4.4 Article

The Urology Applicant: An Analysis of Contemporary Urology Residency Candidates

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 115, 期 -, 页码 51-58

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.10.065

关键词

-

资金

  1. VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To better understand today's urology applicant. METHODS All 2016 Urology Residency Match applicants to the study-participating institutions were provided a survey via email inquiring about their paths to urology, their career aspirations, how they evaluate a training program, and how they perceive residency programs evaluate them. RESULTS Of a possible 468 applicants registered for the match, 346 applicants completed the survey. Only 8.7% had a mandatory urology rotation, yet 58.4% believed that a mandatory urology rotation would influence their career decision. Most applicants (62.1%) spent more than 8 weeks on urology rotations, and 79.2% completed 2 or more away rotations. Applicants were attracted to urology by the diversity of procedures, prior exposure to the field, and the mix of medicine and surgery, with mean importance scores of 4.70, 4.52, and 4.45 of 5, respectively. Female applicants were more likely to be interested in pediatric urology, trauma or reconstructive urology, and female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery. Significant differences in survey results were noted when applicants were separated by gender. Three-fourths of respondents (75.7%) applied to more than 50 residency programs. Applicants ranked operative experience, interactions with current residents, and relationships between faculty and residents as the most important criteria when evaluating training programs. Of the subspecialties, 62.1% of applicants expressed most interest in urologic oncology. At this stage in their career, a significant majority (83.5%) expressed interest in becoming academic faculty. CONCLUSION This study provides new information that facilitates a more comprehensive understanding of today's urology applicants. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据