Skip to content
naulon
Not checkedNot checked for notices yet.

A comparison of match outcomes between traditional medical degree and dual-degree applicants.

Bryce R Christensen, Chad M Becnel, Leland P Chan and 3 more

PLoS ONE · 2020

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0244147 (opens in a new tab)

We email you when a new notice or a question about this paper appears.

Abstract

<h4>Background</h4>Dual degrees combining and MD with another professional degree (MPH, MBA, or PhD) are becoming more common in an attempt to increase an applicant's competitivity for a residency.<h4>Objective</h4>This study was designed to assess differences in MD-only and dual degree MD applicants with respect to applicant characteristics and match outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>Utilizing the voluntarily-reported publicly available 2017-2019 Texas STAR database, we assessed applicants from 115 medical schools. Texas STAR indicates that over this time period, there were 18,224 responses for a response rate of 43.8%. Comparisons were made between groups using student's t-test and chi-squared analysis.<h4>Results</h4>Compared to MD only students, MD/MPH applicants had a higher propensity towards primary care specialties. MD/PhD applicants did not differ versus MD only applicants in their selection of primary care specialties, or of competitive specialties. MD/MBA applicants chose more competitive specialties and less primary care specialties. Despite all these differences, match rates were not different comparing MD only and dual-degree students.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Despite the growing popularity of combined MD programs, such programs do not appear to increase applicant match competitivity.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.