students going to medical school requires early mediation. Collaborating with pre-existing premedical school organizations through presentations and workshops is another way to promote an early interest in dermatology.⁴ Special consideration should be given to students who are UiM.

Among the general medical school curriculum, requirements for exposure to dermatology are not high. In one study, the median number of clinical and preclinical hours required was 10. Furthermore, 20% of 33 medical schools did not require preclinical dermatology hours (hours done before medical school rotations begin and in an academic setting), 36% required no clinical hours (rotational hours), 8% required no dermatology hours whatsoever, and only 10% required clinical dermatology rotation.³ Based on these findings, it is clear that dermatology is not well incorporated into medical school curricula. Furthermore, curricula have historically neglected to display adequate representation of skin of color.⁷ As a result, medical students generally have limited exposure to dermatology³ and are exposed even less to presentations of dermatologic issues in historically marginalized populations.⁷

Given the paucity of research on UiM students’ perceptions of dermatology prior to medical school, our cross-sectional survey study sought to evaluate the level of interest in dermatology of UiM premedical undergraduates. This survey specifically evaluated exposure to dermatology, preconceived notions about the field, and mentorship opportunities. By understanding these factors, dermatologists and dermatology residency programs can use this information to create mentorship opportunities and better adjust existing programs to meet students’ needs.

Methods

A 19-question multiple-choice survey was administered electronically (SurveyMonkey) in May 2020 to premedical students at Howard University (Washington, DC). One screening question was used: “What is your major?” Those who considered themselves a science major and/or with premedical interest were allowed to complete the survey. All students surveyed were members of the Health Professions Society at Howard University. Students who were interested in pursuing medical school were invited to respond. Approval for this study was obtained from the Howard University institutional review board (FWA00000891).

The survey was divided into 3 sections: Demographics, Exposure to Medicine and Dermatology, and Perceptions of Dermatology. The Demographics section addressed gender, age, and race/ethnicity. The Exposure to Medicine and Dermatology section addressed interest in attending medical school, shadowing experience, exposure to dermatology, and mentoring. The Perceptions of Dermatology section addressed preconceived notions about the field (eg, “dermatology is interesting and exciting”).

Statistical Analysis—The data represented are percentages based on the number of respondents who answered each question. Answers in response to “Please enter any comments” were organized into themes, and the number of respondents who discussed each theme was quantified into a table.

A total of 271 survey invitations were sent to premedical students at Howard University. Students were informed of the study protocol and asked to consent before proceeding to have their responses anonymously collected. Based on the screening question, 152 participants qualified for the survey, and 152 participants completed it (response rate, 56%; completion rate, 100%). Participants were asked to complete the survey only once.

Demographics—Eighty-four percent of respondents identified as science majors, and the remaining 16% identified as nonscience premedical. Ninety-four percent of participants identified as Black or African American; 3% as Asian or Asian American; and the remaining 3% as Other. Most respondents were female (82%), 16% were male, and 2% were either nonbinary or preferred not to answer. Ninety-nine percent were aged 18 to 24 years, and 1% were aged 25 to 34 years (Table 1).

Exposure to Medicine and Dermatology—Ninety-three percent of participants planned on attending medical school, and most students developed an interest in medicine from an early age. Ninety-six percent cited that they became interested in medicine prior to beginning their undergraduate education, and 4% developed an interest as freshmen or sophomores. When asked what led to their interest in medicine, family influence had the single greatest impact on students’ decision to pursue medicine (33%). Classes/school were the second most influential factor (24%), followed by volunteering (15%), shadowing (13%), other (7%), and peer influence (3%)(Figure 1).

Many (56%) premedical students surveyed had shadowing experience to varying degrees. Approximately 18% had fewer than 8 hours of shadowing experience, 24% had 8 to 40 hours, and 14% had more than 40 hours. However, many (43%) premedical students had no shadowing experience (Figure 2). Similarly, 30% of premedical students responded to having a physician as a mentor.

Regarding exposure to dermatology, 42% of premedical students had none. However, 58% of students had exposure to dermatology by being a patient themselves, 40% through seeing a dermatologist with a family member, 21% through seeing a dermatologist on television or social media, 5% through shadowing or volunteering, 3% through mentorship, and 1% through dermatology research (Figure 3).

Of students who said they were interested in dermatology (32%), 16% developed their interest before undergraduate education, while 9% developed interest in their freshman or sophomore year and 7% in their junior or senior year of undergraduate education. Three percent of respondents indicated that they had a dermatology mentorship.

Perceptions of Dermatology—To further evaluate the level of interest that UiM premedical students have in the field of dermatology, students were asked how much they agree or disagree on whether the field of dermatology is interesting. Sixty-three percent of the students agreed that the field of dermatology is interesting, 34% remained uncertain, and 3% disagreed. Additionally, students were asked whether they would consider dermatology as a career; 54% of respondents would consider dermatology as a career, 30% remained uncertain, and 16% would not consider dermatology as a career choice.

Nearly all (95%) students agreed that dermatologists do valuable work that goes beyond the scope of cosmetic procedures such as neuromodulators, fillers, chemical peels, and lasers. Some students also noted they had personal experiences interacting with a dermatologist. For example, one student described visiting the dermatologist many times to get a treatment regimen for their eczema.

Overall themes from the survey are depicted in Table 2. Major themes found in the comments included the desire for more dermatology-related opportunities, mentorship, exposure, connections, and a discussion of disparities faced by Black patients and students within dermatology. Students also expressed an interest in dermatology and the desire to learn more about the specialty.

Comment

Interest in Dermatology—In this cross-sectional survey study of 152 UiM undergraduate students, it was found that many students were interested in dermatology as a career, and more than 70% would be interested in attending events that increased exposure to the field of dermatology. Of the students who had any exposure to dermatology, less than 5% had shadowed an actual dermatologist. The survey showed that there is great potential interest in exposing UiM undergraduate students to the field of dermatology. We found that UiM students are interested in learning more about dermatology, with 80% indicating that they would be willing to participate in dermatology-focused events if they were available. Overall, students mentioned a lack of opportunities, mentorship, exposure, and connections in dermatology despite their interest in the field.

Racial Disparities in Dermatology—Additionally, students discussed disparities they encountered with dermatology due to a lack of patient-provider race concordance and the perceived difference in care when encountering a race-concordant dermatologist. One student noted that they went to multiple White dermatologists for their eczema, and “it wasn’t until I was evaluated by a Black dermatologist (diagnosed with eczema as well) [that I was] prescribed . . . the perfect medication.” Another student noted how a Black dermatologist sparked their interest in getting to know more about the field and remarked that they “think it is an important field that lacks representation for Black people.” This research stresses the need for more dermatology mentorship among UiM undergraduates.

Family Influence on Career Selection—The majority of UiM students in our study became interested in medicine because of family, which is consistent with other studies. In a cross-sectional survey of 300 Pakistani students (150 medical and 150 nonmedical), 87% of students stated that their family had an influence on their career selection.⁸ In another study of 15 junior doctors in Sierra Leone, the most common reasons for pursuing medicine were the desire to help and familial and peer influence.⁹ This again showcases how family can have a positive impact on career selection for medical professionals and highlights the need for early intervention.

Shadowing—One way in which student exposure to dermatology can be effectively increased is by shadowing. In a study evaluating a 30-week shadowing program at the Pediatric Continuity Clinic in Los Angeles, California, a greater proportion of premedical students believed they had a good understanding of the job of a resident physician after the program’s completion compared to before starting the program (an increase from 78% to 100%).¹⁰ The proportion of students reporting a good understanding of the patient-physician relationship after completing the program also increased from 33% to 78%. Furthermore, 72% of the residents stated that having the undergraduates in the clinic was a positive experience.¹⁰ Thus, increasing shadowing opportunities is one extremely effective way to increase student knowledge and awareness of and exposure to dermatology.

Dermatology Mentors—Although 32% of students were interested in dermatology, 3% of students had mentorship in dermatology. In prior studies, it has been shown that mentorship is of great importance in student success and interest in pursuing a specialty. A report from the Association of American Medical Colleges 2019 Medical School Graduation Questionnaire found that the third most influential factor (52.1%) in specialty selection was role model influence.¹¹ In fact, having a role model is consistently one of the top 3 influences on student specialty choice and interest in the last 5 years of survey research. Some studies also have shown mentorship as a positive influence in specialty interest at the undergraduate and graduate levels. A study on an undergraduate student interest group noted that surgeon mentorship and exposure were positive factors to students’ interests in surgery.¹² In fact, the Association of American Medical Colleges noted that some surgical specialties, such as orthopedic surgery, had 45% of respondents who were interested in the specialty before medical school pursue their initial preference in medical school.¹³ Another survey corroborated these findings; more orthopedic-bound students compared with other specialties indicated they were more likely to pursue their field because of experiences prior to medical school.¹⁴

One of the reasons students might not have been exposed to as many opportunities for mentorship in dermatology is because the specialty is one of the smaller fields in medicine and tends to be concentrated in more well-resourced metropolitan areas.¹⁵ Dermatologists make up only 1.3% of the physician workforce.¹⁶ Because there might not be as much exposure to the field, students might also explore their interests in dermatology through other fields, such as through shadowing and observing primary care physicians who often treat patients with dermatologic issues. Skin diseases are a common reason for primary care visits, and one study suggested dermatologic diseases can make up approximately 8.4% of visits in primary care.¹⁷

Moreover, only 1% of medical schools require an elective in dermatology.¹⁸ With exposure being a crucial component to pursuing the specialty, it also is important to pursue formal mentorship within the specialty itself. One study noted that formal mentorship in dermatology was important for most (67%) respondents when considering the specialty; however, 39% of respondents mentioned receiving mentorship in the past. In fact, dermatology was one of the top 3 specialties for which respondents agreed that formal mentorship was important.¹⁹

Mentorship also has been shown to provide students with a variety of opportunities to develop personally and professionally. Some of these opportunities include increased confidence in their personal and professional success, increased desire to pursue a career in a field of interest, networking opportunities, career coaching, and support and research guidance.²⁰ A research study among medical students at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, New York, found that US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores, clinical grades, and the chance of not matching were important factors preventing them from applying to dermatology.²¹

Factors in Dermatology Residency Selection—A survey was conducted wherein 95 of 114 dermatology program directors expressed that among the top 5 criteria for dermatology resident selection were Step 1 scores and clinical grades, supporting the notion that academic factors were given a great emphasis during residency selection.²² Furthermore, among underrepresented minority medical students, a lack of diversity, the belief that minority students are seen negatively by residencies, socioeconomic factors, and not having mentors were major reasons for being dissuaded from applying to dermatology.²¹ These results showcase the heightened importance of mentors for underrepresented minority medical students in particular.

In graduate medical education, resources such as wikis, social networking sites, and blogs provide media through which trainees can communicate, exchange ideas, and enhance their medical knowledge.^23,24 A survey of 9606 osteopathic medical students showed that 35% of 992 respondents had used social media to learn more about residencies, and 10% believed that social media had influenced their choice of residency.²⁵ Given the impact social media has on recruitment, it also can be employed in a similar manner by dermatologists and dermatology residency programs to attract younger students to the field.

Access to More Opportunities to Learn About Dermatology—Besides shadowing and mentorship, other avenues of exposure to dermatology are possible and should be considered. In our study, 80% of students agreed that they would attend an event that increases exposure to dermatology if held by the premedical group, which suggests that students are eager to learn more about the field and want access to more opportunities, which could include learning procedures such as suturing or how to use a dermatoscope, attending guest speaker events, or participating in Learn2Derm volunteer events.

Learn2Derm was a skin cancer prevention fair first organized by medical students at George Washington University in Washington, DC. Students and residents sought to deliver sunscreens to underserved areas in Washington, DC, as well as teach residents about the importance of skin health. Participating in such events could be an excellent opportunity for all students to gain exposure to important topics in dermatology.²⁶

General Opinions of Dermatology—General opinions about dermatology and medicine were collected from the students through the optional “Additional Comments” section. Major themes found in the comments included the desire for more opportunities, mentorship, exposure, connections, and a discussion of disparities faced by Black patients/students within dermatology. Students also expressed an interest in dermatology and the desire to learn more about the specialty. From these themes, it can be gleaned that students are open to and eager for more opportunities to gain exposure and connections, and increasing the number of minority dermatologists is of importance.

Limitations—An important limitation of this study was the potential for selection bias, as the sample was chosen from a population at one university, which is not representative of the general population. Further, we only sampled students who were premedical and likely from a UiM racial group due to the demographics of the student population at the university, but given that the goal of the survey was to understand exposure to dermatology in underrepresented groups, we believe it was the appropriate population to target. Additionally, results were not compared with other more represented racial groups to see if these findings were unique to UiM undergraduate students.

Conclusion

Among premedical students, dermatology is an area of great interest with minimal opportunities available for exposure and learning because it is a smaller specialty with fewer experiences available for shadowing and mentorship. Although most UiM premedical students who were surveyed were exposed to the field through either the media or being a dermatology patient, fewer were exposed to the field through clinical experiences (such as shadowing) or mentorship. Most respondents found dermatology to be interesting and have considered pursuing it as a career. In particular, race-concordant mentoring in dermatologic care was valued by many students in garnering their interest in the field.

Most UiM students wanted more exposure to dermatology-related opportunities as well as mentorship and connections. Increasing shadowing, research, pipeline programs, and general events geared to dermatology are some modalities that could help improve exposure to dermatology for UiM students, especially for those interested in pursuing the field. This increased exposure can help positively influence more UiM students to pursue dermatology and help close the diversity gap in the field. Additionally, many were interested in attending potential dermatology informational events.

Given the fact that dermatology is a small field and mentorship may be hard to access, increasing informational events may be a more reasonable approach to inspiring and supporting interest. These events could include learning how to use certain tools and techniques, guest speaker events, or participating in educational volunteer efforts such as Learn2Derm.²⁶

Future research should focus on identifying beneficial factors of UiM premedical students who retain an interest in dermatology throughout their careers and actually apply to dermatology programs and become dermatologists. Those who do not apply to the specialty can be identified to understand potential dissuading factors and obstacles. Ultimately, more research and development of exposure opportunities, including mentorship programs and informational events, can be used to close the gap and improve diversity and health outcomes in dermatology.

Diversity of health care professionals improves medical outcomes and quality of life in patients. ¹ There is a lack of diversity in dermatology, with only 4.2% of dermatologists identifying as Hispanic and 3% identifying as African American, ² possibly due to a lack of early exposure to dermatology among high school and undergraduate students, a low number of underrepresented students in medical school, a lack of formal mentorship programs geared to underrepresented students, and implicit biases. ^1-4 Furthermore, the field is competitive, with many more applicants than available positions. In 2022, there were 851 applicants competing for 492 residency positions in dermatology. ⁵ Thus, it is important to educate young students about dermatology and understand root causes as to why the number of u nderrepresented in medicine (UiM) dermatologists remains stagnant.

According to Pritchett et al,⁴ it is crucial for dermatologists to interact with high school and college students to foster an early interest in dermatology. Many racial minority students do not progress from high school to college and then from college to medical school, which leaves a substantially reduced number of eligible UiM applicants who can progress into dermatology.⁶ Increasing the amount of UiM students going to medical school requires early mediation. Collaborating with pre-existing premedical school organizations through presentations and workshops is another way to promote an early interest in dermatology.⁴ Special consideration should be given to students who are UiM.

Among the general medical school curriculum, requirements for exposure to dermatology are not high. In one study, the median number of clinical and preclinical hours required was 10. Furthermore, 20% of 33 medical schools did not require preclinical dermatology hours (hours done before medical school rotations begin and in an academic setting), 36% required no clinical hours (rotational hours), 8% required no dermatology hours whatsoever, and only 10% required clinical dermatology rotation.³ Based on these findings, it is clear that dermatology is not well incorporated into medical school curricula. Furthermore, curricula have historically neglected to display adequate representation of skin of color.⁷ As a result, medical students generally have limited exposure to dermatology³ and are exposed even less to presentations of dermatologic issues in historically marginalized populations.⁷

Given the paucity of research on UiM students’ perceptions of dermatology prior to medical school, our cross-sectional survey study sought to evaluate the level of interest in dermatology of UiM premedical undergraduates. This survey specifically evaluated exposure to dermatology, preconceived notions about the field, and mentorship opportunities. By understanding these factors, dermatologists and dermatology residency programs can use this information to create mentorship opportunities and better adjust existing programs to meet students’ needs.

Methods

A 19-question multiple-choice survey was administered electronically (SurveyMonkey) in May 2020 to premedical students at Howard University (Washington, DC). One screening question was used: “What is your major?” Those who considered themselves a science major and/or with premedical interest were allowed to complete the survey. All students surveyed were members of the Health Professions Society at Howard University. Students who were interested in pursuing medical school were invited to respond. Approval for this study was obtained from the Howard University institutional review board (FWA00000891).

The survey was divided into 3 sections: Demographics, Exposure to Medicine and Dermatology, and Perceptions of Dermatology. The Demographics section addressed gender, age, and race/ethnicity. The Exposure to Medicine and Dermatology section addressed interest in attending medical school, shadowing experience, exposure to dermatology, and mentoring. The Perceptions of Dermatology section addressed preconceived notions about the field (eg, “dermatology is interesting and exciting”).

Statistical Analysis—The data represented are percentages based on the number of respondents who answered each question. Answers in response to “Please enter any comments” were organized into themes, and the number of respondents who discussed each theme was quantified into a table.

A total of 271 survey invitations were sent to premedical students at Howard University. Students were informed of the study protocol and asked to consent before proceeding to have their responses anonymously collected. Based on the screening question, 152 participants qualified for the survey, and 152 participants completed it (response rate, 56%; completion rate, 100%). Participants were asked to complete the survey only once.

Demographics—Eighty-four percent of respondents identified as science majors, and the remaining 16% identified as nonscience premedical. Ninety-four percent of participants identified as Black or African American; 3% as Asian or Asian American; and the remaining 3% as Other. Most respondents were female (82%), 16% were male, and 2% were either nonbinary or preferred not to answer. Ninety-nine percent were aged 18 to 24 years, and 1% were aged 25 to 34 years (Table 1).

Exposure to Medicine and Dermatology—Ninety-three percent of participants planned on attending medical school, and most students developed an interest in medicine from an early age. Ninety-six percent cited that they became interested in medicine prior to beginning their undergraduate education, and 4% developed an interest as freshmen or sophomores. When asked what led to their interest in medicine, family influence had the single greatest impact on students’ decision to pursue medicine (33%). Classes/school were the second most influential factor (24%), followed by volunteering (15%), shadowing (13%), other (7%), and peer influence (3%)(Figure 1).

Many (56%) premedical students surveyed had shadowing experience to varying degrees. Approximately 18% had fewer than 8 hours of shadowing experience, 24% had 8 to 40 hours, and 14% had more than 40 hours. However, many (43%) premedical students had no shadowing experience (Figure 2). Similarly, 30% of premedical students responded to having a physician as a mentor.

Regarding exposure to dermatology, 42% of premedical students had none. However, 58% of students had exposure to dermatology by being a patient themselves, 40% through seeing a dermatologist with a family member, 21% through seeing a dermatologist on television or social media, 5% through shadowing or volunteering, 3% through mentorship, and 1% through dermatology research (Figure 3).

Of students who said they were interested in dermatology (32%), 16% developed their interest before undergraduate education, while 9% developed interest in their freshman or sophomore year and 7% in their junior or senior year of undergraduate education. Three percent of respondents indicated that they had a dermatology mentorship.

Perceptions of Dermatology—To further evaluate the level of interest that UiM premedical students have in the field of dermatology, students were asked how much they agree or disagree on whether the field of dermatology is interesting. Sixty-three percent of the students agreed that the field of dermatology is interesting, 34% remained uncertain, and 3% disagreed. Additionally, students were asked whether they would consider dermatology as a career; 54% of respondents would consider dermatology as a career, 30% remained uncertain, and 16% would not consider dermatology as a career choice.

Nearly all (95%) students agreed that dermatologists do valuable work that goes beyond the scope of cosmetic procedures such as neuromodulators, fillers, chemical peels, and lasers. Some students also noted they had personal experiences interacting with a dermatologist. For example, one student described visiting the dermatologist many times to get a treatment regimen for their eczema.

Overall themes from the survey are depicted in Table 2. Major themes found in the comments included the desire for more dermatology-related opportunities, mentorship, exposure, connections, and a discussion of disparities faced by Black patients and students within dermatology. Students also expressed an interest in dermatology and the desire to learn more about the specialty.

Comment

Interest in Dermatology—In this cross-sectional survey study of 152 UiM undergraduate students, it was found that many students were interested in dermatology as a career, and more than 70% would be interested in attending events that increased exposure to the field of dermatology. Of the students who had any exposure to dermatology, less than 5% had shadowed an actual dermatologist. The survey showed that there is great potential interest in exposing UiM undergraduate students to the field of dermatology. We found that UiM students are interested in learning more about dermatology, with 80% indicating that they would be willing to participate in dermatology-focused events if they were available. Overall, students mentioned a lack of opportunities, mentorship, exposure, and connections in dermatology despite their interest in the field.

Racial Disparities in Dermatology—Additionally, students discussed disparities they encountered with dermatology due to a lack of patient-provider race concordance and the perceived difference in care when encountering a race-concordant dermatologist. One student noted that they went to multiple White dermatologists for their eczema, and “it wasn’t until I was evaluated by a Black dermatologist (diagnosed with eczema as well) [that I was] prescribed . . . the perfect medication.” Another student noted how a Black dermatologist sparked their interest in getting to know more about the field and remarked that they “think it is an important field that lacks representation for Black people.” This research stresses the need for more dermatology mentorship among UiM undergraduates.

Family Influence on Career Selection—The majority of UiM students in our study became interested in medicine because of family, which is consistent with other studies. In a cross-sectional survey of 300 Pakistani students (150 medical and 150 nonmedical), 87% of students stated that their family had an influence on their career selection.⁸ In another study of 15 junior doctors in Sierra Leone, the most common reasons for pursuing medicine were the desire to help and familial and peer influence.⁹ This again showcases how family can have a positive impact on career selection for medical professionals and highlights the need for early intervention.

Shadowing—One way in which student exposure to dermatology can be effectively increased is by shadowing. In a study evaluating a 30-week shadowing program at the Pediatric Continuity Clinic in Los Angeles, California, a greater proportion of premedical students believed they had a good understanding of the job of a resident physician after the program’s completion compared to before starting the program (an increase from 78% to 100%).¹⁰ The proportion of students reporting a good understanding of the patient-physician relationship after completing the program also increased from 33% to 78%. Furthermore, 72% of the residents stated that having the undergraduates in the clinic was a positive experience.¹⁰ Thus, increasing shadowing opportunities is one extremely effective way to increase student knowledge and awareness of and exposure to dermatology.

