Who is shaping the future of academic urology? A descriptive analysis of residency program directors
Malchow T, Corsi NJ, Majdalany SE, Piontkowski AJ, Corsi MP, Friedman B, Butaney M, Rakic I, Arora S, Jamil M, Dalela D, Brodowsky E, Sood A, Ginsburg KB, Rogers C, Atiemo H, and Abdollah F. Who is shaping the future of academic urology? A descriptive analysis of residency program directors. Urology 2023.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the demographics, educational background, and scholarly characteristics of current urology residency program directors (PDs).
METHODS: Urology programs were identified by the listing on the "Accredited US Urology Programs" section of American Urological Association website as of October 2021. Demographics and academic data were collected via publicly available department website and Google search engine. Metrics obtained included years of service as program director from time of appointment, sex, medical school/residency/fellowship, all-time H-index, dual degrees obtained, and professorial ranking.
RESULTS: One hundred and forty-seven accredited urological residencies were reviewed; every PD was included. The majority were male (78%) and fellowship trained (68%). Women represented only 22% of PDs. The median active time served as PD, as of 11/2021, was 4 years (IQR: 2-7). Forty (28%) were faculty at the same program they completed their residency. The median all-time H-index was 12 (IQR: 7-19; range 1-61). Twelve program directors also served as chair of their department.
CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of program directors are male, fellowship trained, and have served for less than five years. Future studies are necessary to follow the trends of representation in leaders of urology residency programs.
ePub ahead of print