Gender Differences in Academic Productivity and Academic Career Choice Among Urology Residents

Department of Urology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
The Journal of urology (Impact Factor: 4.47). 08/2012; 188(4):1286-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.06.022
Source: PubMed


Gender disparities have long existed in medicine but they have not been well examined in urology. We analyzed a large cohort of graduating urology residents to investigate gender disparities in academic productivity, as measured by peer reviewed publications and academic career choice.
We assembled a list of urology residents who graduated from 2002 through 2008 who were affiliated with the top 50 urology hospitals, as ranked by 2009 U.S. News & World Report. PubMed® was queried to determine the publication output of each resident during the last 3 years of residency. We used an Internet search to determine the fellowship training, career choice and academic rank of each subject. Gender effects on each factor were evaluated.
A total of 459 male (84.5%) and 84 female (15.5%) residents were included in analysis. During residency women produced fewer total publications (average 3.0 vs 4.8, p = 0.01) and fewer as first author (average 1.8 vs 2.5, p = 0.03) than men. A higher proportion of women than men underwent fellowship training (54.8% vs 48.5%, p = 0.29) and ultimately chose an academic career (40.5% vs 33.3%, p = 0.20), although these differences were not statistically significant. Of residents who chose an academic career a higher proportion of men than women (24.7% vs 2.9%, p = 0.01) obtained associate vs assistant professor rank.
Women produced fewer peer reviewed publications than men during residency but they were equally likely to undergo fellowship training and choose an academic career. During the study period a higher proportion of men achieved associate professor rank.

Download full-text


Available from: Benjamin N Breyer, Aug 18, 2015
  • Source
    • "In response to a 2006 survey, the most common challenges faced as a female urology resident were the refusal to be seen by male patients (60%), inappropriate treatment by male colleagues (36%) or male patients (29%), and sexual harassment (22%) [10]. Gender differences in the professional growth and academic excellence have been studied in a recent report [11] and it was noted that women produced fewer peer-reviewed publications than men during their residency, but they were equally likely to undergo fellowship training and choose an academic career. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Context Despite producing some of the leading urologists in the world, urological training in the developing world is marred by inconsistency, and a lack of structure and focus on evidence-based practice. In this review we address these issues from the trainers’ perspective. Introduction Teaching the art and science of urological practice is a demanding task. It not only involves helping the resident to develop the depth of cognitive knowledge, but also to have an appropriate surgical judgement, and an ability to act quickly but thoughtfully and, when necessary, decisively. Discussion The surgeon must have compassion, communication skills, be perceptive and dedicated. Most importantly, however, he or she should have the ability to cut and suture. Not all of these can be inculcated in the training programme, even with the best of efforts. The selection of an appropriate candidate therefore becomes an issue of pivotal importance. The changing focus of urological training incorporates research and evidence-based practice as essential components. It is particularly important in the developing world, as there is a dearth of standardised practice models across the healthcare system. Encouraging female residents can be done by improving and tailoring the working conditions. The ‘brain drain’ is a major problem in the developing world, and bureaucracy and government need to take appropriate measures to provide high-quality healthcare facilities with room for professional growth. Conclusions The future of urology will depend on improved education and training, leading to high-quality urological care, and to developing a service that is patient focused.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2013 · Arab Journal of Urology
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: We assess outgoing Canadian urology chief residents' well-being, their satisfaction with their surgical training, and their proficiency in surgical procedures throughout their residency program. Methods: In 2012 an anonymous survey was sent by email to all 29 graduated urology chief residents across Canada. The survey included a list of all urologic surgical procedures listed by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC). According to the A/B/C classification used to assess competence in these procedures (A most competent, C least competent), we asked chief residents to self-classify their competence with regards to each procedure and we compared the final results to the current RCPSC classification. Results: The overall response rate among chief residents surveyed was 97%. An overwhelming majority (96.4%) of residents agreed that the residency program has affected their overall well-being, as well as their relationships with their families and/or partners (67.8%). Overall, 85.7% agreed that research was an integral part of the residency program and 78.6% have enrolled in a fellowship program post-graduation. Respondents believed that they have received the least adequate training in robotic surgery (89.3%), followed by female urology (67.8%), andrology/sexual medicine/infertility (67.8%), and reconstructive urology (61.4%). Interestingly, in several of the 42 surgical procedures classified as category A by the RCPSC, a significant percentage of residents felt that their proficiency was not category A, including repair of urinary fistulae (82.1%), pediatric indirect hernia repair and meatal repair for glanular hypospadias (67.9%), open pyeloplasty (64.3%), anterior pelvic exenteration (61.6%), open varicocelectomy (60.7%) and radical cystoprostatectomy (33.3%). Furthermore, all respondents (100%) believed they were deficient in at least 1 of the 42 category A procedures, while 53.6 % believed they were deficient in at least 10 of the 42 procedures. Conclusions: Most residents agree that their residency program has affected their overall well-being as well as their relationships with their families and/or partners. There is also a clear deficiency in what outgoing residents perceive they have achieved and what the RCPSC mandates. Future work should concentrate on addressing this discrepancy to assure that training and RCPSC expectations are better aligned.
    Preview · Article · Mar 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Educational processes that encourage a career in academic plastic surgery remain unclear. The authors' study aim was to examine the impact of training institution on the pursuit of a career in academic plastic surgery. Methods: Academic plastic surgery faculty (n = 838) were identified through an Internet-based search of all 94 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited residency and fellowship training programs. Academic productivity was determined by number of peer-reviewed publications and Scopus h-index. Linear and logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the correlation between attributes after adjusting for the clustering of surgeons within programs. Results: In the United States, 39 percent of plastic surgeons in academic practice are trained in only 11 programs, 30 percent of faculty remained at training institutions, and 39 percent were affiliated with a private practice model. Faculty from frequently represented training programs were more likely to pursue fellowship training (OR, 1.32; 95 percent CI, 1.00 to 1.75), have higher h-indices (9.0 versus 5.4; p < 0.001), and have a greater number of peer-reviewed articles (46.6 versus 24.3; p < 0.001). Higher h-indices were correlated with male sex (7.1 versus 4.7; p < 0.001), fellowship training (7.3 versus 6.1; p < 0.05), and no private practice affiliation (5.2 versus 7.8; p < 0.001). Female surgeons represented 14.1 percent of academic plastic surgeons, were younger based on the median year of board certification (2005 versus 2000; p < 0.05), and were more likely to be on the tenure track (66.9 percent versus 57.2 percent; p < 0.05) and at the assistant professor level (73.1 percent versus 43.6 percent; p < 0.05). Conclusion: Identification of educational processes that encourage a career in academic practice may improve resident mentorship and resident interest in academic plastic surgery.
    No preview · Article · Sep 2014 · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery
Show more