Dermatology Mentors—Although 32% of students were interested in dermatology, 3% of students had mentorship in dermatology. In prior studies, it has been shown that mentorship is of great importance in student success and interest in pursuing a specialty. A report from the Association of American Medical Colleges 2019 Medical School Graduation Questionnaire found that the third most influential factor (52.1%) in specialty selection was role model influence.¹¹ In fact, having a role model is consistently one of the top 3 influences on student specialty choice and interest in the last 5 years of survey research. Some studies also have shown mentorship as a positive influence in specialty interest at the undergraduate and graduate levels. A study on an undergraduate student interest group noted that surgeon mentorship and exposure were positive factors to students’ interests in surgery.¹² In fact, the Association of American Medical Colleges noted that some surgical specialties, such as orthopedic surgery, had 45% of respondents who were interested in the specialty before medical school pursue their initial preference in medical school.¹³ Another survey corroborated these findings; more orthopedic-bound students compared with other specialties indicated they were more likely to pursue their field because of experiences prior to medical school.¹⁴

One of the reasons students might not have been exposed to as many opportunities for mentorship in dermatology is because the specialty is one of the smaller fields in medicine and tends to be concentrated in more well-resourced metropolitan areas.¹⁵ Dermatologists make up only 1.3% of the physician workforce.¹⁶ Because there might not be as much exposure to the field, students might also explore their interests in dermatology through other fields, such as through shadowing and observing primary care physicians who often treat patients with dermatologic issues. Skin diseases are a common reason for primary care visits, and one study suggested dermatologic diseases can make up approximately 8.4% of visits in primary care.¹⁷

Moreover, only 1% of medical schools require an elective in dermatology.¹⁸ With exposure being a crucial component to pursuing the specialty, it also is important to pursue formal mentorship within the specialty itself. One study noted that formal mentorship in dermatology was important for most (67%) respondents when considering the specialty; however, 39% of respondents mentioned receiving mentorship in the past. In fact, dermatology was one of the top 3 specialties for which respondents agreed that formal mentorship was important.¹⁹

Mentorship also has been shown to provide students with a variety of opportunities to develop personally and professionally. Some of these opportunities include increased confidence in their personal and professional success, increased desire to pursue a career in a field of interest, networking opportunities, career coaching, and support and research guidance.²⁰ A research study among medical students at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, New York, found that US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores, clinical grades, and the chance of not matching were important factors preventing them from applying to dermatology.²¹

Factors in Dermatology Residency Selection—A survey was conducted wherein 95 of 114 dermatology program directors expressed that among the top 5 criteria for dermatology resident selection were Step 1 scores and clinical grades, supporting the notion that academic factors were given a great emphasis during residency selection.²² Furthermore, among underrepresented minority medical students, a lack of diversity, the belief that minority students are seen negatively by residencies, socioeconomic factors, and not having mentors were major reasons for being dissuaded from applying to dermatology.²¹ These results showcase the heightened importance of mentors for underrepresented minority medical students in particular.

In graduate medical education, resources such as wikis, social networking sites, and blogs provide media through which trainees can communicate, exchange ideas, and enhance their medical knowledge.^23,24 A survey of 9606 osteopathic medical students showed that 35% of 992 respondents had used social media to learn more about residencies, and 10% believed that social media had influenced their choice of residency.²⁵ Given the impact social media has on recruitment, it also can be employed in a similar manner by dermatologists and dermatology residency programs to attract younger students to the field.

Access to More Opportunities to Learn About Dermatology—Besides shadowing and mentorship, other avenues of exposure to dermatology are possible and should be considered. In our study, 80% of students agreed that they would attend an event that increases exposure to dermatology if held by the premedical group, which suggests that students are eager to learn more about the field and want access to more opportunities, which could include learning procedures such as suturing or how to use a dermatoscope, attending guest speaker events, or participating in Learn2Derm volunteer events.

Learn2Derm was a skin cancer prevention fair first organized by medical students at George Washington University in Washington, DC. Students and residents sought to deliver sunscreens to underserved areas in Washington, DC, as well as teach residents about the importance of skin health. Participating in such events could be an excellent opportunity for all students to gain exposure to important topics in dermatology.²⁶

General Opinions of Dermatology—General opinions about dermatology and medicine were collected from the students through the optional “Additional Comments” section. Major themes found in the comments included the desire for more opportunities, mentorship, exposure, connections, and a discussion of disparities faced by Black patients/students within dermatology. Students also expressed an interest in dermatology and the desire to learn more about the specialty. From these themes, it can be gleaned that students are open to and eager for more opportunities to gain exposure and connections, and increasing the number of minority dermatologists is of importance.

Limitations—An important limitation of this study was the potential for selection bias, as the sample was chosen from a population at one university, which is not representative of the general population. Further, we only sampled students who were premedical and likely from a UiM racial group due to the demographics of the student population at the university, but given that the goal of the survey was to understand exposure to dermatology in underrepresented groups, we believe it was the appropriate population to target. Additionally, results were not compared with other more represented racial groups to see if these findings were unique to UiM undergraduate students.

Conclusion

Among premedical students, dermatology is an area of great interest with minimal opportunities available for exposure and learning because it is a smaller specialty with fewer experiences available for shadowing and mentorship. Although most UiM premedical students who were surveyed were exposed to the field through either the media or being a dermatology patient, fewer were exposed to the field through clinical experiences (such as shadowing) or mentorship. Most respondents found dermatology to be interesting and have considered pursuing it as a career. In particular, race-concordant mentoring in dermatologic care was valued by many students in garnering their interest in the field.

Most UiM students wanted more exposure to dermatology-related opportunities as well as mentorship and connections. Increasing shadowing, research, pipeline programs, and general events geared to dermatology are some modalities that could help improve exposure to dermatology for UiM students, especially for those interested in pursuing the field. This increased exposure can help positively influence more UiM students to pursue dermatology and help close the diversity gap in the field. Additionally, many were interested in attending potential dermatology informational events.

Given the fact that dermatology is a small field and mentorship may be hard to access, increasing informational events may be a more reasonable approach to inspiring and supporting interest. These events could include learning how to use certain tools and techniques, guest speaker events, or participating in educational volunteer efforts such as Learn2Derm.²⁶

Future research should focus on identifying beneficial factors of UiM premedical students who retain an interest in dermatology throughout their careers and actually apply to dermatology programs and become dermatologists. Those who do not apply to the specialty can be identified to understand potential dissuading factors and obstacles. Ultimately, more research and development of exposure opportunities, including mentorship programs and informational events, can be used to close the gap and improve diversity and health outcomes in dermatology.

Dermatology providers are at an increased risk for blood-borne pathogen (BBP) exposures during procedures in clinical practice.^1-3 Current data regarding the characterization of these exposures are limited. Prior studies are based on surveys that result in low response rates and potential for selection bias. Donnelly et al¹ reported a 26% response rate in a national survey-based study evaluating BBP exposures in resident physicians, fellows, and practicing dermatologists, with 85% of respondents reporting at least 1 injury. Similarly, Goulart et al² reported a 35% response rate in a survey evaluating sharps injuries in residents and medical students, with 85% reporting a sharps injury. In addition, there are conflicting data regarding characteristics of these exposures, including common implicated instruments and procedures.^1-3 Prior studies also have not evaluated exposures in all members of dermatologic staff, including resident physicians, practicing dermatologists, and ancillary staff.

To make appropriate quality improvements in dermatologic procedures, a more comprehensive understanding of BBP exposures is needed. We conducted a retrospective review of BBP incidence reports to identify the incidence of BBP events among all dermatologic staff, including resident physicians, practicing dermatologists, and ancillary staff. We further investigated the type of exposure, the type of procedure associated with each exposure, anatomic locations of exposures, and instruments involved in each exposure.

Methods

Data on BBP exposures in the dermatology departments were obtained from the occupational health departments at each of 3 Mayo Clinic sites—Scottsdale, Arizona; Jacksonville, Florida; and Rochester, Minnesota—from March 2010 through January 2021. The institutional review board at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, granted approval of this study (IRB #20-012625). A retrospective review of each exposure was conducted to identify the incidence of BBP exposures. Occupational BBP exposure was defined as any percutaneous injury or mucosal exposure with foreign blood, tissue, or other bodily fluids that placed the health care worker at risk for communicable infections. Secondary aims included identification of the type of exposure, type of procedure associated with each exposure, common anatomic locations of exposures, and common instruments involved in each exposure.

Statistical Analysis—Variables were summarized using counts and percentages. The 3 most common categories for each variable were then compared among occupational groups using the Fisher exact test. All other categories were grouped for analysis purposes. Medical staff were categorized into 3 occupational groups: practicing dermatologists; resident physicians; and ancillary staff, including nurse/medical assistants, physician assistants, and clinical laboratory technologists. All analyses were 2 sided and considered statistically significant at P<.05. Analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc).

Results

Type of Exposure—A total of 222 BBP exposures were identified through the trisite retrospective review from March 2010 through January 2021. One hundred ninety-nine (89.6%) of 222 exposures were attributed to needlesticks and medical sharps, while 23 (10.4%) of 222 exposures were attributed to splash incidents (Table).

Anatomic Sites Affected—The anatomic location most frequently involved was the thumb (130/217 events [59.9%]), followed by the hand (39/217 events [18.0%]) and finger (22/217 events [10.1%]). The arm, face, and knee were affected with the lowest frequency, with only 1 event reported at each anatomic site (0.5%)(eTable). Five incidents were excluded from the analysis of anatomic location because of insufficient details of events.

Incident Tasks and Tools—Most BBP exposures occurred during suturing or assisting with suturing (64/210 events [30.5%]), followed by handling of sharps, wires, or instruments (40/210 events [19.0%]) and medication administration (37/210 events [17.6%])(eTable). Twelve incidents were excluded from the analysis of implicated tasks because of insufficient details of events.

The tools involved in exposure events with the greatest prevalence included the suture needle (76/201 events [37.8%]), injection syringe/needle (43/201 events [21.4%]), and shave biopsy razor (24/201 events [11.9%])(eTable). Twenty-one incidents were excluded from the analysis of implicated instruments because of insufficient details of events.

Providers Affected by BBP Exposures—Resident physicians experienced the greatest number of BBP exposures (105/222 events [47.3%]), followed by ancillary providers (84/222 events [37.8%]) and practicing dermatologists (33/222 events [14.9%]). All occupational groups experienced more BBP exposures through needlesticks/medical sharps compared with splash incidents (resident physicians, 88.6%; ancillary staff, 91.7%; practicing dermatologists, 87.9%; P=.725)(Table).

Among resident physicians, practicing dermatologists, and ancillary staff, the most frequent site of injury was the thumb. Suturing/assisting with suturing was the most common task leading to injury, and the suture needle was the most common instrument of injury for both resident physicians and practicing dermatologists. Handling of sharps, wires, or instruments was the most common task leading to injury for ancillary staff, and the injection syringe/needle was the most common instrument of injury in this cohort.

Resident physicians experienced the lowest rate of BBP exposures during administration of medications (12.7%; P=.003). Ancillary staff experienced the highest rate of BBP exposures with an injection needle (35.5%; P=.001). There were no statistically significant differences among occupational groups for the anatomic location of injury (P=.074)(eTable).

Comment

In the year 2000, the annual global incidence of occupational BBP exposures among health care workers worldwide for hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and HIV was estimated at 2.1 million, 926,000, and 327,000, respectively. Most of these exposures were due to sharps injuries.⁴ Dermatologists are particularly at risk for BBP exposures given their reliance on frequent procedures in practice. During an 11-year period, 222 BBP exposures were documented in the dermatology departments at 3 Mayo Clinic institutions. Most exposures were due to needlestick/sharps across all occupational groups compared with splash injuries. Prior survey studies confirm that sharps injuries are frequently implicated, with 75% to 94% of residents and practicing dermatologists reporting at least 1 sharps injury.¹

Among occupational groups, resident physicians had the highest rate of BBP exposures, followed by nurse/medical assistants and practicing dermatologists, which may be secondary to lack of training or experience. Data from other surgical fields, including general surgery, support that resident physicians have the highest rate of sharps injuries.⁵ In a survey study (N=452), 51% of residents reported that extra training in safe techniques would be beneficial.² Safety training may be beneficial in reducing the incidence of BBP exposures in residency programs.

The most common implicated task in resident physicians and practicing dermatologists was suturing or assisting with suturing, and the most common implicated instrument was the suture needle. Prior studies showed conflicting data regarding common implicated tasks and instruments in this cohort.^1,2 The task of suturing and the suture needle also were the most implicated means of injury among other surgical specialties.⁶ Ancillary staff experienced most BBP exposures during handling of sharps, wires, or instruments, as well as the use of an injection needle. The designation of tasks among dermatologic staff likely explains the difference among occupational groups. This new information may provide the opportunity to improve safety measures among all members of the dermatologic team.

Limitations—There are several limitations to this study. This retrospective review was conducted at a single health system at 3 institutions. Hence, similar safety protocols likely were in place across all sites, which may reduce the generalizability of the results. In addition, there is risk of nonreporting bias among staff, as only documented incidence reports were evaluated. Prior studies demonstrated a nonreporting prevalence of 33% to 64% among dermatology staff.^1-3 We also did not evaluate whether injuries resulted in BBP exposure or transmission. The rates of postexposure prophylaxis also were not studied. This information was not available for review because of concerns for privacy. Demographic features, such as gender or years of training, also were not evaluated.

Conclusion

This study provides additional insight on the incidence of BBP exposures in dermatology, as well as the implicated tasks, instruments, and anatomic locations of injury. Studies show that implementing formal education regarding the risks of BBP exposure may result in reduction of sharps injuries.⁷ Formal education in residency programs may be needed in the field of dermatology to reduce BBP exposures. Quality improvement measures should focus on identified risk factors among occupational groups to reduce BBP exposures in the workplace.

Dermatology providers are at an increased risk for blood-borne pathogen (BBP) exposures during procedures in clinical practice.^1-3 Current data regarding the characterization of these exposures are limited. Prior studies are based on surveys that result in low response rates and potential for selection bias. Donnelly et al¹ reported a 26% response rate in a national survey-based study evaluating BBP exposures in resident physicians, fellows, and practicing dermatologists, with 85% of respondents reporting at least 1 injury. Similarly, Goulart et al² reported a 35% response rate in a survey evaluating sharps injuries in residents and medical students, with 85% reporting a sharps injury. In addition, there are conflicting data regarding characteristics of these exposures, including common implicated instruments and procedures.^1-3 Prior studies also have not evaluated exposures in all members of dermatologic staff, including resident physicians, practicing dermatologists, and ancillary staff.

To make appropriate quality improvements in dermatologic procedures, a more comprehensive understanding of BBP exposures is needed. We conducted a retrospective review of BBP incidence reports to identify the incidence of BBP events among all dermatologic staff, including resident physicians, practicing dermatologists, and ancillary staff. We further investigated the type of exposure, the type of procedure associated with each exposure, anatomic locations of exposures, and instruments involved in each exposure.

Methods

Data on BBP exposures in the dermatology departments were obtained from the occupational health departments at each of 3 Mayo Clinic sites—Scottsdale, Arizona; Jacksonville, Florida; and Rochester, Minnesota—from March 2010 through January 2021. The institutional review board at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, granted approval of this study (IRB #20-012625). A retrospective review of each exposure was conducted to identify the incidence of BBP exposures. Occupational BBP exposure was defined as any percutaneous injury or mucosal exposure with foreign blood, tissue, or other bodily fluids that placed the health care worker at risk for communicable infections. Secondary aims included identification of the type of exposure, type of procedure associated with each exposure, common anatomic locations of exposures, and common instruments involved in each exposure.

Statistical Analysis—Variables were summarized using counts and percentages. The 3 most common categories for each variable were then compared among occupational groups using the Fisher exact test. All other categories were grouped for analysis purposes. Medical staff were categorized into 3 occupational groups: practicing dermatologists; resident physicians; and ancillary staff, including nurse/medical assistants, physician assistants, and clinical laboratory technologists. All analyses were 2 sided and considered statistically significant at P<.05. Analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc).

Results

Type of Exposure—A total of 222 BBP exposures were identified through the trisite retrospective review from March 2010 through January 2021. One hundred ninety-nine (89.6%) of 222 exposures were attributed to needlesticks and medical sharps, while 23 (10.4%) of 222 exposures were attributed to splash incidents (Table).

Anatomic Sites Affected—The anatomic location most frequently involved was the thumb (130/217 events [59.9%]), followed by the hand (39/217 events [18.0%]) and finger (22/217 events [10.1%]). The arm, face, and knee were affected with the lowest frequency, with only 1 event reported at each anatomic site (0.5%)(eTable). Five incidents were excluded from the analysis of anatomic location because of insufficient details of events.

Incident Tasks and Tools—Most BBP exposures occurred during suturing or assisting with suturing (64/210 events [30.5%]), followed by handling of sharps, wires, or instruments (40/210 events [19.0%]) and medication administration (37/210 events [17.6%])(eTable). Twelve incidents were excluded from the analysis of implicated tasks because of insufficient details of events.

The tools involved in exposure events with the greatest prevalence included the suture needle (76/201 events [37.8%]), injection syringe/needle (43/201 events [21.4%]), and shave biopsy razor (24/201 events [11.9%])(eTable). Twenty-one incidents were excluded from the analysis of implicated instruments because of insufficient details of events.

Providers Affected by BBP Exposures—Resident physicians experienced the greatest number of BBP exposures (105/222 events [47.3%]), followed by ancillary providers (84/222 events [37.8%]) and practicing dermatologists (33/222 events [14.9%]). All occupational groups experienced more BBP exposures through needlesticks/medical sharps compared with splash incidents (resident physicians, 88.6%; ancillary staff, 91.7%; practicing dermatologists, 87.9%; P=.725)(Table).

Among resident physicians, practicing dermatologists, and ancillary staff, the most frequent site of injury was the thumb. Suturing/assisting with suturing was the most common task leading to injury, and the suture needle was the most common instrument of injury for both resident physicians and practicing dermatologists. Handling of sharps, wires, or instruments was the most common task leading to injury for ancillary staff, and the injection syringe/needle was the most common instrument of injury in this cohort.

Resident physicians experienced the lowest rate of BBP exposures during administration of medications (12.7%; P=.003). Ancillary staff experienced the highest rate of BBP exposures with an injection needle (35.5%; P=.001). There were no statistically significant differences among occupational groups for the anatomic location of injury (P=.074)(eTable).

Comment

In the year 2000, the annual global incidence of occupational BBP exposures among health care workers worldwide for hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and HIV was estimated at 2.1 million, 926,000, and 327,000, respectively. Most of these exposures were due to sharps injuries.⁴ Dermatologists are particularly at risk for BBP exposures given their reliance on frequent procedures in practice. During an 11-year period, 222 BBP exposures were documented in the dermatology departments at 3 Mayo Clinic institutions. Most exposures were due to needlestick/sharps across all occupational groups compared with splash injuries. Prior survey studies confirm that sharps injuries are frequently implicated, with 75% to 94% of residents and practicing dermatologists reporting at least 1 sharps injury.¹

Among occupational groups, resident physicians had the highest rate of BBP exposures, followed by nurse/medical assistants and practicing dermatologists, which may be secondary to lack of training or experience. Data from other surgical fields, including general surgery, support that resident physicians have the highest rate of sharps injuries.⁵ In a survey study (N=452), 51% of residents reported that extra training in safe techniques would be beneficial.² Safety training may be beneficial in reducing the incidence of BBP exposures in residency programs.

The most common implicated task in resident physicians and practicing dermatologists was suturing or assisting with suturing, and the most common implicated instrument was the suture needle. Prior studies showed conflicting data regarding common implicated tasks and instruments in this cohort.^1,2 The task of suturing and the suture needle also were the most implicated means of injury among other surgical specialties.⁶ Ancillary staff experienced most BBP exposures during handling of sharps, wires, or instruments, as well as the use of an injection needle. The designation of tasks among dermatologic staff likely explains the difference among occupational groups. This new information may provide the opportunity to improve safety measures among all members of the dermatologic team.

Limitations—There are several limitations to this study. This retrospective review was conducted at a single health system at 3 institutions. Hence, similar safety protocols likely were in place across all sites, which may reduce the generalizability of the results. In addition, there is risk of nonreporting bias among staff, as only documented incidence reports were evaluated. Prior studies demonstrated a nonreporting prevalence of 33% to 64% among dermatology staff.^1-3 We also did not evaluate whether injuries resulted in BBP exposure or transmission. The rates of postexposure prophylaxis also were not studied. This information was not available for review because of concerns for privacy. Demographic features, such as gender or years of training, also were not evaluated.

Conclusion

This study provides additional insight on the incidence of BBP exposures in dermatology, as well as the implicated tasks, instruments, and anatomic locations of injury. Studies show that implementing formal education regarding the risks of BBP exposure may result in reduction of sharps injuries.⁷ Formal education in residency programs may be needed in the field of dermatology to reduce BBP exposures. Quality improvement measures should focus on identified risk factors among occupational groups to reduce BBP exposures in the workplace.

Dermatology providers are at an increased risk for blood-borne pathogen (BBP) exposures during procedures in clinical practice.^1-3 Current data regarding the characterization of these exposures are limited. Prior studies are based on surveys that result in low response rates and potential for selection bias. Donnelly et al¹ reported a 26% response rate in a national survey-based study evaluating BBP exposures in resident physicians, fellows, and practicing dermatologists, with 85% of respondents reporting at least 1 injury. Similarly, Goulart et al² reported a 35% response rate in a survey evaluating sharps injuries in residents and medical students, with 85% reporting a sharps injury. In addition, there are conflicting data regarding characteristics of these exposures, including common implicated instruments and procedures.^1-3 Prior studies also have not evaluated exposures in all members of dermatologic staff, including resident physicians, practicing dermatologists, and ancillary staff.

To make appropriate quality improvements in dermatologic procedures, a more comprehensive understanding of BBP exposures is needed. We conducted a retrospective review of BBP incidence reports to identify the incidence of BBP events among all dermatologic staff, including resident physicians, practicing dermatologists, and ancillary staff. We further investigated the type of exposure, the type of procedure associated with each exposure, anatomic locations of exposures, and instruments involved in each exposure.

