Determining Perception of Urology as a Specialty by Canadian Medical Students
CUA Online Library. Kim S. 06/25/13; 31332; MP-08.02
CLICK HERE TO LOGIN
REGULAR CONTENT
REGULAR CONTENT
Login now to access Regular content available to all registered users.
Abstract
Rate & Comment (0)
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Upon inquiring medical students and urologists across Canada, it is evident that Urology is perceived as a male-dominant specialty among other stereotypes. These misperceptions may hamper the recruitment of best and brightest trainees. With that in mind, we surveyed medical students in our institution to obtain an objective assessment of their perception of Urology and to determine the causes for misperceptions.
METHODS: A 25-question, validated, anonymous, cross-sectional, self-reported electronic survey was sent to all medical students at McMaster University to assess their perception of Urology. The survey was piloted among students and educational leaders to optimize face and content validity, and minimize measurement bias. Six variables (years in training, positive role model, a family member or friend in Urology, gender, and exposure) were selected a priori and entered into a logistic regression model to determine factors associated with a positive impression of the specialty.
RESULTS: The overall response rate was 70%. Of the respondents, 66% had no exposure to Urology and 61% found the amount of exposure to be inadequate. Urology staff and resident involvement in education was considered to be poor by over 30% of medical students. Over 20% perceived urologists intimidating and non-approachable. On multivariable analysis, exposure to Urology was the most important factor (p<0.001) associated with students’ positive perception of the specialty in addition to male gender, earlier years in training and positive role models.
CONCLUSIONS: Concerns regarding inadequate Urology exposure and poor staff and resident involvement in undergraduate education were seen as potential causes for misperceptions of the specialty. Increasing exposure to Urology, encouraging female students, constant effort to approach senior students and providing mentorship are found to be important factors in establishing a positive perception of Urology.
METHODS: A 25-question, validated, anonymous, cross-sectional, self-reported electronic survey was sent to all medical students at McMaster University to assess their perception of Urology. The survey was piloted among students and educational leaders to optimize face and content validity, and minimize measurement bias. Six variables (years in training, positive role model, a family member or friend in Urology, gender, and exposure) were selected a priori and entered into a logistic regression model to determine factors associated with a positive impression of the specialty.
RESULTS: The overall response rate was 70%. Of the respondents, 66% had no exposure to Urology and 61% found the amount of exposure to be inadequate. Urology staff and resident involvement in education was considered to be poor by over 30% of medical students. Over 20% perceived urologists intimidating and non-approachable. On multivariable analysis, exposure to Urology was the most important factor (p<0.001) associated with students’ positive perception of the specialty in addition to male gender, earlier years in training and positive role models.
CONCLUSIONS: Concerns regarding inadequate Urology exposure and poor staff and resident involvement in undergraduate education were seen as potential causes for misperceptions of the specialty. Increasing exposure to Urology, encouraging female students, constant effort to approach senior students and providing mentorship are found to be important factors in establishing a positive perception of Urology.
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Upon inquiring medical students and urologists across Canada, it is evident that Urology is perceived as a male-dominant specialty among other stereotypes. These misperceptions may hamper the recruitment of best and brightest trainees. With that in mind, we surveyed medical students in our institution to obtain an objective assessment of their perception of Urology and to determine the causes for misperceptions.
METHODS: A 25-question, validated, anonymous, cross-sectional, self-reported electronic survey was sent to all medical students at McMaster University to assess their perception of Urology. The survey was piloted among students and educational leaders to optimize face and content validity, and minimize measurement bias. Six variables (years in training, positive role model, a family member or friend in Urology, gender, and exposure) were selected a priori and entered into a logistic regression model to determine factors associated with a positive impression of the specialty.
RESULTS: The overall response rate was 70%. Of the respondents, 66% had no exposure to Urology and 61% found the amount of exposure to be inadequate. Urology staff and resident involvement in education was considered to be poor by over 30% of medical students. Over 20% perceived urologists intimidating and non-approachable. On multivariable analysis, exposure to Urology was the most important factor (p<0.001) associated with students’ positive perception of the specialty in addition to male gender, earlier years in training and positive role models.
CONCLUSIONS: Concerns regarding inadequate Urology exposure and poor staff and resident involvement in undergraduate education were seen as potential causes for misperceptions of the specialty. Increasing exposure to Urology, encouraging female students, constant effort to approach senior students and providing mentorship are found to be important factors in establishing a positive perception of Urology.
METHODS: A 25-question, validated, anonymous, cross-sectional, self-reported electronic survey was sent to all medical students at McMaster University to assess their perception of Urology. The survey was piloted among students and educational leaders to optimize face and content validity, and minimize measurement bias. Six variables (years in training, positive role model, a family member or friend in Urology, gender, and exposure) were selected a priori and entered into a logistic regression model to determine factors associated with a positive impression of the specialty.
RESULTS: The overall response rate was 70%. Of the respondents, 66% had no exposure to Urology and 61% found the amount of exposure to be inadequate. Urology staff and resident involvement in education was considered to be poor by over 30% of medical students. Over 20% perceived urologists intimidating and non-approachable. On multivariable analysis, exposure to Urology was the most important factor (p<0.001) associated with students’ positive perception of the specialty in addition to male gender, earlier years in training and positive role models.
CONCLUSIONS: Concerns regarding inadequate Urology exposure and poor staff and resident involvement in undergraduate education were seen as potential causes for misperceptions of the specialty. Increasing exposure to Urology, encouraging female students, constant effort to approach senior students and providing mentorship are found to be important factors in establishing a positive perception of Urology.
Code of conduct/disclaimer available in General Terms & Conditions
{{ help_message }}
{{filter}}