Abstract
BACKGROUND: The U.S. News & World Report has used the Doximity social networking site to determine rankings for 27 medical specialties, which influence medical students' choices. Despite concerns about the validity of these rankings, few studies have explored whether Doximity rankings correlate with program characteristics. We aim to determine associations between Doximity internal medicine reputation rank and publicly available program characteristics. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of the 566 internal medicine residencies with a Doximity reputation rank from 2020. Doximity rankings were linked with publicly available sources, including the American Medical Association's FREIDA, the American Board of Internal Medicine, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Quality System, and U.S. News Best Hospitals Ranking. Variables included resident demographics, faculty characteristics, and program features. Statistical analyses involved univariable and multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: In multivariable analysis (parameter estimate ± standard error), higher ABIM pass rates (-1.30 ± 0.41), higher physician faculty-to-resident ratios (-14.10 ± 4.45), older programs (-1.07 ± 0.25), availability of research rotations (-38.56 ± 16.23), and larger program sizes (-1.09 ± 0.16) were associated with better Doximity ranks. Conversely, a higher percentage of international medical graduates (1.07 ± 0.19) and Doctors of Osteopathy (1.12 ± 0.27) were linked to lower rankings. Variables had an adjusted R2 of 0.53. CONCLUSIONS: Doximity rankings were positively associated with publicly available characteristics of residency programs including higher ABIM pass rates, lower physician faculty-to-resident ratio, older program age, availability of a research rotation, and larger program size. Doximity rankings were negatively associated with a higher percentage of IMG and DO residents. These findings suggest that while Doximity rankings may be influenced by larger program sizes and higher self-reporting rates, they may also reflect meaningful indicators of program quality. The findings highlight the importance of research productivity and faculty ratios in enhancing program reputation and underscore potential disadvantages for community-based programs.