Methods

Data on BBP exposures in the dermatology departments were obtained from the occupational health departments at each of 3 Mayo Clinic sites—Scottsdale, Arizona; Jacksonville, Florida; and Rochester, Minnesota—from March 2010 through January 2021. The institutional review board at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, granted approval of this study (IRB #20-012625). A retrospective review of each exposure was conducted to identify the incidence of BBP exposures. Occupational BBP exposure was defined as any percutaneous injury or mucosal exposure with foreign blood, tissue, or other bodily fluids that placed the health care worker at risk for communicable infections. Secondary aims included identification of the type of exposure, type of procedure associated with each exposure, common anatomic locations of exposures, and common instruments involved in each exposure.

Statistical Analysis—Variables were summarized using counts and percentages. The 3 most common categories for each variable were then compared among occupational groups using the Fisher exact test. All other categories were grouped for analysis purposes. Medical staff were categorized into 3 occupational groups: practicing dermatologists; resident physicians; and ancillary staff, including nurse/medical assistants, physician assistants, and clinical laboratory technologists. All analyses were 2 sided and considered statistically significant at P<.05. Analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc).

Results

Type of Exposure—A total of 222 BBP exposures were identified through the trisite retrospective review from March 2010 through January 2021. One hundred ninety-nine (89.6%) of 222 exposures were attributed to needlesticks and medical sharps, while 23 (10.4%) of 222 exposures were attributed to splash incidents (Table).

Anatomic Sites Affected—The anatomic location most frequently involved was the thumb (130/217 events [59.9%]), followed by the hand (39/217 events [18.0%]) and finger (22/217 events [10.1%]). The arm, face, and knee were affected with the lowest frequency, with only 1 event reported at each anatomic site (0.5%)(eTable). Five incidents were excluded from the analysis of anatomic location because of insufficient details of events.

Incident Tasks and Tools—Most BBP exposures occurred during suturing or assisting with suturing (64/210 events [30.5%]), followed by handling of sharps, wires, or instruments (40/210 events [19.0%]) and medication administration (37/210 events [17.6%])(eTable). Twelve incidents were excluded from the analysis of implicated tasks because of insufficient details of events.

The tools involved in exposure events with the greatest prevalence included the suture needle (76/201 events [37.8%]), injection syringe/needle (43/201 events [21.4%]), and shave biopsy razor (24/201 events [11.9%])(eTable). Twenty-one incidents were excluded from the analysis of implicated instruments because of insufficient details of events.

Providers Affected by BBP Exposures—Resident physicians experienced the greatest number of BBP exposures (105/222 events [47.3%]), followed by ancillary providers (84/222 events [37.8%]) and practicing dermatologists (33/222 events [14.9%]). All occupational groups experienced more BBP exposures through needlesticks/medical sharps compared with splash incidents (resident physicians, 88.6%; ancillary staff, 91.7%; practicing dermatologists, 87.9%; P=.725)(Table).

Among resident physicians, practicing dermatologists, and ancillary staff, the most frequent site of injury was the thumb. Suturing/assisting with suturing was the most common task leading to injury, and the suture needle was the most common instrument of injury for both resident physicians and practicing dermatologists. Handling of sharps, wires, or instruments was the most common task leading to injury for ancillary staff, and the injection syringe/needle was the most common instrument of injury in this cohort.

Resident physicians experienced the lowest rate of BBP exposures during administration of medications (12.7%; P=.003). Ancillary staff experienced the highest rate of BBP exposures with an injection needle (35.5%; P=.001). There were no statistically significant differences among occupational groups for the anatomic location of injury (P=.074)(eTable).

Comment

In the year 2000, the annual global incidence of occupational BBP exposures among health care workers worldwide for hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and HIV was estimated at 2.1 million, 926,000, and 327,000, respectively. Most of these exposures were due to sharps injuries.⁴ Dermatologists are particularly at risk for BBP exposures given their reliance on frequent procedures in practice. During an 11-year period, 222 BBP exposures were documented in the dermatology departments at 3 Mayo Clinic institutions. Most exposures were due to needlestick/sharps across all occupational groups compared with splash injuries. Prior survey studies confirm that sharps injuries are frequently implicated, with 75% to 94% of residents and practicing dermatologists reporting at least 1 sharps injury.¹

Among occupational groups, resident physicians had the highest rate of BBP exposures, followed by nurse/medical assistants and practicing dermatologists, which may be secondary to lack of training or experience. Data from other surgical fields, including general surgery, support that resident physicians have the highest rate of sharps injuries.⁵ In a survey study (N=452), 51% of residents reported that extra training in safe techniques would be beneficial.² Safety training may be beneficial in reducing the incidence of BBP exposures in residency programs.

The most common implicated task in resident physicians and practicing dermatologists was suturing or assisting with suturing, and the most common implicated instrument was the suture needle. Prior studies showed conflicting data regarding common implicated tasks and instruments in this cohort.^1,2 The task of suturing and the suture needle also were the most implicated means of injury among other surgical specialties.⁶ Ancillary staff experienced most BBP exposures during handling of sharps, wires, or instruments, as well as the use of an injection needle. The designation of tasks among dermatologic staff likely explains the difference among occupational groups. This new information may provide the opportunity to improve safety measures among all members of the dermatologic team.

Limitations—There are several limitations to this study. This retrospective review was conducted at a single health system at 3 institutions. Hence, similar safety protocols likely were in place across all sites, which may reduce the generalizability of the results. In addition, there is risk of nonreporting bias among staff, as only documented incidence reports were evaluated. Prior studies demonstrated a nonreporting prevalence of 33% to 64% among dermatology staff.^1-3 We also did not evaluate whether injuries resulted in BBP exposure or transmission. The rates of postexposure prophylaxis also were not studied. This information was not available for review because of concerns for privacy. Demographic features, such as gender or years of training, also were not evaluated.

Conclusion

This study provides additional insight on the incidence of BBP exposures in dermatology, as well as the implicated tasks, instruments, and anatomic locations of injury. Studies show that implementing formal education regarding the risks of BBP exposure may result in reduction of sharps injuries.⁷ Formal education in residency programs may be needed in the field of dermatology to reduce BBP exposures. Quality improvement measures should focus on identified risk factors among occupational groups to reduce BBP exposures in the workplace.

Dermatology remains one of the most competitive specialties in medicine. In 2022, there were 851 applicants (613 doctor of medicine seniors, 85 doctor of osteopathic medicine seniors) for 492 postgraduate year (PGY) 2 positions.¹ During the 2022 application season, the average matched dermatology candidate had 7.2 research experiences; 20.9 abstracts, presentations, or publications; 11 volunteer experiences; and a US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 Clinical Knowledge score of 257.¹ With hopes of matching into such a competitive field, students often seek advice from academic dermatology mentors. Such advice may substantially differ based on each mentor and may or may not be evidence based.

We sought to analyze the range of advice given to medical students applying to dermatology residency programs via a survey to members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD) with the intent to help applicants and mentors understand how letters of intent, letters of recommendation (LORs), and Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) supplemental applications are used by dermatology programs nationwide.

Methods

The study was reviewed by The Ohio State University institutional review board and was deemed exempt. A branching-logic survey with common questions from medical students while applying to dermatology residency programs (Table) was sent to all members of APD through the email listserve. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at The Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio) to ensure data security.

The survey was distributed from August 28, 2022, to September 12, 2022. A total of 101 surveys were returned from 646 listserve members (15.6%). Given the branching-logic questions, differing numbers of responses were collected for each question. Descriptive statistics were utilized to analyze and report the results.

Results

Residency Program Number—Members of the APD were asked if they recommend students apply to a certain number of programs, and if so, how many programs. Of members who responded, 62.2% (61/98) either always (22.4% [22/98]) or sometimes (40.2% [39/97]) suggested students apply to a certain number of programs. When mentors made a recommendation, 54.1% (33/61) recommended applying to 59 or fewer programs, with only 9.8% (6/61) recommending students apply to 80 or more programs.

Gap Year—We queried mentors about their recommendations for a research gap year and asked which applicants should pursue this extra year. Our survey found that 74.5% of mentors (73/98) almost always (4.1% [4/98]) or sometimes (70.4% [69/98]) recommended a research gap year, most commonly for those applicants with a strong research interest (71.8% [51/71]). Other reasons mentors recommended a dedicated research year during medical school included low USMLE Step scores (50.7% [36/71]), low grades (45.1% [32/71]), little research (46.5% [33/71]), and no home program (43.7% [31/71]).

Internship Choices—Our survey results indicated that nearly two-thirds (63.3% [62/98]) of mentors did not give applicants a recommendation on type of internship (PGY-1). If a recommendation was given, academic dermatologists more commonly recommended an internal medicine preliminary year (29.6% [29/98]) over a transitional year (7.1% [7/98]).

Communication of Interest Via a Letter of Intent—We asked mentors if they recommended applicants send a letter of intent and conversely if receiving a letter of intent impacted their rank list. Nearly half (48.5% [47/97]) of mentors indicated they did not recommend sending a letter of intent, with only 15.5% (15/97) of mentors regularly recommending this practice. Additionally, 75.8% of mentors indicated that a letter of intent never (42.1% [40/95]) or rarely (33.7% [32/95]) impacted their rank list.

Rotation Choices—We queried mentors if they recommended students complete away rotations, and if so, how many rotations did they recommend. We found that 85.9% (85/99) of mentors recommended students complete an away rotation; 63.1% (53/84) of them recommended performing 2 away rotations, and 14.3% (12/84) of respondents recommended students complete 3 away rotations. More than a quarter of mentors (27.1% [23/85]) indicated their home medical schools limited the number of away rotations a medical student could complete in any 1 specialty, and 42.4% (36/85) of respondents were unsure if such a limitation existed.

Letters of Recommendation—Our survey asked respondents to rank various factors on a 5-point scale (1=not important; 5=very important) when deciding who should write the students’ LORs. Mentors indicated that the most important factor for letter-writer selection was how well the letter writer knows the applicant, with 90.8% (89/98) of mentors rating the importance of this quality as a 4 or 5 (Figure). More than half of respondents rated the name recognition of the letter writer and program director letter as a 4 or 5 in importance (54.1% [53/98] and 58.2% [57/98], respectively). Type of letter (standardized vs nonstandardized), title of letter writer, letters from an away rotation, and chair letter scored lower, with fewer than half of mentors rating these as a 4 or 5 in importance.

Supplemental Application—When asked about the 2022 application cycle, respondents of our survey reported that the supplemental application was overall more important in deciding which applicants to interview vs which to rank highly. Prior experiences were important (ranked 4 or 5) for 58.8% (57/97) of respondents in choosing applicants to interview, and 49.4% (48/97) of respondents thought prior experiences were important for ranking. Similarly, 34.0% (33/97) of mentors indicated geographic preference was important (ranked 4 or 5) for interview compared with only 23.8% (23/97) for ranking. Finally, 57.7% (56/97) of our survey respondents denoted that program signals were important or very important in choosing which applicants to interview, while 32.0% (31/97) indicated that program signals were important in ranking applicants.

Comment

Residency Programs: Which Ones, and How Many?—The number of applications for dermatology residency programs has increased 33.9% from 2010 to 2019.² The American Association of Medical Colleges Apply Smart data from 2013 to 2017 indicate that dermatology applicants arrive at a point of diminishing return between 37 and 62 applications, with variation within that range based on USMLE Step 1 score,³ and our data support this with nearly two-thirds of dermatology advisors recommending students apply within this range. Despite this data, dermatology residency applicants applied to more programs over the last decade (64.8 vs 77.0),² likely to maximize their chance of matching.

Research Gap Years During Medical School—Prior research has shown that nearly half of faculty indicated that a research year during medical school can distinguish similar applicants, and close to 25% of applicants completed a research gap year.^4,5 However, available data indicate that taking a research gap year has no effect on match rate or number of interview invites but does correlate with match rates at the highest ranked dermatology residency programs.^6-8

Our data indicate that the most commonly recommended reason for a research gap year was an applicants’ strong interest in research. However, nearly half of dermatology mentors recommended research years during medical school for reasons other than an interest in research. As research gap years increase in popularity, future research is needed to confirm the consequence of this additional year and which applicants, if any, will benefit from such a year.

Preferences for Intern Year—Prior research suggests that dermatology residency program directors favor PGY-1 preliminary medicine internships because of the rigor of training.^9,10 Our data continue to show a preference for internal medicine preliminary years over transitional years. However, given nearly two-thirds of dermatology mentors do not give applicants any recommendations on PGY-1 year, this preference may be fading.

Letters of Intent Not Recommended—Research in 2022 found that 78.8% of dermatology applicants sent a letter of intent communicating a plan to rank that program number 1, with nearly 13% sending such a letter to more than 1 program.¹¹ With nearly half of mentors in our survey actively discouraging this process and more than 75% of mentors not utilizing this letter, the APD issued a brief statement on the 2022-2023 application cycle stating, “Post-interview communication of preference—including ‘letters of intent’ and thank you letters—should not be sent to programs. These types of communication are typically not used by residency programs in decision-making and lead to downstream pressures on applicants.”¹²

Away Rotations—Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, data demonstrated that nearly one-third of dermatology applicants (29%) matched at their home institution, and nearly one-fifth (18%) matched where they completed an away rotation.¹³ In-person away rotations were eliminated in 2020 and restricted to 1 away rotation in 2021. Restrictions regarding away rotations were removed in 2022. Our data indicate that dermatology mentors strongly supported an away rotation, with more than half of them recommending at least 2 away rotations.

Further research is needed to determine the effect numerous away rotations have on minimizing students’ exposure to other specialties outside their chosen field. Additionally, further studies are needed to determine the impact away rotations have on economically disadvantaged students, students without home programs, and students with families. In an effort to standardize the number of away rotations, the APD issued a statement for the 2023-2024 application cycle indicating that dermatology applicants should limit away rotations to 2 in-person electives. Students without a home dermatology program could consider completing up to 3 electives.¹⁴

Who Should Write LORs?—Research in 2014 demonstrated that LORs were very important in determining applicants to interview, with a strong preference for LORs from academic dermatologists and colleagues.¹⁵ Our data strongly indicated applicants should predominantly ask for letters from writers who know them well. The majority of mentors did not give value to the rank of the letter writer (eg, assistant professor, associate professor, professor), type of letter, chair letters, or letters from an away rotation. These data may help alleviate stress many students feel as they search for letter writers.

How is the Supplemental Application Used?—In 2022, the ERAS supplemental application was introduced, which allowed applicants to detail 5 meaningful experiences, describe impactful life challenges, and indicate preferences for geographic region. Dermatology residency applicants also were able to choose 3 residency programs to signal interest in that program. Our data found that the supplemental application was utilized predominantly to select applicants to interview, which is in line with the Association of American Medical Colleges’ and APD guidelines indicating that this tool is solely meant to assist with application review.¹⁶ Further research and data will hopefully inform approaches to best utilize the ERAS supplemental application data.

Limitations—Our data were limited by response rate and sample size, as only academic dermatologists belonging to the APD were queried. Additionally, we did not track personal information of the mentors, so more than 1 mentor may have responded from a single institution, making it possible that our data may not be broadly applicable to all institutions.

Conclusion

Although there is no algorithmic method of advising medical students who are interested in dermatology, our survey data help to describe the range of advice currently given to students, which can improve and guide future recommendations. Additionally, some of our data demonstrate a discrepancy between mentor advice and current medical student practice for the number of applications and use of a letter of intent. We hope our data will assist academic dermatology mentors in the provision of advice to mentees as well as inform organizations seeking to create standards and official recommendations regarding aspects of the application process.

Dermatology remains one of the most competitive specialties in medicine. In 2022, there were 851 applicants (613 doctor of medicine seniors, 85 doctor of osteopathic medicine seniors) for 492 postgraduate year (PGY) 2 positions.¹ During the 2022 application season, the average matched dermatology candidate had 7.2 research experiences; 20.9 abstracts, presentations, or publications; 11 volunteer experiences; and a US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 Clinical Knowledge score of 257.¹ With hopes of matching into such a competitive field, students often seek advice from academic dermatology mentors. Such advice may substantially differ based on each mentor and may or may not be evidence based.

We sought to analyze the range of advice given to medical students applying to dermatology residency programs via a survey to members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD) with the intent to help applicants and mentors understand how letters of intent, letters of recommendation (LORs), and Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) supplemental applications are used by dermatology programs nationwide.

Methods

The study was reviewed by The Ohio State University institutional review board and was deemed exempt. A branching-logic survey with common questions from medical students while applying to dermatology residency programs (Table) was sent to all members of APD through the email listserve. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at The Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio) to ensure data security.

The survey was distributed from August 28, 2022, to September 12, 2022. A total of 101 surveys were returned from 646 listserve members (15.6%). Given the branching-logic questions, differing numbers of responses were collected for each question. Descriptive statistics were utilized to analyze and report the results.

Results

Residency Program Number—Members of the APD were asked if they recommend students apply to a certain number of programs, and if so, how many programs. Of members who responded, 62.2% (61/98) either always (22.4% [22/98]) or sometimes (40.2% [39/97]) suggested students apply to a certain number of programs. When mentors made a recommendation, 54.1% (33/61) recommended applying to 59 or fewer programs, with only 9.8% (6/61) recommending students apply to 80 or more programs.

Gap Year—We queried mentors about their recommendations for a research gap year and asked which applicants should pursue this extra year. Our survey found that 74.5% of mentors (73/98) almost always (4.1% [4/98]) or sometimes (70.4% [69/98]) recommended a research gap year, most commonly for those applicants with a strong research interest (71.8% [51/71]). Other reasons mentors recommended a dedicated research year during medical school included low USMLE Step scores (50.7% [36/71]), low grades (45.1% [32/71]), little research (46.5% [33/71]), and no home program (43.7% [31/71]).

Internship Choices—Our survey results indicated that nearly two-thirds (63.3% [62/98]) of mentors did not give applicants a recommendation on type of internship (PGY-1). If a recommendation was given, academic dermatologists more commonly recommended an internal medicine preliminary year (29.6% [29/98]) over a transitional year (7.1% [7/98]).

Communication of Interest Via a Letter of Intent—We asked mentors if they recommended applicants send a letter of intent and conversely if receiving a letter of intent impacted their rank list. Nearly half (48.5% [47/97]) of mentors indicated they did not recommend sending a letter of intent, with only 15.5% (15/97) of mentors regularly recommending this practice. Additionally, 75.8% of mentors indicated that a letter of intent never (42.1% [40/95]) or rarely (33.7% [32/95]) impacted their rank list.

Rotation Choices—We queried mentors if they recommended students complete away rotations, and if so, how many rotations did they recommend. We found that 85.9% (85/99) of mentors recommended students complete an away rotation; 63.1% (53/84) of them recommended performing 2 away rotations, and 14.3% (12/84) of respondents recommended students complete 3 away rotations. More than a quarter of mentors (27.1% [23/85]) indicated their home medical schools limited the number of away rotations a medical student could complete in any 1 specialty, and 42.4% (36/85) of respondents were unsure if such a limitation existed.

Letters of Recommendation—Our survey asked respondents to rank various factors on a 5-point scale (1=not important; 5=very important) when deciding who should write the students’ LORs. Mentors indicated that the most important factor for letter-writer selection was how well the letter writer knows the applicant, with 90.8% (89/98) of mentors rating the importance of this quality as a 4 or 5 (Figure). More than half of respondents rated the name recognition of the letter writer and program director letter as a 4 or 5 in importance (54.1% [53/98] and 58.2% [57/98], respectively). Type of letter (standardized vs nonstandardized), title of letter writer, letters from an away rotation, and chair letter scored lower, with fewer than half of mentors rating these as a 4 or 5 in importance.

Supplemental Application—When asked about the 2022 application cycle, respondents of our survey reported that the supplemental application was overall more important in deciding which applicants to interview vs which to rank highly. Prior experiences were important (ranked 4 or 5) for 58.8% (57/97) of respondents in choosing applicants to interview, and 49.4% (48/97) of respondents thought prior experiences were important for ranking. Similarly, 34.0% (33/97) of mentors indicated geographic preference was important (ranked 4 or 5) for interview compared with only 23.8% (23/97) for ranking. Finally, 57.7% (56/97) of our survey respondents denoted that program signals were important or very important in choosing which applicants to interview, while 32.0% (31/97) indicated that program signals were important in ranking applicants.

Comment

Residency Programs: Which Ones, and How Many?—The number of applications for dermatology residency programs has increased 33.9% from 2010 to 2019.² The American Association of Medical Colleges Apply Smart data from 2013 to 2017 indicate that dermatology applicants arrive at a point of diminishing return between 37 and 62 applications, with variation within that range based on USMLE Step 1 score,³ and our data support this with nearly two-thirds of dermatology advisors recommending students apply within this range. Despite this data, dermatology residency applicants applied to more programs over the last decade (64.8 vs 77.0),² likely to maximize their chance of matching.

Research Gap Years During Medical School—Prior research has shown that nearly half of faculty indicated that a research year during medical school can distinguish similar applicants, and close to 25% of applicants completed a research gap year.^4,5 However, available data indicate that taking a research gap year has no effect on match rate or number of interview invites but does correlate with match rates at the highest ranked dermatology residency programs.^6-8

Our data indicate that the most commonly recommended reason for a research gap year was an applicants’ strong interest in research. However, nearly half of dermatology mentors recommended research years during medical school for reasons other than an interest in research. As research gap years increase in popularity, future research is needed to confirm the consequence of this additional year and which applicants, if any, will benefit from such a year.

Preferences for Intern Year—Prior research suggests that dermatology residency program directors favor PGY-1 preliminary medicine internships because of the rigor of training.^9,10 Our data continue to show a preference for internal medicine preliminary years over transitional years. However, given nearly two-thirds of dermatology mentors do not give applicants any recommendations on PGY-1 year, this preference may be fading.

Letters of Intent Not Recommended—Research in 2022 found that 78.8% of dermatology applicants sent a letter of intent communicating a plan to rank that program number 1, with nearly 13% sending such a letter to more than 1 program.¹¹ With nearly half of mentors in our survey actively discouraging this process and more than 75% of mentors not utilizing this letter, the APD issued a brief statement on the 2022-2023 application cycle stating, “Post-interview communication of preference—including ‘letters of intent’ and thank you letters—should not be sent to programs. These types of communication are typically not used by residency programs in decision-making and lead to downstream pressures on applicants.”¹²

Away Rotations—Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, data demonstrated that nearly one-third of dermatology applicants (29%) matched at their home institution, and nearly one-fifth (18%) matched where they completed an away rotation.¹³ In-person away rotations were eliminated in 2020 and restricted to 1 away rotation in 2021. Restrictions regarding away rotations were removed in 2022. Our data indicate that dermatology mentors strongly supported an away rotation, with more than half of them recommending at least 2 away rotations.

