AJOG Global Reports (Nov 2022)
Analyzing trends in obstetrics and gynecology fellowship training over the last decade using the normalized competitive indexAJOG Global Reports at a Glance
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective and relative competitiveness of obstetrical and gynecologic subspecialty training programs remain understudied. Traditional metrics, such as match rate or program fill rate, fail to standardize the application environment. This limits their applicability when examining demographic trends or when comparing data between different fellowship matches. The normalized competitive index was introduced to serve as a comprehensive metric of competitiveness by incorporating disparate indicators and normalizing to enable more detailed analyses. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze trends in the competitiveness across obstetrical and gynecologic subspecialty fellowship matches during the last decade. STUDY DESIGN: The results and data reports from the National Resident Match Program fellowship for 2010 to 2019 were used to collect data on multiple metrics of competitiveness for 6 obstetrical and gynecologic subspecialties. These data were used to determine the normalized competitive index. Subanalyses were conducted to identify trends over the last decade. RESULTS: Among fellowship programs in obstetrics and gynecology, the overall specialty match rate was 67.6%. The overall specialty program fill rate was 95.7%. According to the normalized competitive index metric, minimally invasive gynecologic surgery was the most competitive fellowship match (normalized competitive index=1.31; P=.002). Maternal-fetal medicine was the least competitive (normalized competitive index=0.94; P≤.005). When comparing the first and second half of the decade, no specialty experienced a significant decrease in match rate. The only significant increase in match rates occurred for female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (P=.035). Subanalyses of the normalized competitive index metric and other indicators of competitiveness demonstrated a strong negative correlation between the normalized competitive index and the subspecialty match rate (r=−0.9444) and a moderately positive correlation between the normalized competitive index and the program fill rate (r=0.4047). CONCLUSION: The normalized competitive index offers trainees a more quantitative understanding of the fellowship application environment. By incorporating multiple metrics and normalizing the result, it uniquely enables comparison between the subspecialty matches and the match process over time. The same standardization offers the potential for future comparisons of competitiveness within a single subspecialty match based on geographic region, applicant demographics, and other important determinants of a diverse and vibrant training environment.
