Navigating hematology and medical oncology fellowship websites: A comprehensive review and implications for applicants

Abstract

Abstract Background: With over 1.9 million new cancer diagnoses annually and better cancer survival in the United States, the demand for Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) -accredited fellowship-trained hematologists and oncologists continues to rise. Despite the critical need for specialists in this field, fellowship recruitment remains highly competitive due to limited training positions, and applicants often rely on fellowship program websites as a primary source of information when selecting where to apply and how to rank programs. Previous studies in other medical subspecialties have identified substantial variability and deficiencies in the availability of critical training information on program websites. Incomplete or inconsistent online content can impede applicants' ability to assess program compatibility, potentially contributing to inequities in application trends and decision-making. This study aims to address that gap by systematically analyzing United States hematology and medical oncology fellowship program websites using predefined criteria relevant to prospective applicants. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional website evaluation study to assess the availability of application- and program-related information for ACGME-accredited hematology and medical oncology fellowship programs in the United States. A comprehensive list of programs participating in the 2026 National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) was compiled using the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS). Fellowship websites were assessed for the presence of eight application-related criteria (e.g., program contact information, deadlines, USMLE score requirements, visa sponsorship) and eighteen program-related criteria (e.g., rotation schedule, compensation, diversity, fellow evaluation, and signaling acknowledgment), based on previously published frameworks evaluating online program content. Programs were included if a working website could be accessed through ERAS or a simple Google search. Each criterion was evaluated as either present or absent. All reviewers were unaffiliated with the programs included in the analysis. Data were collected in July 2025 and analyzed descriptively using Microsoft Excel. Results: A total of 188 hematology and medical oncology fellowship programs were evaluated. Among application-related items, the most frequently listed were application requirements (77.7%), how to apply (77.1%), and program coordinator contact (75.0%). 2.1% of programs listed USMLE score requirements, and only 30.3% programs provided the application opening date. Among the 18 program-related items, the most consistently reported included training site locations (92.6%), program affiliation (92.0%), and clinical rotation schedules (83.0%). The least reported were fellows board pass rates (4.8%), fellows evaluation methods (11.7%), fellows publications during training (14.4%), and mention of signaling (21.8%). Overall, only 50.4% of all possible application-related data and 49.7% of program-related data were available across fellowship program websites. The findings highlight ongoing shortcomings in the clarity and uniformity of online fellowship information, suggesting a need for programs to improve their digital presence to better serve fellowship applicants. Conclusion: Despite the increasing reliance on digital platforms for hematology and medical oncology fellowship recruitment, nearly half of hematology and medical oncology fellowship websites lack essential application and program-related information. The absence of clear information may obstruct applicants from fully evaluating programs, thereby introducing inefficiencies into the matching process. Establishing uniform standards for website content may help ensure equal access to information and foster more meaningful engagement with applicants in an increasingly online recruitment setting.