Further research is needed to determine the effect numerous away rotations have on minimizing students’ exposure to other specialties outside their chosen field. Additionally, further studies are needed to determine the impact away rotations have on economically disadvantaged students, students without home programs, and students with families. In an effort to standardize the number of away rotations, the APD issued a statement for the 2023-2024 application cycle indicating that dermatology applicants should limit away rotations to 2 in-person electives. Students without a home dermatology program could consider completing up to 3 electives.¹⁴

Who Should Write LORs?—Research in 2014 demonstrated that LORs were very important in determining applicants to interview, with a strong preference for LORs from academic dermatologists and colleagues.¹⁵ Our data strongly indicated applicants should predominantly ask for letters from writers who know them well. The majority of mentors did not give value to the rank of the letter writer (eg, assistant professor, associate professor, professor), type of letter, chair letters, or letters from an away rotation. These data may help alleviate stress many students feel as they search for letter writers.

How is the Supplemental Application Used?—In 2022, the ERAS supplemental application was introduced, which allowed applicants to detail 5 meaningful experiences, describe impactful life challenges, and indicate preferences for geographic region. Dermatology residency applicants also were able to choose 3 residency programs to signal interest in that program. Our data found that the supplemental application was utilized predominantly to select applicants to interview, which is in line with the Association of American Medical Colleges’ and APD guidelines indicating that this tool is solely meant to assist with application review.¹⁶ Further research and data will hopefully inform approaches to best utilize the ERAS supplemental application data.

Limitations—Our data were limited by response rate and sample size, as only academic dermatologists belonging to the APD were queried. Additionally, we did not track personal information of the mentors, so more than 1 mentor may have responded from a single institution, making it possible that our data may not be broadly applicable to all institutions.

Conclusion

Although there is no algorithmic method of advising medical students who are interested in dermatology, our survey data help to describe the range of advice currently given to students, which can improve and guide future recommendations. Additionally, some of our data demonstrate a discrepancy between mentor advice and current medical student practice for the number of applications and use of a letter of intent. We hope our data will assist academic dermatology mentors in the provision of advice to mentees as well as inform organizations seeking to create standards and official recommendations regarding aspects of the application process.

Dermatology remains one of the most competitive specialties in medicine. In 2022, there were 851 applicants (613 doctor of medicine seniors, 85 doctor of osteopathic medicine seniors) for 492 postgraduate year (PGY) 2 positions.¹ During the 2022 application season, the average matched dermatology candidate had 7.2 research experiences; 20.9 abstracts, presentations, or publications; 11 volunteer experiences; and a US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 Clinical Knowledge score of 257.¹ With hopes of matching into such a competitive field, students often seek advice from academic dermatology mentors. Such advice may substantially differ based on each mentor and may or may not be evidence based.

We sought to analyze the range of advice given to medical students applying to dermatology residency programs via a survey to members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD) with the intent to help applicants and mentors understand how letters of intent, letters of recommendation (LORs), and Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) supplemental applications are used by dermatology programs nationwide.

Methods

The study was reviewed by The Ohio State University institutional review board and was deemed exempt. A branching-logic survey with common questions from medical students while applying to dermatology residency programs (Table) was sent to all members of APD through the email listserve. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at The Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio) to ensure data security.

The survey was distributed from August 28, 2022, to September 12, 2022. A total of 101 surveys were returned from 646 listserve members (15.6%). Given the branching-logic questions, differing numbers of responses were collected for each question. Descriptive statistics were utilized to analyze and report the results.

Results

Residency Program Number—Members of the APD were asked if they recommend students apply to a certain number of programs, and if so, how many programs. Of members who responded, 62.2% (61/98) either always (22.4% [22/98]) or sometimes (40.2% [39/97]) suggested students apply to a certain number of programs. When mentors made a recommendation, 54.1% (33/61) recommended applying to 59 or fewer programs, with only 9.8% (6/61) recommending students apply to 80 or more programs.

Gap Year—We queried mentors about their recommendations for a research gap year and asked which applicants should pursue this extra year. Our survey found that 74.5% of mentors (73/98) almost always (4.1% [4/98]) or sometimes (70.4% [69/98]) recommended a research gap year, most commonly for those applicants with a strong research interest (71.8% [51/71]). Other reasons mentors recommended a dedicated research year during medical school included low USMLE Step scores (50.7% [36/71]), low grades (45.1% [32/71]), little research (46.5% [33/71]), and no home program (43.7% [31/71]).

Internship Choices—Our survey results indicated that nearly two-thirds (63.3% [62/98]) of mentors did not give applicants a recommendation on type of internship (PGY-1). If a recommendation was given, academic dermatologists more commonly recommended an internal medicine preliminary year (29.6% [29/98]) over a transitional year (7.1% [7/98]).

Communication of Interest Via a Letter of Intent—We asked mentors if they recommended applicants send a letter of intent and conversely if receiving a letter of intent impacted their rank list. Nearly half (48.5% [47/97]) of mentors indicated they did not recommend sending a letter of intent, with only 15.5% (15/97) of mentors regularly recommending this practice. Additionally, 75.8% of mentors indicated that a letter of intent never (42.1% [40/95]) or rarely (33.7% [32/95]) impacted their rank list.

Rotation Choices—We queried mentors if they recommended students complete away rotations, and if so, how many rotations did they recommend. We found that 85.9% (85/99) of mentors recommended students complete an away rotation; 63.1% (53/84) of them recommended performing 2 away rotations, and 14.3% (12/84) of respondents recommended students complete 3 away rotations. More than a quarter of mentors (27.1% [23/85]) indicated their home medical schools limited the number of away rotations a medical student could complete in any 1 specialty, and 42.4% (36/85) of respondents were unsure if such a limitation existed.

Letters of Recommendation—Our survey asked respondents to rank various factors on a 5-point scale (1=not important; 5=very important) when deciding who should write the students’ LORs. Mentors indicated that the most important factor for letter-writer selection was how well the letter writer knows the applicant, with 90.8% (89/98) of mentors rating the importance of this quality as a 4 or 5 (Figure). More than half of respondents rated the name recognition of the letter writer and program director letter as a 4 or 5 in importance (54.1% [53/98] and 58.2% [57/98], respectively). Type of letter (standardized vs nonstandardized), title of letter writer, letters from an away rotation, and chair letter scored lower, with fewer than half of mentors rating these as a 4 or 5 in importance.

Supplemental Application—When asked about the 2022 application cycle, respondents of our survey reported that the supplemental application was overall more important in deciding which applicants to interview vs which to rank highly. Prior experiences were important (ranked 4 or 5) for 58.8% (57/97) of respondents in choosing applicants to interview, and 49.4% (48/97) of respondents thought prior experiences were important for ranking. Similarly, 34.0% (33/97) of mentors indicated geographic preference was important (ranked 4 or 5) for interview compared with only 23.8% (23/97) for ranking. Finally, 57.7% (56/97) of our survey respondents denoted that program signals were important or very important in choosing which applicants to interview, while 32.0% (31/97) indicated that program signals were important in ranking applicants.

Comment

Residency Programs: Which Ones, and How Many?—The number of applications for dermatology residency programs has increased 33.9% from 2010 to 2019.² The American Association of Medical Colleges Apply Smart data from 2013 to 2017 indicate that dermatology applicants arrive at a point of diminishing return between 37 and 62 applications, with variation within that range based on USMLE Step 1 score,³ and our data support this with nearly two-thirds of dermatology advisors recommending students apply within this range. Despite this data, dermatology residency applicants applied to more programs over the last decade (64.8 vs 77.0),² likely to maximize their chance of matching.

Research Gap Years During Medical School—Prior research has shown that nearly half of faculty indicated that a research year during medical school can distinguish similar applicants, and close to 25% of applicants completed a research gap year.^4,5 However, available data indicate that taking a research gap year has no effect on match rate or number of interview invites but does correlate with match rates at the highest ranked dermatology residency programs.^6-8

Our data indicate that the most commonly recommended reason for a research gap year was an applicants’ strong interest in research. However, nearly half of dermatology mentors recommended research years during medical school for reasons other than an interest in research. As research gap years increase in popularity, future research is needed to confirm the consequence of this additional year and which applicants, if any, will benefit from such a year.

Preferences for Intern Year—Prior research suggests that dermatology residency program directors favor PGY-1 preliminary medicine internships because of the rigor of training.^9,10 Our data continue to show a preference for internal medicine preliminary years over transitional years. However, given nearly two-thirds of dermatology mentors do not give applicants any recommendations on PGY-1 year, this preference may be fading.

Letters of Intent Not Recommended—Research in 2022 found that 78.8% of dermatology applicants sent a letter of intent communicating a plan to rank that program number 1, with nearly 13% sending such a letter to more than 1 program.¹¹ With nearly half of mentors in our survey actively discouraging this process and more than 75% of mentors not utilizing this letter, the APD issued a brief statement on the 2022-2023 application cycle stating, “Post-interview communication of preference—including ‘letters of intent’ and thank you letters—should not be sent to programs. These types of communication are typically not used by residency programs in decision-making and lead to downstream pressures on applicants.”¹²

Away Rotations—Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, data demonstrated that nearly one-third of dermatology applicants (29%) matched at their home institution, and nearly one-fifth (18%) matched where they completed an away rotation.¹³ In-person away rotations were eliminated in 2020 and restricted to 1 away rotation in 2021. Restrictions regarding away rotations were removed in 2022. Our data indicate that dermatology mentors strongly supported an away rotation, with more than half of them recommending at least 2 away rotations.

Further research is needed to determine the effect numerous away rotations have on minimizing students’ exposure to other specialties outside their chosen field. Additionally, further studies are needed to determine the impact away rotations have on economically disadvantaged students, students without home programs, and students with families. In an effort to standardize the number of away rotations, the APD issued a statement for the 2023-2024 application cycle indicating that dermatology applicants should limit away rotations to 2 in-person electives. Students without a home dermatology program could consider completing up to 3 electives.¹⁴

Who Should Write LORs?—Research in 2014 demonstrated that LORs were very important in determining applicants to interview, with a strong preference for LORs from academic dermatologists and colleagues.¹⁵ Our data strongly indicated applicants should predominantly ask for letters from writers who know them well. The majority of mentors did not give value to the rank of the letter writer (eg, assistant professor, associate professor, professor), type of letter, chair letters, or letters from an away rotation. These data may help alleviate stress many students feel as they search for letter writers.

How is the Supplemental Application Used?—In 2022, the ERAS supplemental application was introduced, which allowed applicants to detail 5 meaningful experiences, describe impactful life challenges, and indicate preferences for geographic region. Dermatology residency applicants also were able to choose 3 residency programs to signal interest in that program. Our data found that the supplemental application was utilized predominantly to select applicants to interview, which is in line with the Association of American Medical Colleges’ and APD guidelines indicating that this tool is solely meant to assist with application review.¹⁶ Further research and data will hopefully inform approaches to best utilize the ERAS supplemental application data.

Limitations—Our data were limited by response rate and sample size, as only academic dermatologists belonging to the APD were queried. Additionally, we did not track personal information of the mentors, so more than 1 mentor may have responded from a single institution, making it possible that our data may not be broadly applicable to all institutions.

Conclusion

Although there is no algorithmic method of advising medical students who are interested in dermatology, our survey data help to describe the range of advice currently given to students, which can improve and guide future recommendations. Additionally, some of our data demonstrate a discrepancy between mentor advice and current medical student practice for the number of applications and use of a letter of intent. We hope our data will assist academic dermatology mentors in the provision of advice to mentees as well as inform organizations seeking to create standards and official recommendations regarding aspects of the application process.

Hair loss is an exceedingly common chief concern in outpatient dermatology clinics. An estimated 50% of males and females will experience androgenetic alopecia.¹ Approximately 2% of new dermatology outpatient visits in the United States and the United Kingdom are for alopecia areata, the second most common type of hair loss.² As access to dermatology appointments remains an issue with some studies citing wait times ranging from 2 to 25 days for a dermatologic consultation, the ease of accessibility of medical information on social media continues to grow,³ which leaves many of our patients turning to social media as a first-line source of information. As dermatology resident physicians, it is essential to be aware of popular dermatologic therapies on social media so that we may provide evidence-based opinions to our patients.

Remedies for Hair Loss on Social Media

Many trends on hair loss therapies found on TikTok focus on natural remedies that are produced by ingredients accessible to patients at home and over the counter, which may increase the appeal due to ease of treatment.

Rosemary Oil—The top trends in hair loss remedies I have come across are rosemary oil and rosemary water. Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) has been known to possess antimicrobial and antioxidant properties but also has shown enhancement of microcapillary perfusion, which could explain its role in the prevention of hair loss and aiding hair growth in a similar mechanism to minoxidil.^4,5 Unlike many other natural hair loss remedies, there are randomized controlled trials that assess the efficacy of rosemary oil for the treatment of hair loss. In a 2015 study of 100 patients with androgenetic alopecia,there was no statistically significant difference in mean hair count measured by microphotographic assessment after 6 months of treatment in 2 groups treated with either minoxidil solution 2% or rosemary oil, and both groups experienced a significant increase in hair count at 6 months (P<.05) compared with baseline and 3 months.⁶ Additionally, essential oils, including a mixture of thyme, rosemary, lavender, and cedarwood oils for alopecia were superior to placebo carrier oils in a posttreatment photographic assessment of their efficacy.⁷

Rice Water—The use of rice water and rice bran extract is a common hair care practice in Asia. Rice bran extract preparations have been shown in vivo to increase the number of anagen hair follicles as well as the number of anagen-related molecules in the dermal papillae.^8,9 However, there are limited clinical data to support the use of rice water for hair growth.¹⁰

Onion Juice—Sharquie and Al-Obaidi¹¹ conducted a study comparing crude onion juice to tap water in 38 patients with alopecia areata. They found that onion juice produced hair regrowth in significantly more patients than tap water (P<.0001).¹¹ The mechanism of crude onion juice in hair growth is unknown; however, the induction of irritant or allergic contact dermatitis to components in crude onion juice may stimulate antigenic competition.¹²

Garlic Gel—Garlic gel, which is in the genus Allium, produces organosulfur compounds that provide antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory benefits.¹² Additionally, in a double-blind randomized controlled trial, garlic powder was shown to increase cutaneous capillary perfusion.⁵ One study in 40 patients with alopecia areata demonstrated garlic gel 5% added to betamethasone valerate cream 0.1% was statistically superior to betamethasone alone in stimulating terminal hair growth (P=.001).¹³

Limitations and Downsides to Hair Loss Remedies on Social Media

Social media continues to be a prominent source of medical information for our patients, but most sources of hair content on social media are not board-certified dermatologists. A recent review of alopecia-related content found only 4% and 10% of posts were created by medical professionals on Instagram and TikTok, respectively, making misinformation extremely likely.¹⁴ Natural hair loss remedies contrived by TikTok have little clinical evidence to support their claims. Few data are available that compare these treatments to gold-standard hair loss therapies. Additionally, while some of these agents may be beneficial, the lack of standardized dosing may counteract these benefits. For example, videos on rosemary water advise the viewer to boil fresh rosemary sprigs in water and apply the solution to the hair daily with a spray bottle or apply cloves of garlic directly to the scalp, as opposed to a measured and standardized percentage. Some preparations may even induce harm to patients. Over-the-counter oils with added fragrances and natural compounds in onion and garlic may cause contact dermatitis. Finally, by using these products, patients may delay consultation with a board-certified dermatologist, leading to delays in applying evidence-based therapies targeted to specific hair loss subtypes while also incurring unnecessary expenses for these preparations.

Final Thoughts

Hair loss affects a notable portion of the population and is a common chief concern in dermatology clinics. Misinformation on social media continues to grow in prevalence. It is important to be aware of the hair loss remedies that are commonly touted to patients online and the evidence behind them.

Hair loss is an exceedingly common chief concern in outpatient dermatology clinics. An estimated 50% of males and females will experience androgenetic alopecia.¹ Approximately 2% of new dermatology outpatient visits in the United States and the United Kingdom are for alopecia areata, the second most common type of hair loss.² As access to dermatology appointments remains an issue with some studies citing wait times ranging from 2 to 25 days for a dermatologic consultation, the ease of accessibility of medical information on social media continues to grow,³ which leaves many of our patients turning to social media as a first-line source of information. As dermatology resident physicians, it is essential to be aware of popular dermatologic therapies on social media so that we may provide evidence-based opinions to our patients.

Remedies for Hair Loss on Social Media

Many trends on hair loss therapies found on TikTok focus on natural remedies that are produced by ingredients accessible to patients at home and over the counter, which may increase the appeal due to ease of treatment.

Rosemary Oil—The top trends in hair loss remedies I have come across are rosemary oil and rosemary water. Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) has been known to possess antimicrobial and antioxidant properties but also has shown enhancement of microcapillary perfusion, which could explain its role in the prevention of hair loss and aiding hair growth in a similar mechanism to minoxidil.^4,5 Unlike many other natural hair loss remedies, there are randomized controlled trials that assess the efficacy of rosemary oil for the treatment of hair loss. In a 2015 study of 100 patients with androgenetic alopecia,there was no statistically significant difference in mean hair count measured by microphotographic assessment after 6 months of treatment in 2 groups treated with either minoxidil solution 2% or rosemary oil, and both groups experienced a significant increase in hair count at 6 months (P<.05) compared with baseline and 3 months.⁶ Additionally, essential oils, including a mixture of thyme, rosemary, lavender, and cedarwood oils for alopecia were superior to placebo carrier oils in a posttreatment photographic assessment of their efficacy.⁷

Rice Water—The use of rice water and rice bran extract is a common hair care practice in Asia. Rice bran extract preparations have been shown in vivo to increase the number of anagen hair follicles as well as the number of anagen-related molecules in the dermal papillae.^8,9 However, there are limited clinical data to support the use of rice water for hair growth.¹⁰

Onion Juice—Sharquie and Al-Obaidi¹¹ conducted a study comparing crude onion juice to tap water in 38 patients with alopecia areata. They found that onion juice produced hair regrowth in significantly more patients than tap water (P<.0001).¹¹ The mechanism of crude onion juice in hair growth is unknown; however, the induction of irritant or allergic contact dermatitis to components in crude onion juice may stimulate antigenic competition.¹²

Garlic Gel—Garlic gel, which is in the genus Allium, produces organosulfur compounds that provide antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory benefits.¹² Additionally, in a double-blind randomized controlled trial, garlic powder was shown to increase cutaneous capillary perfusion.⁵ One study in 40 patients with alopecia areata demonstrated garlic gel 5% added to betamethasone valerate cream 0.1% was statistically superior to betamethasone alone in stimulating terminal hair growth (P=.001).¹³

Limitations and Downsides to Hair Loss Remedies on Social Media

Social media continues to be a prominent source of medical information for our patients, but most sources of hair content on social media are not board-certified dermatologists. A recent review of alopecia-related content found only 4% and 10% of posts were created by medical professionals on Instagram and TikTok, respectively, making misinformation extremely likely.¹⁴ Natural hair loss remedies contrived by TikTok have little clinical evidence to support their claims. Few data are available that compare these treatments to gold-standard hair loss therapies. Additionally, while some of these agents may be beneficial, the lack of standardized dosing may counteract these benefits. For example, videos on rosemary water advise the viewer to boil fresh rosemary sprigs in water and apply the solution to the hair daily with a spray bottle or apply cloves of garlic directly to the scalp, as opposed to a measured and standardized percentage. Some preparations may even induce harm to patients. Over-the-counter oils with added fragrances and natural compounds in onion and garlic may cause contact dermatitis. Finally, by using these products, patients may delay consultation with a board-certified dermatologist, leading to delays in applying evidence-based therapies targeted to specific hair loss subtypes while also incurring unnecessary expenses for these preparations.

Final Thoughts

Hair loss affects a notable portion of the population and is a common chief concern in dermatology clinics. Misinformation on social media continues to grow in prevalence. It is important to be aware of the hair loss remedies that are commonly touted to patients online and the evidence behind them.

Hair loss is an exceedingly common chief concern in outpatient dermatology clinics. An estimated 50% of males and females will experience androgenetic alopecia.¹ Approximately 2% of new dermatology outpatient visits in the United States and the United Kingdom are for alopecia areata, the second most common type of hair loss.² As access to dermatology appointments remains an issue with some studies citing wait times ranging from 2 to 25 days for a dermatologic consultation, the ease of accessibility of medical information on social media continues to grow,³ which leaves many of our patients turning to social media as a first-line source of information. As dermatology resident physicians, it is essential to be aware of popular dermatologic therapies on social media so that we may provide evidence-based opinions to our patients.

Remedies for Hair Loss on Social Media

Many trends on hair loss therapies found on TikTok focus on natural remedies that are produced by ingredients accessible to patients at home and over the counter, which may increase the appeal due to ease of treatment.

Rosemary Oil—The top trends in hair loss remedies I have come across are rosemary oil and rosemary water. Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) has been known to possess antimicrobial and antioxidant properties but also has shown enhancement of microcapillary perfusion, which could explain its role in the prevention of hair loss and aiding hair growth in a similar mechanism to minoxidil.^4,5 Unlike many other natural hair loss remedies, there are randomized controlled trials that assess the efficacy of rosemary oil for the treatment of hair loss. In a 2015 study of 100 patients with androgenetic alopecia,there was no statistically significant difference in mean hair count measured by microphotographic assessment after 6 months of treatment in 2 groups treated with either minoxidil solution 2% or rosemary oil, and both groups experienced a significant increase in hair count at 6 months (P<.05) compared with baseline and 3 months.⁶ Additionally, essential oils, including a mixture of thyme, rosemary, lavender, and cedarwood oils for alopecia were superior to placebo carrier oils in a posttreatment photographic assessment of their efficacy.⁷

Rice Water—The use of rice water and rice bran extract is a common hair care practice in Asia. Rice bran extract preparations have been shown in vivo to increase the number of anagen hair follicles as well as the number of anagen-related molecules in the dermal papillae.^8,9 However, there are limited clinical data to support the use of rice water for hair growth.¹⁰

Onion Juice—Sharquie and Al-Obaidi¹¹ conducted a study comparing crude onion juice to tap water in 38 patients with alopecia areata. They found that onion juice produced hair regrowth in significantly more patients than tap water (P<.0001).¹¹ The mechanism of crude onion juice in hair growth is unknown; however, the induction of irritant or allergic contact dermatitis to components in crude onion juice may stimulate antigenic competition.¹²

Garlic Gel—Garlic gel, which is in the genus Allium, produces organosulfur compounds that provide antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory benefits.¹² Additionally, in a double-blind randomized controlled trial, garlic powder was shown to increase cutaneous capillary perfusion.⁵ One study in 40 patients with alopecia areata demonstrated garlic gel 5% added to betamethasone valerate cream 0.1% was statistically superior to betamethasone alone in stimulating terminal hair growth (P=.001).¹³

Limitations and Downsides to Hair Loss Remedies on Social Media

Social media continues to be a prominent source of medical information for our patients, but most sources of hair content on social media are not board-certified dermatologists. A recent review of alopecia-related content found only 4% and 10% of posts were created by medical professionals on Instagram and TikTok, respectively, making misinformation extremely likely.¹⁴ Natural hair loss remedies contrived by TikTok have little clinical evidence to support their claims. Few data are available that compare these treatments to gold-standard hair loss therapies. Additionally, while some of these agents may be beneficial, the lack of standardized dosing may counteract these benefits. For example, videos on rosemary water advise the viewer to boil fresh rosemary sprigs in water and apply the solution to the hair daily with a spray bottle or apply cloves of garlic directly to the scalp, as opposed to a measured and standardized percentage. Some preparations may even induce harm to patients. Over-the-counter oils with added fragrances and natural compounds in onion and garlic may cause contact dermatitis. Finally, by using these products, patients may delay consultation with a board-certified dermatologist, leading to delays in applying evidence-based therapies targeted to specific hair loss subtypes while also incurring unnecessary expenses for these preparations.

