The Gatekeeper Disparity—Why Do Some Medical Schools Send More Medical Students Into Urology?
Abstract
Purpose:
Urology continues to be a highly desirable specialty despite decreasing exposure of students to urology in American medical schools. We assessed how American medical schools compare to each other in regard to the number of students that each sends into urological training. We evaluated the reasons why some medical schools consistently send more students into urology than others.
Materials and Methods:
We obtained American Urological Association Match data for the 5 match seasons from 2005 to 2009. We then surveyed all successful participants. The survey instrument was designed to determine what aspects of the medical school experience influenced students to specialize in urology. Bivariate and multivariate analysis was then done to assess which factors correlated with more students entering urology from a particular medical school.
Results:
Between 2005 and 2009 a total of 1,149 medical students from 130 medical schools successfully participated in the urology match. Of the 132 allopathic medical schools 128 sent at least 1 student into urology (mean ± SD 8.9 ± 6.5, median 8). A few medical schools were remarkable outliers, sending significantly more students into urology than other institutions. Multivariate analysis revealed that a number of medical school related variables, including strong mentorship, medical school ranking and medical school size, correlated with more medical students entering urology.
Conclusions:
Some medical schools launch more urological careers than others. Although the reasons for these findings are multifactorial, recruitment of urological talent pivots on these realities.
References
- 1 : How competitive is my surgical specialty?. Am J Surg2002; 184: 1. Google Scholar
- 2 : Residency Match: 2010 AUA Statistics. http://www.auanet.org/residents/resmatch.cfm#statistics. Accessed June 1, 2010. Google Scholar
- 3 : The urology residency matching program in practice. J Urol2000; 163: 1878. Link, Google Scholar
- 4 : Recruitment in urology: a national survey in the UK. Ann R Coll Surg Engl2004; 86: 186. Google Scholar
- 5 : What makes a medical student avoid or enter a career in urology?: Results of an international survey . J Urol2005; 174: 1953. Link, Google Scholar
- 6 : The current status of medical student urological education in the United States. J Urol2008; 179: 1087. Link, Google Scholar
- 7 : The continued decline of formal urological education of medical students in the United States: does it matter?. J Urol2006; 175: 2243. Link, Google Scholar
- 8 : The decline of urological education in United States medical schools. J Urol1994; 152: 169. Link, Google Scholar
- 9 : Geographic distribution of urologists throughout the United States using a county level approach. J Urol2009; 181: 760. Link, Google Scholar
- 10
Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys . In: . Deerfield, Illinois: American Association for Public Opinion Research2009: 29. Google Scholar - 11 : The role of reputation in U.S. News & World Report's rankings of the top 50 American hospitals. Ann Intern Med2010; 152: 521. Google Scholar
- 12 : The present status of undergraduate urologic training. J Urol1956; 76: 309. Google Scholar
- 13 : The current status of undergraduate urological teaching. J Urol1988; 139: 1160. Link, Google Scholar
- 14 : A report on the present status of undergraduate urologic teaching in medical schools and some resulting recommendations. J Urol1978; 119: 303. Link, Google Scholar
- 15 : Electronic mail was not better than postal mail for surveying residents and faculty. J Clin Epidemiol2005; 58: 425. Google Scholar
- 16 : Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol1997; 50: 1129. Google Scholar
- 17 : What every graduating medical student should know about urology: the stakeholder viewpoint. Urology2008; 71: 549. Google Scholar
