Comparison of web-based and face-to-face interviews for application to an anesthesiology training program: a pilot study.

ObjectiveThis study compared admission rates to a United States anesthesiology residency program for applicants completing face-to-face versus web-based interviews during the admissions process. We also explored factors driving applicants to select each interview type.MethodsThe 211 applicants invited to interview for admission to our anesthesiology residency program during the 2014-2015 application cycle were participants in this pilot observational study. Of these, 141 applicants selected face-to-face interviews, 53 applicants selected web-based interviews, and 17 applicants declined to interview. Data regarding applicants' reasons for selecting a particular interview type were gathered using an anonymous online survey after interview completion. Residency program admission rates and survey answers were compared between applicants completing face-to-face versus web-based interviews.ResultsOne hundred twenty-seven (75.1%) applicants completed face-to-face and 42 (24.9%) completed web-based interviews. The admission rate to our residency program was not significantly different between applicants completing face-to-face versus web-based interviews. One hundred eleven applicants completed post-interview surveys. The most common reasons for selecting web-based interviews were conflict of interview dates between programs, travel concerns, or financial limitations. Applicants selected face-to-face interviews due to a desire to interact with current residents, or geographic proximity to the residency program.ConclusionsThese results suggest that completion of web-based interviews is a viable alternative to completion of face-to-face interviews, and that choice of interview type does not affect the rate of applicant admission to the residency program. Web-based interviews may be of particular interest to applicants applying to a large number of programs, or with financial limitations

Comparison of web-based and face-to-face interviews for application to an anesthesiology training program: a pilot study

Abstract Objectives: This study compared admission rates to a United States anesthesiology residency program for applicants completing face-to-face versus web-based interviews during the admissions process. We also explored factors driving applicants to select each interview type. Methods: The 211 applicants invited to interview for admission to our anesthesiology residency program during the 2014-2015 application cycle were participants in this pilot observational study. Of these, 141 applicants selected face-to-face interviews, 53 applicants selected web-based interviews, and 17 applicants declined to interview. Data regarding applicants' reasons for selecting a particular interview type were gathered using an anonymous online survey after interview completion. Residency program admission rates and survey answers were compared between applicants completing face-to-face versus web-based interviews. Results: One hundred twenty-seven (75.1%) applicants completed face-to-face and 42 (24.9%) completed webbased interviews. The admission rate to our residency program was not significantly different between applicants completing face-to-face versus web-based interviews. One hundred eleven applicants completed post-interview surveys. The most common reasons for selecting web-based interviews were conflict of interview dates between programs, travel concerns, or financial limitations. Applicants selected face-to-face interviews due to a desire to interact with current residents, or geographic proximity to the residency program. Conclusions: These results suggest that completion of webbased interviews is a viable alternative to completion of face-to-face interviews, and that choice of interview type does not affect the rate of applicant admission to the residency program. Web-based interviews may be of particular interest to applicants applying to a large number of programs, or with financial limitations

Cancer incidence and mortality in patients with insulin-treated diabetes: a UK cohort study

Raised risks of several cancers have been found in patients with type II diabetes, but there are few data on cancer risk in type I diabetes. We conducted a cohort study of 28 900 UK patients with insulin-treated diabetes followed for 520 517 person-years, and compared their cancer incidence and mortality with national expectations. To analyse by diabetes type, we examined risks separately in 23 834 patients diagnosed with diabetes under the age of 30 years, who will almost all have had type I diabetes, and 5066 patients diagnosed at ages 30–49 years, who probably mainly had type II. Relative risks of cancer overall were close to unity, but ovarian cancer risk was highly significantly raised in patients with diabetes diagnosed under age 30 years (standardised incidence ratio (SIR)=2.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22–3.48; standardised mortality ratio (SMR)=2.90; 95% CI 1.45–5.19), with greatest risks for those with diabetes diagnosed at ages 10–19 years. Risks of cancer at other major sites were not substantially raised for type I patients. The excesses of obesity- and alcohol-related cancers in type II diabetes may be due to confounding rather than diabetes per se

Association between TCF7L2 gene polymorphisms and susceptibility to Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a large Human Genome Epidemiology (HuGE) review and meta-analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Transcription factor 7-like 2 (<it>TCF7L2</it>) has been shown to be associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2MD) in multiple ethnic groups in the past two years, but, contradictory results were reported for Chinese and Pima Indian populations. The authors then performed a large meta-analysis of 36 studies examining the association of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with polymorphisms in the <it>TCF7L2 </it>gene in various ethnicities, containing rs7903146 C-to-T (IVS3C>T), rs7901695 T-to-C (IVS3T>C), a rs12255372 G-to-T (IVS4G>T), and rs11196205 G-to-C (IVS4G>C) polymorphisms and to evaluate the size of gene effect and the possible genetic mode of action.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Literature-based searching was conducted to collect data and three methods, that is, fixed-effects, random-effects and Bayesian multivariate mete-analysis, were performed to pool the odds ratio (<it>OR</it>). Publication bias and study-between heterogeneity were also examined.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The studies included 35,843 cases of T2DM and 39,123 controls, using mainly primary data. For T2DM and IVS3C>T polymorphism, the Bayesian <it>OR </it>for TT homozygotes and TC heterozygotes versus CC homozygote was 1.968 (95% credible interval (<it>CrI</it>): 1.790, 2.157), 1.406 (95% <it>CrI</it>: 1.341, 1.476), respectively, and the population attributable risk (PAR) for the TT/TC genotypes of this variant is 16.9% for overall. For T2DM and IVS4G>T polymorphism, TT homozygotes and TG heterozygotes versus GG homozygote was 1.885 (95%<it>CrI</it>: 1.698, 2.088), 1.360 (95% <it>CrI</it>: 1.291, 1.433), respectively. Four <it>OR</it>s among these two polymorphisms all yielded significant between-study heterogeneity (P < 0.05) and the main source of heterogeneity was ethnic differences. Data also showed significant associations between T2DM and the other two polymorphisms, but with low heterogeneity (<it>P </it>> 0.10). Pooled <it>OR</it>s fit a codominant, multiplicative genetic model for all the four polymorphisms of <it>TCF7L2 </it>gene, and this model was also confirmed in different ethnic populations when stratification of IVS3C>T and IVS4G>T polymorphisms except for Africans, where a dominant, additive genetic mode is suggested for IVS3C>T polymorphism.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This meta-analysis demonstrates that four variants of <it>TCF7L2 </it>gene are all associated with T2DM, and indicates a multiplicative genetic model for all the four polymorphisms, as well as suggests the <it>TCF7L2 </it>gene involved in near 1/5 of all T2MD. Potential gene-gene and gene-environmental interactions by which common variants in the <it>TCF7L2 </it>gene influence the risk of T2MD need further exploration.</p