Final Thoughts

Hair loss affects a notable portion of the population and is a common chief concern in dermatology clinics. Misinformation on social media continues to grow in prevalence. It is important to be aware of the hair loss remedies that are commonly touted to patients online and the evidence behind them.

Psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) are a physical manifestation of a psychological disturbance. They are characterized by episodes of altered subjective experience and movements that can resemble epilepsy, syncope, or other paroxysmal disorders, but are not caused by neuronal hypersynchronization or other epileptic semiology.¹ Asynchronous movements, closed eyes, crying, stuttering, side-to-side head movement, and pelvic thrusting may be observed, all of which are atypical of epileptic seizures.¹ PNES, a syndrome of “pseudo-seizures,” is recognized in 11% of convulsive seizure cases presenting to the emergency department (ED).² PNES can co-occur with epilepsy; in 2 population-based studies, the pooled rate of EEG-confirmed comorbid epilepsy in PNES was 14%.³

Patients with PNES may present to multiple clinicians and hospitals for assessment. Access to outside hospital records can be limited, which can lead to redundant testing and increased health care costs and burden. Additionally, repeat presentations can increase stigmatization of the patient and delay or prevent appropriate therapeutic management, which might exacerbate a patient’s underlying psychiatric condition and could be dangerous in a patient with a co-occurring true seizure disorder. Though obtaining and reviewing external medical records can be cumbersome, doing so may prevent unnecessary testing, guide medical treatment, and strengthen the patient-doctor therapeutic alliance.

In this article, I discuss our treatment team’s management of a patient with PNES who, based on our careful review of records from previous hospitalizations, may have had a co-occurring true seizure disorder.

Case report

Ms. M, age 31, has a medical history of anxiety, depression, first-degree atrioventricular block, type 2 diabetes, and PNES. She presented to the ED with witnessed seizure activity at home.

According to collateral information, earlier that day Ms. M said she felt like she was seizing and began mumbling, but returned to baseline within a few minutes. Later, she demonstrated intermittent upper and lower extremity shaking for more than 1 hour. At one point, Ms. M appeared to be not breathing. However, upon initiation of chest compressions, she began gasping for air and immediately returned to baseline.

In the ED, Ms. M demonstrated multiple seizure-like episodes every 5 minutes, each lasting 5 to 10 seconds. These episodes were described as thrashing of the bilateral limbs and head crossing midline with eyes closed. No urinary incontinence or tongue biting was observed. Following each episode, Ms. M was unresponsive to verbal or tactile stimuli but intermittently opened her eyes. Laboratory test results were notable for an elevated serum lactate and positive for cannabinoids on urine drug screen.

Ms. M expressed frustration when told that her seizures were psychogenic. She was adamant that she had a true seizure disorder, demanded testing, and threatened to leave against medical advice without it. She said her brother had epilepsy, and thus she knew how seizures present. The interview was complicated by Ms. M’s mistrust and Cluster B personality disorder traits, such as splitting staff into “good and bad.” Ultimately, she was able to be reassured and did not leave the hospital.

Continue to: The treatment team...

The treatment team reviewed external records from 2 hospitals, Hospital A and Hospital B. These records showed well-documented inpatient and outpatient Psychiatry and Neurology diagnoses of PNES and other conversion disorders. Her medications included 2 anticonvulsants—topiramate 200 mg every 12 hours and oxcarbazepine 300 mg every 12 hours—as well as clonazepam 0.5 mg as needed for seizures and anxiety.

Ms. M’s first lifetime documented seizure occurred in May 2020, when she woke up with tongue biting, extremity shaking (laterality was unclear), and urinary incontinence followed by fatigue. She did not go to the hospital after this first episode. In June 2020, she presented and was admitted to Hospital A after similar seizure-like activity. While admitted and monitored on continuous EEG (cEEG), she had numerous events consistent with a nonepileptic etiology without a postictal state. A brain MRI was unremarkable, and Ms. M was diagnosed with PNES.

She presented to Hospital B in October 2020 reporting seizure-like activity. Hospital B reviewed Hospital A’s brain MRI and found right temporal lobe cortical dysplasia that was not noted in Hospital A’s MRI read. Ms. M again underwent cEEG while at Hospital B and had 2 recorded nonepileptic events. Interestingly, the cEEG demonstrated right temporal spikes that were consistent with the dysplasia location on the MRI. Ms. M was discharged and instructed to keep a seizure journal until outpatient follow-up.

Ms. M documented 3 seizure-like events between October and December 2020. She documented activity with and without full-body convulsions, some with laterality, some with loss of consciousness, and some preceded by an aura of impending doom. Ms. M was referred to psychotherapy and instructed to continue topiramate 100 mg every 12 hours for seizure prophylaxis.

Ms. M presented to Hospital B again in March 2022 reporting seizure-like activity. A brain MRI found cortical dysplasia in the right temporal lobe, consistent with the MRI at Hospital A in June 2020. cEEG was also repeated at Hospital B and was unremarkable. Oxcarbazepine 300 mg every 12 hours was added to Ms. M’s medications.

Ultimately, based on an external record review, our team (at Hospital C) concluded Ms. M had a possible true seizure co-occurrence with PNES. To avoid redundant testing, we did not repeat imaging or cEEG. Instead, we increased the patient’s oxcarbazepine to 450 mg every 12 hours, for both its effectiveness in temporal seizures and its mood-stabilizing properties. Moreover, in collecting our own data to draw a conclusion by a thorough record review, we gained Ms. M’s trust and strengthened the therapeutic alliance. She was agreeable to forgo more testing and continue outpatient follow-up with our hospital’s Neurology team.

Take-home points

Although PNES and true seizure disorder may not frequently co-occur, this case highlights the importance of clinician due diligence when evaluating a potential psychogenic illness, both for patient safety and clinician liability. By trusting our patients and drawing our own data-based conclusions, we can cultivate a safer and more satisfactory patient-clinician experience in the context of psychosomatic disorders.

Psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) are a physical manifestation of a psychological disturbance. They are characterized by episodes of altered subjective experience and movements that can resemble epilepsy, syncope, or other paroxysmal disorders, but are not caused by neuronal hypersynchronization or other epileptic semiology.¹ Asynchronous movements, closed eyes, crying, stuttering, side-to-side head movement, and pelvic thrusting may be observed, all of which are atypical of epileptic seizures.¹ PNES, a syndrome of “pseudo-seizures,” is recognized in 11% of convulsive seizure cases presenting to the emergency department (ED).² PNES can co-occur with epilepsy; in 2 population-based studies, the pooled rate of EEG-confirmed comorbid epilepsy in PNES was 14%.³

Patients with PNES may present to multiple clinicians and hospitals for assessment. Access to outside hospital records can be limited, which can lead to redundant testing and increased health care costs and burden. Additionally, repeat presentations can increase stigmatization of the patient and delay or prevent appropriate therapeutic management, which might exacerbate a patient’s underlying psychiatric condition and could be dangerous in a patient with a co-occurring true seizure disorder. Though obtaining and reviewing external medical records can be cumbersome, doing so may prevent unnecessary testing, guide medical treatment, and strengthen the patient-doctor therapeutic alliance.

In this article, I discuss our treatment team’s management of a patient with PNES who, based on our careful review of records from previous hospitalizations, may have had a co-occurring true seizure disorder.

Case report

Ms. M, age 31, has a medical history of anxiety, depression, first-degree atrioventricular block, type 2 diabetes, and PNES. She presented to the ED with witnessed seizure activity at home.

According to collateral information, earlier that day Ms. M said she felt like she was seizing and began mumbling, but returned to baseline within a few minutes. Later, she demonstrated intermittent upper and lower extremity shaking for more than 1 hour. At one point, Ms. M appeared to be not breathing. However, upon initiation of chest compressions, she began gasping for air and immediately returned to baseline.

In the ED, Ms. M demonstrated multiple seizure-like episodes every 5 minutes, each lasting 5 to 10 seconds. These episodes were described as thrashing of the bilateral limbs and head crossing midline with eyes closed. No urinary incontinence or tongue biting was observed. Following each episode, Ms. M was unresponsive to verbal or tactile stimuli but intermittently opened her eyes. Laboratory test results were notable for an elevated serum lactate and positive for cannabinoids on urine drug screen.

Ms. M expressed frustration when told that her seizures were psychogenic. She was adamant that she had a true seizure disorder, demanded testing, and threatened to leave against medical advice without it. She said her brother had epilepsy, and thus she knew how seizures present. The interview was complicated by Ms. M’s mistrust and Cluster B personality disorder traits, such as splitting staff into “good and bad.” Ultimately, she was able to be reassured and did not leave the hospital.

Continue to: The treatment team...

The treatment team reviewed external records from 2 hospitals, Hospital A and Hospital B. These records showed well-documented inpatient and outpatient Psychiatry and Neurology diagnoses of PNES and other conversion disorders. Her medications included 2 anticonvulsants—topiramate 200 mg every 12 hours and oxcarbazepine 300 mg every 12 hours—as well as clonazepam 0.5 mg as needed for seizures and anxiety.

Ms. M’s first lifetime documented seizure occurred in May 2020, when she woke up with tongue biting, extremity shaking (laterality was unclear), and urinary incontinence followed by fatigue. She did not go to the hospital after this first episode. In June 2020, she presented and was admitted to Hospital A after similar seizure-like activity. While admitted and monitored on continuous EEG (cEEG), she had numerous events consistent with a nonepileptic etiology without a postictal state. A brain MRI was unremarkable, and Ms. M was diagnosed with PNES.

She presented to Hospital B in October 2020 reporting seizure-like activity. Hospital B reviewed Hospital A’s brain MRI and found right temporal lobe cortical dysplasia that was not noted in Hospital A’s MRI read. Ms. M again underwent cEEG while at Hospital B and had 2 recorded nonepileptic events. Interestingly, the cEEG demonstrated right temporal spikes that were consistent with the dysplasia location on the MRI. Ms. M was discharged and instructed to keep a seizure journal until outpatient follow-up.

Ms. M documented 3 seizure-like events between October and December 2020. She documented activity with and without full-body convulsions, some with laterality, some with loss of consciousness, and some preceded by an aura of impending doom. Ms. M was referred to psychotherapy and instructed to continue topiramate 100 mg every 12 hours for seizure prophylaxis.

Ms. M presented to Hospital B again in March 2022 reporting seizure-like activity. A brain MRI found cortical dysplasia in the right temporal lobe, consistent with the MRI at Hospital A in June 2020. cEEG was also repeated at Hospital B and was unremarkable. Oxcarbazepine 300 mg every 12 hours was added to Ms. M’s medications.

Ultimately, based on an external record review, our team (at Hospital C) concluded Ms. M had a possible true seizure co-occurrence with PNES. To avoid redundant testing, we did not repeat imaging or cEEG. Instead, we increased the patient’s oxcarbazepine to 450 mg every 12 hours, for both its effectiveness in temporal seizures and its mood-stabilizing properties. Moreover, in collecting our own data to draw a conclusion by a thorough record review, we gained Ms. M’s trust and strengthened the therapeutic alliance. She was agreeable to forgo more testing and continue outpatient follow-up with our hospital’s Neurology team.

Take-home points

Although PNES and true seizure disorder may not frequently co-occur, this case highlights the importance of clinician due diligence when evaluating a potential psychogenic illness, both for patient safety and clinician liability. By trusting our patients and drawing our own data-based conclusions, we can cultivate a safer and more satisfactory patient-clinician experience in the context of psychosomatic disorders.

Psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) are a physical manifestation of a psychological disturbance. They are characterized by episodes of altered subjective experience and movements that can resemble epilepsy, syncope, or other paroxysmal disorders, but are not caused by neuronal hypersynchronization or other epileptic semiology.¹ Asynchronous movements, closed eyes, crying, stuttering, side-to-side head movement, and pelvic thrusting may be observed, all of which are atypical of epileptic seizures.¹ PNES, a syndrome of “pseudo-seizures,” is recognized in 11% of convulsive seizure cases presenting to the emergency department (ED).² PNES can co-occur with epilepsy; in 2 population-based studies, the pooled rate of EEG-confirmed comorbid epilepsy in PNES was 14%.³

Patients with PNES may present to multiple clinicians and hospitals for assessment. Access to outside hospital records can be limited, which can lead to redundant testing and increased health care costs and burden. Additionally, repeat presentations can increase stigmatization of the patient and delay or prevent appropriate therapeutic management, which might exacerbate a patient’s underlying psychiatric condition and could be dangerous in a patient with a co-occurring true seizure disorder. Though obtaining and reviewing external medical records can be cumbersome, doing so may prevent unnecessary testing, guide medical treatment, and strengthen the patient-doctor therapeutic alliance.

In this article, I discuss our treatment team’s management of a patient with PNES who, based on our careful review of records from previous hospitalizations, may have had a co-occurring true seizure disorder.

Case report

Ms. M, age 31, has a medical history of anxiety, depression, first-degree atrioventricular block, type 2 diabetes, and PNES. She presented to the ED with witnessed seizure activity at home.

According to collateral information, earlier that day Ms. M said she felt like she was seizing and began mumbling, but returned to baseline within a few minutes. Later, she demonstrated intermittent upper and lower extremity shaking for more than 1 hour. At one point, Ms. M appeared to be not breathing. However, upon initiation of chest compressions, she began gasping for air and immediately returned to baseline.

In the ED, Ms. M demonstrated multiple seizure-like episodes every 5 minutes, each lasting 5 to 10 seconds. These episodes were described as thrashing of the bilateral limbs and head crossing midline with eyes closed. No urinary incontinence or tongue biting was observed. Following each episode, Ms. M was unresponsive to verbal or tactile stimuli but intermittently opened her eyes. Laboratory test results were notable for an elevated serum lactate and positive for cannabinoids on urine drug screen.

Ms. M expressed frustration when told that her seizures were psychogenic. She was adamant that she had a true seizure disorder, demanded testing, and threatened to leave against medical advice without it. She said her brother had epilepsy, and thus she knew how seizures present. The interview was complicated by Ms. M’s mistrust and Cluster B personality disorder traits, such as splitting staff into “good and bad.” Ultimately, she was able to be reassured and did not leave the hospital.

Continue to: The treatment team...

The treatment team reviewed external records from 2 hospitals, Hospital A and Hospital B. These records showed well-documented inpatient and outpatient Psychiatry and Neurology diagnoses of PNES and other conversion disorders. Her medications included 2 anticonvulsants—topiramate 200 mg every 12 hours and oxcarbazepine 300 mg every 12 hours—as well as clonazepam 0.5 mg as needed for seizures and anxiety.

Ms. M’s first lifetime documented seizure occurred in May 2020, when she woke up with tongue biting, extremity shaking (laterality was unclear), and urinary incontinence followed by fatigue. She did not go to the hospital after this first episode. In June 2020, she presented and was admitted to Hospital A after similar seizure-like activity. While admitted and monitored on continuous EEG (cEEG), she had numerous events consistent with a nonepileptic etiology without a postictal state. A brain MRI was unremarkable, and Ms. M was diagnosed with PNES.

She presented to Hospital B in October 2020 reporting seizure-like activity. Hospital B reviewed Hospital A’s brain MRI and found right temporal lobe cortical dysplasia that was not noted in Hospital A’s MRI read. Ms. M again underwent cEEG while at Hospital B and had 2 recorded nonepileptic events. Interestingly, the cEEG demonstrated right temporal spikes that were consistent with the dysplasia location on the MRI. Ms. M was discharged and instructed to keep a seizure journal until outpatient follow-up.

Ms. M documented 3 seizure-like events between October and December 2020. She documented activity with and without full-body convulsions, some with laterality, some with loss of consciousness, and some preceded by an aura of impending doom. Ms. M was referred to psychotherapy and instructed to continue topiramate 100 mg every 12 hours for seizure prophylaxis.

Ms. M presented to Hospital B again in March 2022 reporting seizure-like activity. A brain MRI found cortical dysplasia in the right temporal lobe, consistent with the MRI at Hospital A in June 2020. cEEG was also repeated at Hospital B and was unremarkable. Oxcarbazepine 300 mg every 12 hours was added to Ms. M’s medications.

Ultimately, based on an external record review, our team (at Hospital C) concluded Ms. M had a possible true seizure co-occurrence with PNES. To avoid redundant testing, we did not repeat imaging or cEEG. Instead, we increased the patient’s oxcarbazepine to 450 mg every 12 hours, for both its effectiveness in temporal seizures and its mood-stabilizing properties. Moreover, in collecting our own data to draw a conclusion by a thorough record review, we gained Ms. M’s trust and strengthened the therapeutic alliance. She was agreeable to forgo more testing and continue outpatient follow-up with our hospital’s Neurology team.

Take-home points

Although PNES and true seizure disorder may not frequently co-occur, this case highlights the importance of clinician due diligence when evaluating a potential psychogenic illness, both for patient safety and clinician liability. By trusting our patients and drawing our own data-based conclusions, we can cultivate a safer and more satisfactory patient-clinician experience in the context of psychosomatic disorders.

To the Editor:

Preprint servers allow researchers to post manuscripts before publication in peer-reviewed journals. As of January 2022, 41 public preprint servers accepted medicine/science submissions.¹ We sought to analyze characteristics of dermatology manuscripts in preprint servers and assess preprint publication policies in top dermatology journals.

Thirty-five biology/health sciences preprint servers¹ were searched (March 3 to March 24, 2021) with keywords dermatology, skin, and cutaneous. Preprint server, preprint post date, location, metrics, journal, impact factor (IF), and journal publication date were recorded. Preprint policies of the top 20 dermatology journals—determined by impact factor of the journal (https://www.scimagojr.com/)—were reviewed. Two-tailed t tests and χ² tests were performed (P<.05).

A total of 1420 articles were posted to 11 preprint servers between June 20, 2007, and February 15, 2021 (Table 1); 377 (27%) were published in peer-reviewed journals, with 350 (93%) of those published within 1 year of preprint post. Preprints were published in 203 journals with a mean IF of 6.2. Growth in preprint posts by year (2007-2020) was exponential (R²=0.78)(Figure). On average, preprints were viewed 424 times (Table 2), with published preprints viewed more often than unpublished preprints (596 vs 362 views)(P<.001). Only 23 of 786 (3%) preprints with comments enabled had feedback. Among the top 20 dermatology journals, 18 (90%) allowed preprints, 1 (5%) evaluated case by case, and 1 (5%) prohibited preprints.

Our study showed exponential growth in dermatology preprints, a low proportion published in peer-reviewed journals with high IFs, and a substantial number of page views for both published and unpublished preprints. Very few preprints had feedback. We found that most of the top 20 dermatology journals accept preprints. An analysis of 61 dermatology articles in medRxiv found only 51% (31/61) of articles were subsequently published.² The low rate of publication may be due to the quality of preprints that do not meet criteria to be published following peer review.

Preprint servers are fairly novel, with a majority launched within the last 5 years.¹ The goal of preprints is to claim conception of an idea, solicit feedback prior to submission for peer review, and expedite research distribution.³ Because preprints are uploaded without peer review, manuscripts may lack quality and accuracy. An analysis of 57 of thelargest preprint servers found that few provided guidelines on authorship, image manipulation, or reporting of study limitations; however, most preprint servers do perform some screening.⁴ medRxiv requires full scientific research reports and absence of obscenity, plagiarism, and patient identifiers. In its first year, medRxiv rejected 34% of 176 submissios; reasons were not disclosed.⁵

The low rate of on-site comments suggests that preprint servers may not be effective for obtaining feedback to improve dermatology manuscripts prior to journal submission. Almost all of the top 20 dermatologyjournals accept preprints. Therefore, dermatologists may use these preprint servers to assert project ideas and disseminate research quickly and freely but may not receive constructive criticism.

Our study is subject to several limitations. Although our search was extensive, it is possible manuscripts were missed. Article metrics also were not available on all servers, and we could not account for accepted articles that were not yet indexed.

There has been a surge in posting of dermatology preprints in recent years. Preprints have not been peer reviewed, and data should be corroborated before incorporating new diagnostics or treatments into clinical practice. Utilization of preprint servers by dermatologists is increasing, but because the impact is still unknown, further studies on accuracy and reliability of preprints are warranted.

To the Editor:

Preprint servers allow researchers to post manuscripts before publication in peer-reviewed journals. As of January 2022, 41 public preprint servers accepted medicine/science submissions.¹ We sought to analyze characteristics of dermatology manuscripts in preprint servers and assess preprint publication policies in top dermatology journals.

Thirty-five biology/health sciences preprint servers¹ were searched (March 3 to March 24, 2021) with keywords dermatology, skin, and cutaneous. Preprint server, preprint post date, location, metrics, journal, impact factor (IF), and journal publication date were recorded. Preprint policies of the top 20 dermatology journals—determined by impact factor of the journal (https://www.scimagojr.com/)—were reviewed. Two-tailed t tests and χ² tests were performed (P<.05).

A total of 1420 articles were posted to 11 preprint servers between June 20, 2007, and February 15, 2021 (Table 1); 377 (27%) were published in peer-reviewed journals, with 350 (93%) of those published within 1 year of preprint post. Preprints were published in 203 journals with a mean IF of 6.2. Growth in preprint posts by year (2007-2020) was exponential (R²=0.78)(Figure). On average, preprints were viewed 424 times (Table 2), with published preprints viewed more often than unpublished preprints (596 vs 362 views)(P<.001). Only 23 of 786 (3%) preprints with comments enabled had feedback. Among the top 20 dermatology journals, 18 (90%) allowed preprints, 1 (5%) evaluated case by case, and 1 (5%) prohibited preprints.

