Examining Trends in Underrepresented Minorities in Urology Residency.
Adult
Black or African American
/ statistics & numerical data
Asian
/ statistics & numerical data
Chi-Square Distribution
Cohort Studies
Cultural Diversity
Education, Medical, Graduate
/ trends
Female
Hispanic or Latino
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Internship and Residency
/ trends
Male
Minority Groups
/ education
Needs Assessment
Racial Groups
/ ethnology
Retrospective Studies
United States
Journal
Urology
ISSN: 1527-9995
Titre abrégé: Urology
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0366151
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2019
05 2019
Historique:
received:
25
05
2018
revised:
23
08
2018
accepted:
02
10
2018
pubmed:
12
2
2019
medline:
27
6
2019
entrez:
12
2
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To examine trends in underrepresented minority (URM) representation in urology residency. Comparison is made between URM representation in urology residency and URM representation in other surgical fields as well as all medical fields. We hypothesized that percentage of URM in urology has been limited when compared to both surgical fields and all other fields. Data on the race and ethnicity of residents were collected from ACGME Data Resource Books from 2012 to 2017. We defined URM as the aggregate of Asian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic, Black, Native America/Alaskan and Other. The proportion of URM was compared to the proportion of White in urology vs other surgical specialties and all fields of medicine. Analysis consisted of chi-square testing for each year and for all years combined. In total, 5005 urology residents, 67,699 surgical residents, and 367,440 residents in all fields were identified. Comparative analysis demonstrated a significantly lower proportion of URM trainees in urology (30.8%) than surgery (33.6%) and all fields (42.3%), P <.001 for both analyses. Similar trends were observed in year-over-year analysis. Subanalyses of Hispanic, Black, Native American/Alaskan and Other representation as well as Asian representation in urology demonstrated comparable results as that found in the primary analysis (P <.001 for comparison between both surgical fields and all medical fields). The findings demonstrate that URM representation in urology trainees lags behind other fields. Recruitment and selection policies which take into account diversity are needed to improve inclusion of URM into the urologic pipeline and workforce.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30742866
pii: S0090-4295(19)30141-4
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.10.061
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
36-41Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.