Our study showed exponential growth in dermatology preprints, a low proportion published in peer-reviewed journals with high IFs, and a substantial number of page views for both published and unpublished preprints. Very few preprints had feedback. We found that most of the top 20 dermatology journals accept preprints. An analysis of 61 dermatology articles in medRxiv found only 51% (31/61) of articles were subsequently published.² The low rate of publication may be due to the quality of preprints that do not meet criteria to be published following peer review.

Preprint servers are fairly novel, with a majority launched within the last 5 years.¹ The goal of preprints is to claim conception of an idea, solicit feedback prior to submission for peer review, and expedite research distribution.³ Because preprints are uploaded without peer review, manuscripts may lack quality and accuracy. An analysis of 57 of thelargest preprint servers found that few provided guidelines on authorship, image manipulation, or reporting of study limitations; however, most preprint servers do perform some screening.⁴ medRxiv requires full scientific research reports and absence of obscenity, plagiarism, and patient identifiers. In its first year, medRxiv rejected 34% of 176 submissios; reasons were not disclosed.⁵

The low rate of on-site comments suggests that preprint servers may not be effective for obtaining feedback to improve dermatology manuscripts prior to journal submission. Almost all of the top 20 dermatologyjournals accept preprints. Therefore, dermatologists may use these preprint servers to assert project ideas and disseminate research quickly and freely but may not receive constructive criticism.

Our study is subject to several limitations. Although our search was extensive, it is possible manuscripts were missed. Article metrics also were not available on all servers, and we could not account for accepted articles that were not yet indexed.

There has been a surge in posting of dermatology preprints in recent years. Preprints have not been peer reviewed, and data should be corroborated before incorporating new diagnostics or treatments into clinical practice. Utilization of preprint servers by dermatologists is increasing, but because the impact is still unknown, further studies on accuracy and reliability of preprints are warranted.

To the Editor:

Preprint servers allow researchers to post manuscripts before publication in peer-reviewed journals. As of January 2022, 41 public preprint servers accepted medicine/science submissions.¹ We sought to analyze characteristics of dermatology manuscripts in preprint servers and assess preprint publication policies in top dermatology journals.

Thirty-five biology/health sciences preprint servers¹ were searched (March 3 to March 24, 2021) with keywords dermatology, skin, and cutaneous. Preprint server, preprint post date, location, metrics, journal, impact factor (IF), and journal publication date were recorded. Preprint policies of the top 20 dermatology journals—determined by impact factor of the journal (https://www.scimagojr.com/)—were reviewed. Two-tailed t tests and χ² tests were performed (P<.05).

A total of 1420 articles were posted to 11 preprint servers between June 20, 2007, and February 15, 2021 (Table 1); 377 (27%) were published in peer-reviewed journals, with 350 (93%) of those published within 1 year of preprint post. Preprints were published in 203 journals with a mean IF of 6.2. Growth in preprint posts by year (2007-2020) was exponential (R²=0.78)(Figure). On average, preprints were viewed 424 times (Table 2), with published preprints viewed more often than unpublished preprints (596 vs 362 views)(P<.001). Only 23 of 786 (3%) preprints with comments enabled had feedback. Among the top 20 dermatology journals, 18 (90%) allowed preprints, 1 (5%) evaluated case by case, and 1 (5%) prohibited preprints.

Our study showed exponential growth in dermatology preprints, a low proportion published in peer-reviewed journals with high IFs, and a substantial number of page views for both published and unpublished preprints. Very few preprints had feedback. We found that most of the top 20 dermatology journals accept preprints. An analysis of 61 dermatology articles in medRxiv found only 51% (31/61) of articles were subsequently published.² The low rate of publication may be due to the quality of preprints that do not meet criteria to be published following peer review.

Preprint servers are fairly novel, with a majority launched within the last 5 years.¹ The goal of preprints is to claim conception of an idea, solicit feedback prior to submission for peer review, and expedite research distribution.³ Because preprints are uploaded without peer review, manuscripts may lack quality and accuracy. An analysis of 57 of thelargest preprint servers found that few provided guidelines on authorship, image manipulation, or reporting of study limitations; however, most preprint servers do perform some screening.⁴ medRxiv requires full scientific research reports and absence of obscenity, plagiarism, and patient identifiers. In its first year, medRxiv rejected 34% of 176 submissios; reasons were not disclosed.⁵

The low rate of on-site comments suggests that preprint servers may not be effective for obtaining feedback to improve dermatology manuscripts prior to journal submission. Almost all of the top 20 dermatologyjournals accept preprints. Therefore, dermatologists may use these preprint servers to assert project ideas and disseminate research quickly and freely but may not receive constructive criticism.

Our study is subject to several limitations. Although our search was extensive, it is possible manuscripts were missed. Article metrics also were not available on all servers, and we could not account for accepted articles that were not yet indexed.

There has been a surge in posting of dermatology preprints in recent years. Preprints have not been peer reviewed, and data should be corroborated before incorporating new diagnostics or treatments into clinical practice. Utilization of preprint servers by dermatologists is increasing, but because the impact is still unknown, further studies on accuracy and reliability of preprints are warranted.

Transferring from one residency program to another is rare but not unheard of. According to the most recent Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Data Resource Book, there were 1020 residents who transferred residency programs in the 2020-2021 academic year.¹ With a total of 126,759 active residents in specialty programs, the percentage of transferring residents was less than 1%. The specialties with the highest number of transferring residents included psychiatry, general surgery, internal medicine, and family medicine. In dermatology programs, there were only 2 resident transfers during the 2019-2020 academic year and 6 transfers in the 2020-2021 academic year.^1,2 A resident contemplating transferring training programs must carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages before undertaking the uncertain transfer process, but transferring residency programs can be achieved successfully with planning and luck.

Deciding to Transfer

The decision to transfer residency programs may be a difficult one that is wrought with anxiety. There are many reasons why a trainee may wish to pursue transferring training programs. A transfer to another geographic area may be necessary for personal or family reasons, such as to reunite with a spouse and children or to care for a sick family member. A resident may find their program to be a poor fit and may wish to train in a different educational environment. Occasionally, a program can lose its accreditation, and its residents will be tasked with finding a new position elsewhere. A trainee also may realize that the specialty they matched into initially does not align with their true passions. It is important for the potential transfer applicant to be levelheaded about their decision. Residency is a demanding period for every trainee; switching programs may not be the best solution for every problem and should only be considered if essential.

Transfer Timing

A trainee may have thoughts of leaving a program soon after starting residency or perhaps even before starting if their National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Match result was a disappointment; however, there are certain rules related to transfer timing. The NRMP Match represents a binding commitment for both the applicant and program. If for any reason an applicant will not honor the binding commitment, the NRMP requires the applicant to initiate a waiver review, which can be requested for unanticipated serious and extreme hardship, change of specialty, or ineligibility. According to the NRMP rules and regulations, applicants cannot apply for, discuss, interview for, or accept a position in another program until a waiver has been granted.³ Waivers based on change of specialty must be requested by mid-January prior to the start of training, which means most applicants who match to positions that begin in the same year of the Match do not qualify for change of specialty waivers. However, those who matched to an advanced position and are doing a preliminary year position may consider this option if they have a change of heart during their internship. The NRMP may consider a 1-year deferral to delay training if mutually agreed upon by both the matched applicant and the program.³ The binding commitment is in place for the first 45 days of training, and applicants who resign within 45 days or a program that tries to solicit the transfer of a resident prior to that date could be in violation of the Match and can face consequences such as being barred from entering the matching process in future cycles. Of the 1020 transfers that occurred among residents in specialty programs during the 2020-2021 academic year, 354 (34.7%) occurred during the first year of the training program; 228 (22.4%) occurred during the second year; 389 (38.1%) occurred during the third year; and 49 (4.8%) occurred in the fourth, fifth, or sixth year of the program.¹ Unlike other jobs/occupations in which one can simply give notice, in medical training even if a transfer position is accepted, the transition date between programs must be mutually agreed upon. Often, this may coincide with the start of the new academic year.

The Transfer Process

Transferring residency programs is a substantial undertaking. Unlike the Match, a trainee seeking to transfer programs does so without a standardized application system or structured support through the process; the transfer applicant must be prepared to navigate the transfer process on their own. The first step after making the decision to transfer is for the resident to meet with the program leadership (ie, program director[s], coordinator, designated official) at their home program to discuss the decision—a nerve-wracking but imperative first step. A receiving program may not favor an applicant secretly applying to a new program without the knowledge of their home program and often will require the home program’s blessing to proceed. The receiving program also would want to ensure the applicant is in good standing and not leaving due to misconduct. Once given the go-ahead, the process is largely in the hands of the applicant. The transfer applicant should identify locations or programs of interest and then take initiative to reach out to potential programs. FREIDA (Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access) is the American Medical Association’s residency and fellowship database that allows vacant position listings to be posted online.⁴ Additionally, the Association of American Medical Colleges’ FindAResident website is a year-round search tool designed to help find open residency and fellowship positions.⁵ Various specialties also may have program director listserves that communicate vacant positions. On occasion, there are spots in the main NRMP Match that are reserved positions (“R”). These are postgraduate year 2 positions in specialty programs that begin in the year of the Match and are reserved for physicians with prior graduate medical education; these also are known as “Physician Positions.”⁶ Ultimately, advertisements for vacancies may be few and far between, requiring the resident to send unsolicited emails with curriculum vitae attached to the program directors at programs of interest to inquire about any vacancies and hope for a favorable response. Even if the transfer applicant is qualified, luck that the right spot will be available at the right time may be the deciding factor in transferring programs.

The next step is interviewing for the position. There likely will be fewer candidates interviewing for an open spot but that does not make the process less competitive. The candidate should highlight their strengths and achievements and discuss why the new program would be a great fit both personally and professionally. Even if an applicant is seeking a transfer due to discontent with a prior program, it is best to act graciously and not speak poorly about another training program.

Prior to selection, the candidate may be asked to provide information such as diplomas, US Medical Licensing Examination Step and residency in-service training examination scores, and academic reviews from their current residency program. The interview process may take several weeks as the graduate medical education office often will need to officially approve of an applicant before a formal offer to transfer is extended.

Finally, once an offer is made and accepted, there still is a great amount of paperwork to complete before the transition. The applicant should stay on track with all off-boarding and on-boarding requirements, such as signing a contract, obtaining background checks, and applying for a new license to ensure the switch is not delayed.

The transfer process is not easy to navigate and can be a source of stress for the applicant. It is natural to fear resentment from colleagues and co-residents. Although transferring programs might be in the best interest of the trainee, it may leave a large gap in the program that they are leaving, which can place a burden on the remaining residents.

There are many adjustments to be made after transferring programs. The transferring resident will again start from scratch, needing to learn the ropes and adapt to the growing pains of being at a new institution. This may require learning a completely new electronic medical record, adapting to a new culture, and in many cases stepping in as a senior resident without fully knowing the ins and outs of the program.

Advantages of Transferring Programs

Successfully transferring programs is something to celebrate. There may be great benefits to transferring to a program that is better suited to the trainee—either personally or professionally. Ameliorating the adversity that led to the decision to transfer such as reuniting a long-distance family or realizing one’s true passion can allow the resident to thrive as a trainee and maximize their potential. Transferring programs can give a resident a more well-rounded training experience, as different programs may have different strengths, patient populations, and practice settings. Working with different faculty members with varied niches and practice styles can create a more comprehensive residency experience.

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, transferring residency programs is not easy but also is not impossible. Successfully switching residency programs can be a rewarding experience providing greater well-being and fulfillment.

Transferring from one residency program to another is rare but not unheard of. According to the most recent Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Data Resource Book, there were 1020 residents who transferred residency programs in the 2020-2021 academic year.¹ With a total of 126,759 active residents in specialty programs, the percentage of transferring residents was less than 1%. The specialties with the highest number of transferring residents included psychiatry, general surgery, internal medicine, and family medicine. In dermatology programs, there were only 2 resident transfers during the 2019-2020 academic year and 6 transfers in the 2020-2021 academic year.^1,2 A resident contemplating transferring training programs must carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages before undertaking the uncertain transfer process, but transferring residency programs can be achieved successfully with planning and luck.

Deciding to Transfer

The decision to transfer residency programs may be a difficult one that is wrought with anxiety. There are many reasons why a trainee may wish to pursue transferring training programs. A transfer to another geographic area may be necessary for personal or family reasons, such as to reunite with a spouse and children or to care for a sick family member. A resident may find their program to be a poor fit and may wish to train in a different educational environment. Occasionally, a program can lose its accreditation, and its residents will be tasked with finding a new position elsewhere. A trainee also may realize that the specialty they matched into initially does not align with their true passions. It is important for the potential transfer applicant to be levelheaded about their decision. Residency is a demanding period for every trainee; switching programs may not be the best solution for every problem and should only be considered if essential.

Transfer Timing

A trainee may have thoughts of leaving a program soon after starting residency or perhaps even before starting if their National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Match result was a disappointment; however, there are certain rules related to transfer timing. The NRMP Match represents a binding commitment for both the applicant and program. If for any reason an applicant will not honor the binding commitment, the NRMP requires the applicant to initiate a waiver review, which can be requested for unanticipated serious and extreme hardship, change of specialty, or ineligibility. According to the NRMP rules and regulations, applicants cannot apply for, discuss, interview for, or accept a position in another program until a waiver has been granted.³ Waivers based on change of specialty must be requested by mid-January prior to the start of training, which means most applicants who match to positions that begin in the same year of the Match do not qualify for change of specialty waivers. However, those who matched to an advanced position and are doing a preliminary year position may consider this option if they have a change of heart during their internship. The NRMP may consider a 1-year deferral to delay training if mutually agreed upon by both the matched applicant and the program.³ The binding commitment is in place for the first 45 days of training, and applicants who resign within 45 days or a program that tries to solicit the transfer of a resident prior to that date could be in violation of the Match and can face consequences such as being barred from entering the matching process in future cycles. Of the 1020 transfers that occurred among residents in specialty programs during the 2020-2021 academic year, 354 (34.7%) occurred during the first year of the training program; 228 (22.4%) occurred during the second year; 389 (38.1%) occurred during the third year; and 49 (4.8%) occurred in the fourth, fifth, or sixth year of the program.¹ Unlike other jobs/occupations in which one can simply give notice, in medical training even if a transfer position is accepted, the transition date between programs must be mutually agreed upon. Often, this may coincide with the start of the new academic year.

The Transfer Process

Transferring residency programs is a substantial undertaking. Unlike the Match, a trainee seeking to transfer programs does so without a standardized application system or structured support through the process; the transfer applicant must be prepared to navigate the transfer process on their own. The first step after making the decision to transfer is for the resident to meet with the program leadership (ie, program director[s], coordinator, designated official) at their home program to discuss the decision—a nerve-wracking but imperative first step. A receiving program may not favor an applicant secretly applying to a new program without the knowledge of their home program and often will require the home program’s blessing to proceed. The receiving program also would want to ensure the applicant is in good standing and not leaving due to misconduct. Once given the go-ahead, the process is largely in the hands of the applicant. The transfer applicant should identify locations or programs of interest and then take initiative to reach out to potential programs. FREIDA (Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access) is the American Medical Association’s residency and fellowship database that allows vacant position listings to be posted online.⁴ Additionally, the Association of American Medical Colleges’ FindAResident website is a year-round search tool designed to help find open residency and fellowship positions.⁵ Various specialties also may have program director listserves that communicate vacant positions. On occasion, there are spots in the main NRMP Match that are reserved positions (“R”). These are postgraduate year 2 positions in specialty programs that begin in the year of the Match and are reserved for physicians with prior graduate medical education; these also are known as “Physician Positions.”⁶ Ultimately, advertisements for vacancies may be few and far between, requiring the resident to send unsolicited emails with curriculum vitae attached to the program directors at programs of interest to inquire about any vacancies and hope for a favorable response. Even if the transfer applicant is qualified, luck that the right spot will be available at the right time may be the deciding factor in transferring programs.

The next step is interviewing for the position. There likely will be fewer candidates interviewing for an open spot but that does not make the process less competitive. The candidate should highlight their strengths and achievements and discuss why the new program would be a great fit both personally and professionally. Even if an applicant is seeking a transfer due to discontent with a prior program, it is best to act graciously and not speak poorly about another training program.

Prior to selection, the candidate may be asked to provide information such as diplomas, US Medical Licensing Examination Step and residency in-service training examination scores, and academic reviews from their current residency program. The interview process may take several weeks as the graduate medical education office often will need to officially approve of an applicant before a formal offer to transfer is extended.

Finally, once an offer is made and accepted, there still is a great amount of paperwork to complete before the transition. The applicant should stay on track with all off-boarding and on-boarding requirements, such as signing a contract, obtaining background checks, and applying for a new license to ensure the switch is not delayed.

The transfer process is not easy to navigate and can be a source of stress for the applicant. It is natural to fear resentment from colleagues and co-residents. Although transferring programs might be in the best interest of the trainee, it may leave a large gap in the program that they are leaving, which can place a burden on the remaining residents.

There are many adjustments to be made after transferring programs. The transferring resident will again start from scratch, needing to learn the ropes and adapt to the growing pains of being at a new institution. This may require learning a completely new electronic medical record, adapting to a new culture, and in many cases stepping in as a senior resident without fully knowing the ins and outs of the program.

Advantages of Transferring Programs

Successfully transferring programs is something to celebrate. There may be great benefits to transferring to a program that is better suited to the trainee—either personally or professionally. Ameliorating the adversity that led to the decision to transfer such as reuniting a long-distance family or realizing one’s true passion can allow the resident to thrive as a trainee and maximize their potential. Transferring programs can give a resident a more well-rounded training experience, as different programs may have different strengths, patient populations, and practice settings. Working with different faculty members with varied niches and practice styles can create a more comprehensive residency experience.

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, transferring residency programs is not easy but also is not impossible. Successfully switching residency programs can be a rewarding experience providing greater well-being and fulfillment.

Transferring from one residency program to another is rare but not unheard of. According to the most recent Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Data Resource Book, there were 1020 residents who transferred residency programs in the 2020-2021 academic year.¹ With a total of 126,759 active residents in specialty programs, the percentage of transferring residents was less than 1%. The specialties with the highest number of transferring residents included psychiatry, general surgery, internal medicine, and family medicine. In dermatology programs, there were only 2 resident transfers during the 2019-2020 academic year and 6 transfers in the 2020-2021 academic year.^1,2 A resident contemplating transferring training programs must carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages before undertaking the uncertain transfer process, but transferring residency programs can be achieved successfully with planning and luck.

Deciding to Transfer

The decision to transfer residency programs may be a difficult one that is wrought with anxiety. There are many reasons why a trainee may wish to pursue transferring training programs. A transfer to another geographic area may be necessary for personal or family reasons, such as to reunite with a spouse and children or to care for a sick family member. A resident may find their program to be a poor fit and may wish to train in a different educational environment. Occasionally, a program can lose its accreditation, and its residents will be tasked with finding a new position elsewhere. A trainee also may realize that the specialty they matched into initially does not align with their true passions. It is important for the potential transfer applicant to be levelheaded about their decision. Residency is a demanding period for every trainee; switching programs may not be the best solution for every problem and should only be considered if essential.

Transfer Timing

A trainee may have thoughts of leaving a program soon after starting residency or perhaps even before starting if their National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Match result was a disappointment; however, there are certain rules related to transfer timing. The NRMP Match represents a binding commitment for both the applicant and program. If for any reason an applicant will not honor the binding commitment, the NRMP requires the applicant to initiate a waiver review, which can be requested for unanticipated serious and extreme hardship, change of specialty, or ineligibility. According to the NRMP rules and regulations, applicants cannot apply for, discuss, interview for, or accept a position in another program until a waiver has been granted.³ Waivers based on change of specialty must be requested by mid-January prior to the start of training, which means most applicants who match to positions that begin in the same year of the Match do not qualify for change of specialty waivers. However, those who matched to an advanced position and are doing a preliminary year position may consider this option if they have a change of heart during their internship. The NRMP may consider a 1-year deferral to delay training if mutually agreed upon by both the matched applicant and the program.³ The binding commitment is in place for the first 45 days of training, and applicants who resign within 45 days or a program that tries to solicit the transfer of a resident prior to that date could be in violation of the Match and can face consequences such as being barred from entering the matching process in future cycles. Of the 1020 transfers that occurred among residents in specialty programs during the 2020-2021 academic year, 354 (34.7%) occurred during the first year of the training program; 228 (22.4%) occurred during the second year; 389 (38.1%) occurred during the third year; and 49 (4.8%) occurred in the fourth, fifth, or sixth year of the program.¹ Unlike other jobs/occupations in which one can simply give notice, in medical training even if a transfer position is accepted, the transition date between programs must be mutually agreed upon. Often, this may coincide with the start of the new academic year.

The Transfer Process

Transferring residency programs is a substantial undertaking. Unlike the Match, a trainee seeking to transfer programs does so without a standardized application system or structured support through the process; the transfer applicant must be prepared to navigate the transfer process on their own. The first step after making the decision to transfer is for the resident to meet with the program leadership (ie, program director[s], coordinator, designated official) at their home program to discuss the decision—a nerve-wracking but imperative first step. A receiving program may not favor an applicant secretly applying to a new program without the knowledge of their home program and often will require the home program’s blessing to proceed. The receiving program also would want to ensure the applicant is in good standing and not leaving due to misconduct. Once given the go-ahead, the process is largely in the hands of the applicant. The transfer applicant should identify locations or programs of interest and then take initiative to reach out to potential programs. FREIDA (Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access) is the American Medical Association’s residency and fellowship database that allows vacant position listings to be posted online.⁴ Additionally, the Association of American Medical Colleges’ FindAResident website is a year-round search tool designed to help find open residency and fellowship positions.⁵ Various specialties also may have program director listserves that communicate vacant positions. On occasion, there are spots in the main NRMP Match that are reserved positions (“R”). These are postgraduate year 2 positions in specialty programs that begin in the year of the Match and are reserved for physicians with prior graduate medical education; these also are known as “Physician Positions.”⁶ Ultimately, advertisements for vacancies may be few and far between, requiring the resident to send unsolicited emails with curriculum vitae attached to the program directors at programs of interest to inquire about any vacancies and hope for a favorable response. Even if the transfer applicant is qualified, luck that the right spot will be available at the right time may be the deciding factor in transferring programs.

The next step is interviewing for the position. There likely will be fewer candidates interviewing for an open spot but that does not make the process less competitive. The candidate should highlight their strengths and achievements and discuss why the new program would be a great fit both personally and professionally. Even if an applicant is seeking a transfer due to discontent with a prior program, it is best to act graciously and not speak poorly about another training program.

Prior to selection, the candidate may be asked to provide information such as diplomas, US Medical Licensing Examination Step and residency in-service training examination scores, and academic reviews from their current residency program. The interview process may take several weeks as the graduate medical education office often will need to officially approve of an applicant before a formal offer to transfer is extended.

Finally, once an offer is made and accepted, there still is a great amount of paperwork to complete before the transition. The applicant should stay on track with all off-boarding and on-boarding requirements, such as signing a contract, obtaining background checks, and applying for a new license to ensure the switch is not delayed.

The transfer process is not easy to navigate and can be a source of stress for the applicant. It is natural to fear resentment from colleagues and co-residents. Although transferring programs might be in the best interest of the trainee, it may leave a large gap in the program that they are leaving, which can place a burden on the remaining residents.

There are many adjustments to be made after transferring programs. The transferring resident will again start from scratch, needing to learn the ropes and adapt to the growing pains of being at a new institution. This may require learning a completely new electronic medical record, adapting to a new culture, and in many cases stepping in as a senior resident without fully knowing the ins and outs of the program.

Advantages of Transferring Programs

Successfully transferring programs is something to celebrate. There may be great benefits to transferring to a program that is better suited to the trainee—either personally or professionally. Ameliorating the adversity that led to the decision to transfer such as reuniting a long-distance family or realizing one’s true passion can allow the resident to thrive as a trainee and maximize their potential. Transferring programs can give a resident a more well-rounded training experience, as different programs may have different strengths, patient populations, and practice settings. Working with different faculty members with varied niches and practice styles can create a more comprehensive residency experience.

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, transferring residency programs is not easy but also is not impossible. Successfully switching residency programs can be a rewarding experience providing greater well-being and fulfillment.

What does a doctor look like? Throughout history, this concept has shifted due to societal norms and increased access to medical education. Today, the idea of a physician has expanded to incorporate a myriad of people; however, stigma still exists in medicine regarding mental illness and disability. I would like to share my personal journey through high school, college, medical school, and now residency, and how my identity and struggles have shaped me into the physician I am today. There are few conversations around disability—especially disability and mental health—in medicine, and through my own advocacy, I have met many students with disability who feel that medical school is unattainable. Additionally, I have met many medical students, residents, and pre-health advisors who are happy for the experience to learn more about a marginalized group in medicine. My hope in sharing my story is to offer a space for conversation about intersectionality within medical communities and how physicians and physicians in training can facilitate that change, regardless of their position or specialty. Additionally, I hope to shed light on the unique mental health needs of patients with disabilities and how mental health clinicians can address those needs.

Perceived weaknesses turned into strengths

“Why do you walk like that?” “What is that brace on your leg?” The early years of my childhood were marked by these questions and others like them. I was the kid with the limp, the kid with a brace on his leg, and the kid who disappeared multiple times a week for doctor’s appointments or physical therapy. I learned to deflect these questions or give nebulous answers about an accident or injury. The reality is that I was born with cerebral palsy (CP). My CP manifested as hemiparesis on the left side of my body. I was in aggressive physical therapy throughout childhood, received Botox injections for muscle spasticity, and underwent corrective surgery on my left leg to straighten my foot. In childhood, the diagnosis meant nothing more than 2 words that sounded like they belonged to superheroes in comic books. Even with supportive parents and family, I kept my disability a secret, much like the powers and abilities of my favorite superheroes.

However, like all great origin stories, what I once thought were weaknesses turned out to be strengths that pushed me through college, medical school, and now psychiatry residency. Living with a disability has shaped how I see the world and relate to my patients. My experience has helped me connect to my patients in ways others might not. These properties are important in any physician but vital in psychiatry, where many patients feel neglected or stigmatized; this is another reason there should be more doctors with disabilities in medicine. Unfortunately, systemic barriers are still in place that disincentivize those with a disability from pursuing careers in medicine. Stories like mine are important to inspire a reexamination of what a physician should be and how medicine, patients, and communities benefit from this change.

My experience through medical school

My path to psychiatry and residency was shaped by my early experience with the medical field and treatment. From the early days of my diagnosis at age 4, I was told that my brain was “wired differently” and that, because of this disruption in circuitry, I would have difficulty with physical activity. I grew to appreciate the intricacies of the brain and pathology to understand my body. With greater understanding came the existential realization that I would live with a disability for the rest of my life. Rather than dream of a future where I would be “normal,” I focused on adapting my life to my normal. An unfortunate reality of this normal was that no doctor would be able to relate to me, and my health care would focus on limitations rather than possibilities.

I focused on school as a distraction and slowly warmed to the idea of pursuing medicine as a career. The seed was planted years prior by the numerous doctors’ visits and procedures, and was cultivated by a desire to understand pathologies and offer treatment to patients from the perspective of a patient. When I applied to medical school, I did not know how to address my CP. Living as a person with CP was a core reason for my decision to pursue medicine, but I was afraid that a disclosure of disability would preclude any admission to medical school. Research into programs offered little guidance because most institutions only listed vague “physical expectations” of each student. There were times I doubted if I would be accepted anywhere. Many programs I reached out to about my situation seemed unenthusiastic about the prospect of a student with CP, and when I brought up my CP in interviews, the reaction was often of surprise and an admission that they had forgotten about “that part” of my application. Fortunately, I was accepted to medical school, but still struggled with the fear that one day I would be found out and not allowed to continue. No one in my class or school was like me, and a meeting with an Americans with Disabilities Act coordinator who asked me to reexamine the physical competencies of the school before advancing to clinical clerkships only further reinforced this fear. I decided to fly under the radar and not say anything about my disability to my attendings. I slowly worked my way through clerkships by making do with adapted ways to perform procedures and exams with additional practice and maneuvering at home. I found myself drawn to psychiatry because of the similarities I saw in the patients and myself. I empathized with how the patients struggled with chronic conditions that left them feeling separated from society and how they felt that their diagnosis was something they needed to hide. When medical school ended and I decided to pursue psychiatry, I wanted to share my story to inspire others with a disability to consider medicine as a career given their unique experiences. My experience thus far has been uplifting as my journey has echoed so many others.

A need for greater representation

Disability representation in medicine is needed more than ever. According to the CDC, >60 million adults in the United States (1 in 4) live with a disability.¹ Although the physical health disparities are often discussed, there is less conversation surrounding mental health for individuals with disabilities. A 2018 study by Cree et al² found that approximately 17.4 million adults with disabilities experienced frequent mental distress, defined as reporting ≥14 mentally unhealthy days in the past 30 days. Furthermore, compared to individuals without a disability, those with a disability are statistically more likely to have suicidal ideation, suicidal planning, and suicide attempts.³ One way to address this disparity is to recruit medical students with disabilities to become physicians with disabilities. Evidence suggests that physicians who are members of groups that are underrepresented in medicine are more likely to deliver care to underrepresented patients.⁴ However, medical schools and institutions have been slow to address the disparity. A 2019 survey found an estimated 4.6% of medical students responded “yes” when asked if they had a disability, with most students reporting a psychological or attention/hyperactive disorder.⁵ Existing barriers include restrictive language surrounding technical standards influenced by long-standing vestiges of what a physician should be.⁶

An opportunity to connect with patients

I now do not see myself as having a secret identity to hide. Although my CP does not give me any superpowers, it has given me the opportunity to connect with my patients and serve as an example of why medical school recruitment and admissions should expand. Psychiatrists have been on the forefront of change in medicine and can shift the perception of a physician. In doing so, we not only enrich our field but also the lives of our patients who may need it most.

What does a doctor look like? Throughout history, this concept has shifted due to societal norms and increased access to medical education. Today, the idea of a physician has expanded to incorporate a myriad of people; however, stigma still exists in medicine regarding mental illness and disability. I would like to share my personal journey through high school, college, medical school, and now residency, and how my identity and struggles have shaped me into the physician I am today. There are few conversations around disability—especially disability and mental health—in medicine, and through my own advocacy, I have met many students with disability who feel that medical school is unattainable. Additionally, I have met many medical students, residents, and pre-health advisors who are happy for the experience to learn more about a marginalized group in medicine. My hope in sharing my story is to offer a space for conversation about intersectionality within medical communities and how physicians and physicians in training can facilitate that change, regardless of their position or specialty. Additionally, I hope to shed light on the unique mental health needs of patients with disabilities and how mental health clinicians can address those needs.

Perceived weaknesses turned into strengths

“Why do you walk like that?” “What is that brace on your leg?” The early years of my childhood were marked by these questions and others like them. I was the kid with the limp, the kid with a brace on his leg, and the kid who disappeared multiple times a week for doctor’s appointments or physical therapy. I learned to deflect these questions or give nebulous answers about an accident or injury. The reality is that I was born with cerebral palsy (CP). My CP manifested as hemiparesis on the left side of my body. I was in aggressive physical therapy throughout childhood, received Botox injections for muscle spasticity, and underwent corrective surgery on my left leg to straighten my foot. In childhood, the diagnosis meant nothing more than 2 words that sounded like they belonged to superheroes in comic books. Even with supportive parents and family, I kept my disability a secret, much like the powers and abilities of my favorite superheroes.

However, like all great origin stories, what I once thought were weaknesses turned out to be strengths that pushed me through college, medical school, and now psychiatry residency. Living with a disability has shaped how I see the world and relate to my patients. My experience has helped me connect to my patients in ways others might not. These properties are important in any physician but vital in psychiatry, where many patients feel neglected or stigmatized; this is another reason there should be more doctors with disabilities in medicine. Unfortunately, systemic barriers are still in place that disincentivize those with a disability from pursuing careers in medicine. Stories like mine are important to inspire a reexamination of what a physician should be and how medicine, patients, and communities benefit from this change.

My experience through medical school

My path to psychiatry and residency was shaped by my early experience with the medical field and treatment. From the early days of my diagnosis at age 4, I was told that my brain was “wired differently” and that, because of this disruption in circuitry, I would have difficulty with physical activity. I grew to appreciate the intricacies of the brain and pathology to understand my body. With greater understanding came the existential realization that I would live with a disability for the rest of my life. Rather than dream of a future where I would be “normal,” I focused on adapting my life to my normal. An unfortunate reality of this normal was that no doctor would be able to relate to me, and my health care would focus on limitations rather than possibilities.

I focused on school as a distraction and slowly warmed to the idea of pursuing medicine as a career. The seed was planted years prior by the numerous doctors’ visits and procedures, and was cultivated by a desire to understand pathologies and offer treatment to patients from the perspective of a patient. When I applied to medical school, I did not know how to address my CP. Living as a person with CP was a core reason for my decision to pursue medicine, but I was afraid that a disclosure of disability would preclude any admission to medical school. Research into programs offered little guidance because most institutions only listed vague “physical expectations” of each student. There were times I doubted if I would be accepted anywhere. Many programs I reached out to about my situation seemed unenthusiastic about the prospect of a student with CP, and when I brought up my CP in interviews, the reaction was often of surprise and an admission that they had forgotten about “that part” of my application. Fortunately, I was accepted to medical school, but still struggled with the fear that one day I would be found out and not allowed to continue. No one in my class or school was like me, and a meeting with an Americans with Disabilities Act coordinator who asked me to reexamine the physical competencies of the school before advancing to clinical clerkships only further reinforced this fear. I decided to fly under the radar and not say anything about my disability to my attendings. I slowly worked my way through clerkships by making do with adapted ways to perform procedures and exams with additional practice and maneuvering at home. I found myself drawn to psychiatry because of the similarities I saw in the patients and myself. I empathized with how the patients struggled with chronic conditions that left them feeling separated from society and how they felt that their diagnosis was something they needed to hide. When medical school ended and I decided to pursue psychiatry, I wanted to share my story to inspire others with a disability to consider medicine as a career given their unique experiences. My experience thus far has been uplifting as my journey has echoed so many others.

A need for greater representation

Disability representation in medicine is needed more than ever. According to the CDC, >60 million adults in the United States (1 in 4) live with a disability.¹ Although the physical health disparities are often discussed, there is less conversation surrounding mental health for individuals with disabilities. A 2018 study by Cree et al² found that approximately 17.4 million adults with disabilities experienced frequent mental distress, defined as reporting ≥14 mentally unhealthy days in the past 30 days. Furthermore, compared to individuals without a disability, those with a disability are statistically more likely to have suicidal ideation, suicidal planning, and suicide attempts.³ One way to address this disparity is to recruit medical students with disabilities to become physicians with disabilities. Evidence suggests that physicians who are members of groups that are underrepresented in medicine are more likely to deliver care to underrepresented patients.⁴ However, medical schools and institutions have been slow to address the disparity. A 2019 survey found an estimated 4.6% of medical students responded “yes” when asked if they had a disability, with most students reporting a psychological or attention/hyperactive disorder.⁵ Existing barriers include restrictive language surrounding technical standards influenced by long-standing vestiges of what a physician should be.⁶

An opportunity to connect with patients

I now do not see myself as having a secret identity to hide. Although my CP does not give me any superpowers, it has given me the opportunity to connect with my patients and serve as an example of why medical school recruitment and admissions should expand. Psychiatrists have been on the forefront of change in medicine and can shift the perception of a physician. In doing so, we not only enrich our field but also the lives of our patients who may need it most.

What does a doctor look like? Throughout history, this concept has shifted due to societal norms and increased access to medical education. Today, the idea of a physician has expanded to incorporate a myriad of people; however, stigma still exists in medicine regarding mental illness and disability. I would like to share my personal journey through high school, college, medical school, and now residency, and how my identity and struggles have shaped me into the physician I am today. There are few conversations around disability—especially disability and mental health—in medicine, and through my own advocacy, I have met many students with disability who feel that medical school is unattainable. Additionally, I have met many medical students, residents, and pre-health advisors who are happy for the experience to learn more about a marginalized group in medicine. My hope in sharing my story is to offer a space for conversation about intersectionality within medical communities and how physicians and physicians in training can facilitate that change, regardless of their position or specialty. Additionally, I hope to shed light on the unique mental health needs of patients with disabilities and how mental health clinicians can address those needs.

Perceived weaknesses turned into strengths

“Why do you walk like that?” “What is that brace on your leg?” The early years of my childhood were marked by these questions and others like them. I was the kid with the limp, the kid with a brace on his leg, and the kid who disappeared multiple times a week for doctor’s appointments or physical therapy. I learned to deflect these questions or give nebulous answers about an accident or injury. The reality is that I was born with cerebral palsy (CP). My CP manifested as hemiparesis on the left side of my body. I was in aggressive physical therapy throughout childhood, received Botox injections for muscle spasticity, and underwent corrective surgery on my left leg to straighten my foot. In childhood, the diagnosis meant nothing more than 2 words that sounded like they belonged to superheroes in comic books. Even with supportive parents and family, I kept my disability a secret, much like the powers and abilities of my favorite superheroes.

However, like all great origin stories, what I once thought were weaknesses turned out to be strengths that pushed me through college, medical school, and now psychiatry residency. Living with a disability has shaped how I see the world and relate to my patients. My experience has helped me connect to my patients in ways others might not. These properties are important in any physician but vital in psychiatry, where many patients feel neglected or stigmatized; this is another reason there should be more doctors with disabilities in medicine. Unfortunately, systemic barriers are still in place that disincentivize those with a disability from pursuing careers in medicine. Stories like mine are important to inspire a reexamination of what a physician should be and how medicine, patients, and communities benefit from this change.

My experience through medical school

My path to psychiatry and residency was shaped by my early experience with the medical field and treatment. From the early days of my diagnosis at age 4, I was told that my brain was “wired differently” and that, because of this disruption in circuitry, I would have difficulty with physical activity. I grew to appreciate the intricacies of the brain and pathology to understand my body. With greater understanding came the existential realization that I would live with a disability for the rest of my life. Rather than dream of a future where I would be “normal,” I focused on adapting my life to my normal. An unfortunate reality of this normal was that no doctor would be able to relate to me, and my health care would focus on limitations rather than possibilities.

I focused on school as a distraction and slowly warmed to the idea of pursuing medicine as a career. The seed was planted years prior by the numerous doctors’ visits and procedures, and was cultivated by a desire to understand pathologies and offer treatment to patients from the perspective of a patient. When I applied to medical school, I did not know how to address my CP. Living as a person with CP was a core reason for my decision to pursue medicine, but I was afraid that a disclosure of disability would preclude any admission to medical school. Research into programs offered little guidance because most institutions only listed vague “physical expectations” of each student. There were times I doubted if I would be accepted anywhere. Many programs I reached out to about my situation seemed unenthusiastic about the prospect of a student with CP, and when I brought up my CP in interviews, the reaction was often of surprise and an admission that they had forgotten about “that part” of my application. Fortunately, I was accepted to medical school, but still struggled with the fear that one day I would be found out and not allowed to continue. No one in my class or school was like me, and a meeting with an Americans with Disabilities Act coordinator who asked me to reexamine the physical competencies of the school before advancing to clinical clerkships only further reinforced this fear. I decided to fly under the radar and not say anything about my disability to my attendings. I slowly worked my way through clerkships by making do with adapted ways to perform procedures and exams with additional practice and maneuvering at home. I found myself drawn to psychiatry because of the similarities I saw in the patients and myself. I empathized with how the patients struggled with chronic conditions that left them feeling separated from society and how they felt that their diagnosis was something they needed to hide. When medical school ended and I decided to pursue psychiatry, I wanted to share my story to inspire others with a disability to consider medicine as a career given their unique experiences. My experience thus far has been uplifting as my journey has echoed so many others.

A need for greater representation

Disability representation in medicine is needed more than ever. According to the CDC, >60 million adults in the United States (1 in 4) live with a disability.¹ Although the physical health disparities are often discussed, there is less conversation surrounding mental health for individuals with disabilities. A 2018 study by Cree et al² found that approximately 17.4 million adults with disabilities experienced frequent mental distress, defined as reporting ≥14 mentally unhealthy days in the past 30 days. Furthermore, compared to individuals without a disability, those with a disability are statistically more likely to have suicidal ideation, suicidal planning, and suicide attempts.³ One way to address this disparity is to recruit medical students with disabilities to become physicians with disabilities. Evidence suggests that physicians who are members of groups that are underrepresented in medicine are more likely to deliver care to underrepresented patients.⁴ However, medical schools and institutions have been slow to address the disparity. A 2019 survey found an estimated 4.6% of medical students responded “yes” when asked if they had a disability, with most students reporting a psychological or attention/hyperactive disorder.⁵ Existing barriers include restrictive language surrounding technical standards influenced by long-standing vestiges of what a physician should be.⁶

An opportunity to connect with patients

I now do not see myself as having a secret identity to hide. Although my CP does not give me any superpowers, it has given me the opportunity to connect with my patients and serve as an example of why medical school recruitment and admissions should expand. Psychiatrists have been on the forefront of change in medicine and can shift the perception of a physician. In doing so, we not only enrich our field but also the lives of our patients who may need it most.

Dermatology residency continues to be one of the most competitive specialties, with a match rate of 84.7% for US allopathic seniors in the 2019-2020 academic year.¹ In the 2019-2020 cycle, dermatology applicants were tied with plastic surgery for the highest median US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score compared with other specialties, which suggests that the top medical students are applying, yet only approximately 5 of 6 students are matching.

Factors that have been cited with successful dermatology matching include USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores,² research accomplishments,³ letters of recommendation,⁴ medical school performance, personal statement, grades in required clerkships, and volunteer/extracurricular experiences, among others.⁵

The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) publishes data each year regarding different academic factors—USMLE scores; number of abstracts, presentations, and papers; work, volunteer, and research experiences—and compares the mean between matched and nonmatched applicants.¹ However, the USMLE does not report any demographic information of the applicants and the implication it has for matching. Additionally, the number of couples participating in the couples match continues to increase each year. In the 2019-2020 cycle, 1224 couples participated in the couples match.¹ However, NRMP reports only limited data regarding the couples match, and it is not specialty specific.

We aimed to determine the characteristics of matched vs nonmatched dermatology applicants. Secondarily, we aimed to determine any differences among demographics regarding matching rates, academic performance, and research publications. We also aimed to characterize the strategy and outcomes of applicants that couples matched.

Materials and Methods

The Mayo Clinic institutional review board deemed this study exempt. All applicants who applied to Mayo Clinic dermatology residency in Scottsdale, Arizona, during the 2018-2019 cycle were emailed an initial survey (N=475) before Match Day that obtained demographic information, geographic information, gap-year information, USMLE Step 1 score, publications, medical school grades, number of away rotations, and number of interviews. A follow-up survey gathering match data and couples matching data was sent to the applicants who completed the first survey on Match Day. The survey was repeated for the 2019-2020 cycle. In the second survey, Step 2 CK data were obtained. The survey was sent to 629 applicants who applied to Mayo Clinic dermatology residencies in Arizona, Minnesota, and Florida to include a broader group of applicants. For publications, applicants were asked to count only published or accepted manuscripts, not abstracts, posters, conference presentations, or submitted manuscripts. Applicants who did not respond to the second survey (match data) were not included in that part of the analysis. One survey was excluded because of implausible answers (eg, scores outside of range for USMLE Step scores).

Statistical Analysis—For statistical analyses, the applicants from both applications cycles were combined. Descriptive statistics were reported in the form of mean, median, or counts (percentages), as applicable. Means were compared using 2-sided t tests. Group comparisons were examined using χ² tests for categorical variables. Statistical analyses were performed using the BlueSky Statistics version 6.30. P<.05 was considered significant.

Results

In 2019, a total of 149 applicants completed the initial survey (31.4% response rate), and 112 completed the follow-up survey (75.2% response rate). In 2020, a total of 142 applicants completed the initial survey (22.6% response rate), and 124 completed the follow-up survey (87.3% response rate). Combining the 2 years, after removing 1 survey with implausible answers, there were 290 respondents from the initial survey and 235 from the follow-up survey. The median (SD) age for the total applicants over both years was 27 (3.0) years, and 180 applicants were female (61.9%).

USMLE Scores—The median USMLE Step 1 score was 250, and scores ranged from 196 to 271. The median USMLE Step 2 CK score was 257, and scores ranged from 213 to 281. Higher USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores and more interviews were associated with higher match rates (Table 1). In addition, students with a dermatology program at their medical school were more likely to match than those without a home dermatology program.

Gender Differences—There were 180 females and 110 males who completed the surveys. Males and females had similar match rates (85.2% vs 89.0%; P=.39)(Table 2).

Family Life—In comparing marital status, applicants who were divorced had a higher median age (38.5 years) compared with applicants who were single, married, or in a domestic partnership (all 27 years; P<.01). Differences are outlined in Table 3.

On average, applicants with children (n=27 [15 male, 12 female]; P=.13) were 3 years older than those without (30.5 vs 27; P<.01) and were more likely to be married (88.9% vs 21.5%; P<.01). Applicants with children had a mean USMLE Step 1 score of 241 compared to 251 for those without children (P=.02) and a mean USMLE Step 2 CK score of 246 compared to 258 for those without children (P<.01). Applicants with children had similar debt, number of publications, number of honored rotations, and match rates compared to applicants without children (Figure).

Couples Match—Seventeen individuals in our survey participated in the couples match (7.8%), and all 17 (100%) matched into dermatology. The mean age was 26.7 years, 12 applicants were female, 2 applicants were married, and 1 applicant had children. The mean number of interviews offered was 13.6, and the mean number of interviews attended was 11.3. This was higher than participants who were not couples matching (13.6 vs 9.8 [P=.02] and 11.3 vs 8.9 [P=.04], respectively). Applicants and their partners applied to programs and received interviews in a mean of 10 cities. Sixteen applicants reported that they contacted programs where their partner had interview offers. All participants’ rank lists included programs located in different cities than their partners’ ranked programs, and all but 1 participant ranked programs located in a different state than their partners’ ranked programs. Fifteen participants had options in their rank list for the applicant not to match, even if the partner would match. Similarly, 12 had the option for the applicant to match, even if the partner would not match. Fourteen (82.4%) matched at the same institution as their significant other. Three (17.6%) applicants matched to a program in a different state than the partner’s matched program. Two (11.8%) participants felt their relationship with their partner suffered because of the match, and 1 (5.9%) applicant was undetermined. One applicant described their relationship suffering from “unnecessary tension and anxiety” and noted “difficult conversations” about potentially matching into dermatology in a different location from their partner that could have been “devastating and not something [he or she] should have to choose.”

Comment

Factors for Matching in Dermatology—In our survey, we found the statistically significant factors of matching into dermatology included high USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores (P<.01), having a home dermatology program (P=.04), and attending a higher number of dermatology interviews (P<.01). These data are similar to NRMP results¹; however, the higher likelihood of matching if the medical school has a home dermatology program has not been reported. This finding could be due to multiple factors such as students have less access to academic dermatologists for research projects, letters of recommendations, mentorship, and clinical rotations.

Gender and having children were factors that had no correlation with the match rate. There was a statistical difference of matching based on marital status (P<.01), but this is likely due to the low number of applicants in the divorced category. There were differences among demographics with USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores, which is a known factor in matching.^1,2 Applicants with children had lower USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores compared to applicants without children. Females also had lower median USMLE Step 1 scores compared to males. This finding may serve as a reminder to programs when comparing USMLE Step examination scores that demographic factors may play a role. The race and ethnicity of applicants likely play a role. It has been reported that underrepresented minorities had lower match rates than White and Asian applicants in dermatology.⁶ There have been several published articles discussing the lack of diversity in dermatology, with a call to action.^7-9

Factors for Couples Matching—The number of applicants participating in the couples match continues to increase yearly. The NMRP does publish data regarding “successful” couples matching but does not specify how many couples match together. There also is little published regarding advice for participation in the couples match. Although we had a limited number of couples that participated in the match, it is interesting to note they had similar strategies, including contacting programs at institutions that had offered interviews to their partners. This strategy may be effective, as dermatology programs offer interviews relatively late compared with other specialties.⁵ Additionally, this strategy may increase the number of interviews offered and received, as evidenced by the higher number of interviews offered compared with those who were not couples matching. Additionally, this survey highlights the sacrifice often needed by couples in the couples match as revealed by the inclusion of rank-list options in which the couples reside long distance or in which 1 partner does not match. This information may be helpful to applicants who are planning a strategy for the couples match in dermatology. Although this study does not encompass all dermatology applicants in the 2019-2020 cycle, we do believe it may be representative. The USMLE Step 1 scores in this study were similar to the published NRMP data.^1,10 According to NRMP data from the 2019-2020 cycle, the mean USMLE Step 1 score was 248 for matched applicants and 239 for unmatched.¹ The NRMP reported the mean USMLE Step 2 CK score for matched was 256 and 248 for unmatched, which also is similar to our data. The NRMP reported the mean number of programs ranked was 9.9 for matched and 4.5 for unmatched applicants.¹ Again, our data were similar for number of dermatology interviews attended.

Limitations—There are limitations to this study. The main limitation is that the survey is from a single institution and had a limited number of respondents. Given the nature of the study, the accuracy of the data is dependent on the applicants’ honesty in self-reporting academic performance and other variables. There also may be a selection bias given the low response rate. The subanalyses—children and couples matching—were underpowered with the limited number of participants. Further studies that include multiple residency programs and multiple years could be helpful to provide more power and less risk of bias. We did not gather information such as the Medical Student Performance Evaluation letter, letters of recommendation, or personal statements, which do play an important role in the assessment of an applicant. However, because the applicants completed these surveys, and given these are largely blinded to applicants, we did not feel the applicants could accurately respond to those aspects of the application.

Conclusion

Our survey finds that factors associated with matching included a higher USMLE Step 1 score, having a home dermatology program, and a higher number of interviews offered and attended. Some demographics had varying USMLE Step 1 scores but similar match rates.

Dermatology residency continues to be one of the most competitive specialties, with a match rate of 84.7% for US allopathic seniors in the 2019-2020 academic year.¹ In the 2019-2020 cycle, dermatology applicants were tied with plastic surgery for the highest median US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score compared with other specialties, which suggests that the top medical students are applying, yet only approximately 5 of 6 students are matching.

Factors that have been cited with successful dermatology matching include USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores,² research accomplishments,³ letters of recommendation,⁴ medical school performance, personal statement, grades in required clerkships, and volunteer/extracurricular experiences, among others.⁵

The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) publishes data each year regarding different academic factors—USMLE scores; number of abstracts, presentations, and papers; work, volunteer, and research experiences—and compares the mean between matched and nonmatched applicants.¹ However, the USMLE does not report any demographic information of the applicants and the implication it has for matching. Additionally, the number of couples participating in the couples match continues to increase each year. In the 2019-2020 cycle, 1224 couples participated in the couples match.¹ However, NRMP reports only limited data regarding the couples match, and it is not specialty specific.

We aimed to determine the characteristics of matched vs nonmatched dermatology applicants. Secondarily, we aimed to determine any differences among demographics regarding matching rates, academic performance, and research publications. We also aimed to characterize the strategy and outcomes of applicants that couples matched.

Materials and Methods

The Mayo Clinic institutional review board deemed this study exempt. All applicants who applied to Mayo Clinic dermatology residency in Scottsdale, Arizona, during the 2018-2019 cycle were emailed an initial survey (N=475) before Match Day that obtained demographic information, geographic information, gap-year information, USMLE Step 1 score, publications, medical school grades, number of away rotations, and number of interviews. A follow-up survey gathering match data and couples matching data was sent to the applicants who completed the first survey on Match Day. The survey was repeated for the 2019-2020 cycle. In the second survey, Step 2 CK data were obtained. The survey was sent to 629 applicants who applied to Mayo Clinic dermatology residencies in Arizona, Minnesota, and Florida to include a broader group of applicants. For publications, applicants were asked to count only published or accepted manuscripts, not abstracts, posters, conference presentations, or submitted manuscripts. Applicants who did not respond to the second survey (match data) were not included in that part of the analysis. One survey was excluded because of implausible answers (eg, scores outside of range for USMLE Step scores).

Statistical Analysis—For statistical analyses, the applicants from both applications cycles were combined. Descriptive statistics were reported in the form of mean, median, or counts (percentages), as applicable. Means were compared using 2-sided t tests. Group comparisons were examined using χ² tests for categorical variables. Statistical analyses were performed using the BlueSky Statistics version 6.30. P<.05 was considered significant.

Results

In 2019, a total of 149 applicants completed the initial survey (31.4% response rate), and 112 completed the follow-up survey (75.2% response rate). In 2020, a total of 142 applicants completed the initial survey (22.6% response rate), and 124 completed the follow-up survey (87.3% response rate). Combining the 2 years, after removing 1 survey with implausible answers, there were 290 respondents from the initial survey and 235 from the follow-up survey. The median (SD) age for the total applicants over both years was 27 (3.0) years, and 180 applicants were female (61.9%).

USMLE Scores—The median USMLE Step 1 score was 250, and scores ranged from 196 to 271. The median USMLE Step 2 CK score was 257, and scores ranged from 213 to 281. Higher USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores and more interviews were associated with higher match rates (Table 1). In addition, students with a dermatology program at their medical school were more likely to match than those without a home dermatology program.

Gender Differences—There were 180 females and 110 males who completed the surveys. Males and females had similar match rates (85.2% vs 89.0%; P=.39)(Table 2).

Family Life—In comparing marital status, applicants who were divorced had a higher median age (38.5 years) compared with applicants who were single, married, or in a domestic partnership (all 27 years; P<.01). Differences are outlined in Table 3.

On average, applicants with children (n=27 [15 male, 12 female]; P=.13) were 3 years older than those without (30.5 vs 27; P<.01) and were more likely to be married (88.9% vs 21.5%; P<.01). Applicants with children had a mean USMLE Step 1 score of 241 compared to 251 for those without children (P=.02) and a mean USMLE Step 2 CK score of 246 compared to 258 for those without children (P<.01). Applicants with children had similar debt, number of publications, number of honored rotations, and match rates compared to applicants without children (Figure).

Couples Match—Seventeen individuals in our survey participated in the couples match (7.8%), and all 17 (100%) matched into dermatology. The mean age was 26.7 years, 12 applicants were female, 2 applicants were married, and 1 applicant had children. The mean number of interviews offered was 13.6, and the mean number of interviews attended was 11.3. This was higher than participants who were not couples matching (13.6 vs 9.8 [P=.02] and 11.3 vs 8.9 [P=.04], respectively). Applicants and their partners applied to programs and received interviews in a mean of 10 cities. Sixteen applicants reported that they contacted programs where their partner had interview offers. All participants’ rank lists included programs located in different cities than their partners’ ranked programs, and all but 1 participant ranked programs located in a different state than their partners’ ranked programs. Fifteen participants had options in their rank list for the applicant not to match, even if the partner would match. Similarly, 12 had the option for the applicant to match, even if the partner would not match. Fourteen (82.4%) matched at the same institution as their significant other. Three (17.6%) applicants matched to a program in a different state than the partner’s matched program. Two (11.8%) participants felt their relationship with their partner suffered because of the match, and 1 (5.9%) applicant was undetermined. One applicant described their relationship suffering from “unnecessary tension and anxiety” and noted “difficult conversations” about potentially matching into dermatology in a different location from their partner that could have been “devastating and not something [he or she] should have to choose.”

Comment

Factors for Matching in Dermatology—In our survey, we found the statistically significant factors of matching into dermatology included high USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores (P<.01), having a home dermatology program (P=.04), and attending a higher number of dermatology interviews (P<.01). These data are similar to NRMP results¹; however, the higher likelihood of matching if the medical school has a home dermatology program has not been reported. This finding could be due to multiple factors such as students have less access to academic dermatologists for research projects, letters of recommendations, mentorship, and clinical rotations.

Gender and having children were factors that had no correlation with the match rate. There was a statistical difference of matching based on marital status (P<.01), but this is likely due to the low number of applicants in the divorced category. There were differences among demographics with USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores, which is a known factor in matching.^1,2 Applicants with children had lower USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores compared to applicants without children. Females also had lower median USMLE Step 1 scores compared to males. This finding may serve as a reminder to programs when comparing USMLE Step examination scores that demographic factors may play a role. The race and ethnicity of applicants likely play a role. It has been reported that underrepresented minorities had lower match rates than White and Asian applicants in dermatology.⁶ There have been several published articles discussing the lack of diversity in dermatology, with a call to action.^7-9

Factors for Couples Matching—The number of applicants participating in the couples match continues to increase yearly. The NMRP does publish data regarding “successful” couples matching but does not specify how many couples match together. There also is little published regarding advice for participation in the couples match. Although we had a limited number of couples that participated in the match, it is interesting to note they had similar strategies, including contacting programs at institutions that had offered interviews to their partners. This strategy may be effective, as dermatology programs offer interviews relatively late compared with other specialties.⁵ Additionally, this strategy may increase the number of interviews offered and received, as evidenced by the higher number of interviews offered compared with those who were not couples matching. Additionally, this survey highlights the sacrifice often needed by couples in the couples match as revealed by the inclusion of rank-list options in which the couples reside long distance or in which 1 partner does not match. This information may be helpful to applicants who are planning a strategy for the couples match in dermatology. Although this study does not encompass all dermatology applicants in the 2019-2020 cycle, we do believe it may be representative. The USMLE Step 1 scores in this study were similar to the published NRMP data.^1,10 According to NRMP data from the 2019-2020 cycle, the mean USMLE Step 1 score was 248 for matched applicants and 239 for unmatched.¹ The NRMP reported the mean USMLE Step 2 CK score for matched was 256 and 248 for unmatched, which also is similar to our data. The NRMP reported the mean number of programs ranked was 9.9 for matched and 4.5 for unmatched applicants.¹ Again, our data were similar for number of dermatology interviews attended.

Limitations—There are limitations to this study. The main limitation is that the survey is from a single institution and had a limited number of respondents. Given the nature of the study, the accuracy of the data is dependent on the applicants’ honesty in self-reporting academic performance and other variables. There also may be a selection bias given the low response rate. The subanalyses—children and couples matching—were underpowered with the limited number of participants. Further studies that include multiple residency programs and multiple years could be helpful to provide more power and less risk of bias. We did not gather information such as the Medical Student Performance Evaluation letter, letters of recommendation, or personal statements, which do play an important role in the assessment of an applicant. However, because the applicants completed these surveys, and given these are largely blinded to applicants, we did not feel the applicants could accurately respond to those aspects of the application.

Conclusion

Our survey finds that factors associated with matching included a higher USMLE Step 1 score, having a home dermatology program, and a higher number of interviews offered and attended. Some demographics had varying USMLE Step 1 scores but similar match rates.

Dermatology residency continues to be one of the most competitive specialties, with a match rate of 84.7% for US allopathic seniors in the 2019-2020 academic year.¹ In the 2019-2020 cycle, dermatology applicants were tied with plastic surgery for the highest median US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score compared with other specialties, which suggests that the top medical students are applying, yet only approximately 5 of 6 students are matching.

Factors that have been cited with successful dermatology matching include USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores,² research accomplishments,³ letters of recommendation,⁴ medical school performance, personal statement, grades in required clerkships, and volunteer/extracurricular experiences, among others.⁵

The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) publishes data each year regarding different academic factors—USMLE scores; number of abstracts, presentations, and papers; work, volunteer, and research experiences—and compares the mean between matched and nonmatched applicants.¹ However, the USMLE does not report any demographic information of the applicants and the implication it has for matching. Additionally, the number of couples participating in the couples match continues to increase each year. In the 2019-2020 cycle, 1224 couples participated in the couples match.¹ However, NRMP reports only limited data regarding the couples match, and it is not specialty specific.

We aimed to determine the characteristics of matched vs nonmatched dermatology applicants. Secondarily, we aimed to determine any differences among demographics regarding matching rates, academic performance, and research publications. We also aimed to characterize the strategy and outcomes of applicants that couples matched.

Materials and Methods

The Mayo Clinic institutional review board deemed this study exempt. All applicants who applied to Mayo Clinic dermatology residency in Scottsdale, Arizona, during the 2018-2019 cycle were emailed an initial survey (N=475) before Match Day that obtained demographic information, geographic information, gap-year information, USMLE Step 1 score, publications, medical school grades, number of away rotations, and number of interviews. A follow-up survey gathering match data and couples matching data was sent to the applicants who completed the first survey on Match Day. The survey was repeated for the 2019-2020 cycle. In the second survey, Step 2 CK data were obtained. The survey was sent to 629 applicants who applied to Mayo Clinic dermatology residencies in Arizona, Minnesota, and Florida to include a broader group of applicants. For publications, applicants were asked to count only published or accepted manuscripts, not abstracts, posters, conference presentations, or submitted manuscripts. Applicants who did not respond to the second survey (match data) were not included in that part of the analysis. One survey was excluded because of implausible answers (eg, scores outside of range for USMLE Step scores).

Statistical Analysis—For statistical analyses, the applicants from both applications cycles were combined. Descriptive statistics were reported in the form of mean, median, or counts (percentages), as applicable. Means were compared using 2-sided t tests. Group comparisons were examined using χ² tests for categorical variables. Statistical analyses were performed using the BlueSky Statistics version 6.30. P<.05 was considered significant.

Results

In 2019, a total of 149 applicants completed the initial survey (31.4% response rate), and 112 completed the follow-up survey (75.2% response rate). In 2020, a total of 142 applicants completed the initial survey (22.6% response rate), and 124 completed the follow-up survey (87.3% response rate). Combining the 2 years, after removing 1 survey with implausible answers, there were 290 respondents from the initial survey and 235 from the follow-up survey. The median (SD) age for the total applicants over both years was 27 (3.0) years, and 180 applicants were female (61.9%).

USMLE Scores—The median USMLE Step 1 score was 250, and scores ranged from 196 to 271. The median USMLE Step 2 CK score was 257, and scores ranged from 213 to 281. Higher USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores and more interviews were associated with higher match rates (Table 1). In addition, students with a dermatology program at their medical school were more likely to match than those without a home dermatology program.

Gender Differences—There were 180 females and 110 males who completed the surveys. Males and females had similar match rates (85.2% vs 89.0%; P=.39)(Table 2).

Family Life—In comparing marital status, applicants who were divorced had a higher median age (38.5 years) compared with applicants who were single, married, or in a domestic partnership (all 27 years; P<.01). Differences are outlined in Table 3.

On average, applicants with children (n=27 [15 male, 12 female]; P=.13) were 3 years older than those without (30.5 vs 27; P<.01) and were more likely to be married (88.9% vs 21.5%; P<.01). Applicants with children had a mean USMLE Step 1 score of 241 compared to 251 for those without children (P=.02) and a mean USMLE Step 2 CK score of 246 compared to 258 for those without children (P<.01). Applicants with children had similar debt, number of publications, number of honored rotations, and match rates compared to applicants without children (Figure).

Couples Match—Seventeen individuals in our survey participated in the couples match (7.8%), and all 17 (100%) matched into dermatology. The mean age was 26.7 years, 12 applicants were female, 2 applicants were married, and 1 applicant had children. The mean number of interviews offered was 13.6, and the mean number of interviews attended was 11.3. This was higher than participants who were not couples matching (13.6 vs 9.8 [P=.02] and 11.3 vs 8.9 [P=.04], respectively). Applicants and their partners applied to programs and received interviews in a mean of 10 cities. Sixteen applicants reported that they contacted programs where their partner had interview offers. All participants’ rank lists included programs located in different cities than their partners’ ranked programs, and all but 1 participant ranked programs located in a different state than their partners’ ranked programs. Fifteen participants had options in their rank list for the applicant not to match, even if the partner would match. Similarly, 12 had the option for the applicant to match, even if the partner would not match. Fourteen (82.4%) matched at the same institution as their significant other. Three (17.6%) applicants matched to a program in a different state than the partner’s matched program. Two (11.8%) participants felt their relationship with their partner suffered because of the match, and 1 (5.9%) applicant was undetermined. One applicant described their relationship suffering from “unnecessary tension and anxiety” and noted “difficult conversations” about potentially matching into dermatology in a different location from their partner that could have been “devastating and not something [he or she] should have to choose.”

Comment

Factors for Matching in Dermatology—In our survey, we found the statistically significant factors of matching into dermatology included high USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores (P<.01), having a home dermatology program (P=.04), and attending a higher number of dermatology interviews (P<.01). These data are similar to NRMP results¹; however, the higher likelihood of matching if the medical school has a home dermatology program has not been reported. This finding could be due to multiple factors such as students have less access to academic dermatologists for research projects, letters of recommendations, mentorship, and clinical rotations.

Gender and having children were factors that had no correlation with the match rate. There was a statistical difference of matching based on marital status (P<.01), but this is likely due to the low number of applicants in the divorced category. There were differences among demographics with USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores, which is a known factor in matching.^1,2 Applicants with children had lower USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores compared to applicants without children. Females also had lower median USMLE Step 1 scores compared to males. This finding may serve as a reminder to programs when comparing USMLE Step examination scores that demographic factors may play a role. The race and ethnicity of applicants likely play a role. It has been reported that underrepresented minorities had lower match rates than White and Asian applicants in dermatology.⁶ There have been several published articles discussing the lack of diversity in dermatology, with a call to action.^7-9

Factors for Couples Matching—The number of applicants participating in the couples match continues to increase yearly. The NMRP does publish data regarding “successful” couples matching but does not specify how many couples match together. There also is little published regarding advice for participation in the couples match. Although we had a limited number of couples that participated in the match, it is interesting to note they had similar strategies, including contacting programs at institutions that had offered interviews to their partners. This strategy may be effective, as dermatology programs offer interviews relatively late compared with other specialties.⁵ Additionally, this strategy may increase the number of interviews offered and received, as evidenced by the higher number of interviews offered compared with those who were not couples matching. Additionally, this survey highlights the sacrifice often needed by couples in the couples match as revealed by the inclusion of rank-list options in which the couples reside long distance or in which 1 partner does not match. This information may be helpful to applicants who are planning a strategy for the couples match in dermatology. Although this study does not encompass all dermatology applicants in the 2019-2020 cycle, we do believe it may be representative. The USMLE Step 1 scores in this study were similar to the published NRMP data.^1,10 According to NRMP data from the 2019-2020 cycle, the mean USMLE Step 1 score was 248 for matched applicants and 239 for unmatched.¹ The NRMP reported the mean USMLE Step 2 CK score for matched was 256 and 248 for unmatched, which also is similar to our data. The NRMP reported the mean number of programs ranked was 9.9 for matched and 4.5 for unmatched applicants.¹ Again, our data were similar for number of dermatology interviews attended.

Limitations—There are limitations to this study. The main limitation is that the survey is from a single institution and had a limited number of respondents. Given the nature of the study, the accuracy of the data is dependent on the applicants’ honesty in self-reporting academic performance and other variables. There also may be a selection bias given the low response rate. The subanalyses—children and couples matching—were underpowered with the limited number of participants. Further studies that include multiple residency programs and multiple years could be helpful to provide more power and less risk of bias. We did not gather information such as the Medical Student Performance Evaluation letter, letters of recommendation, or personal statements, which do play an important role in the assessment of an applicant. However, because the applicants completed these surveys, and given these are largely blinded to applicants, we did not feel the applicants could accurately respond to those aspects of the application.

Conclusion

Our survey finds that factors associated with matching included a higher USMLE Step 1 score, having a home dermatology program, and a higher number of interviews offered and attended. Some demographics had varying USMLE Step 1 scores but similar match rates.