MP10-11 REPRESENTATION IN UROLOGY RESIDENTS AND FULL-TIME ACADEMIC UROLOGY FACULTY: A SNAPSHOT OF DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION IN MEDICINE AND UROLOGY

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 May 2022MP10-11 REPRESENTATION IN UROLOGY RESIDENTS AND FULL-TIME ACADEMIC UROLOGY FACULTY: A SNAPSHOT OF DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION IN MEDICINE AND UROLOGY Michelle Chen, Jeffrey Ellis, and Justin Friedlander Michelle ChenMichelle Chen More articles by this author , Jeffrey EllisJeffrey Ellis More articles by this author , and Justin FriedlanderJustin Friedlander More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002532.11AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: As under-represented in medicine (URM) groups are growing in the United States and in US medical schools, their proportional growth in academic medicine may not reflect present population demographics. We aimed to describe the racial representation of urologic academic faculty relative to current urologic residents, current US medical students, as well as national population trends. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of active full-time urology faculty according to the American Association of Medical College (AAMC) database as of August 31, 2021. Faculty demographics were self-reported. This was compared to the most recent AUA census data for residents using chi-square tests. For clarity, “other” was used to classify those who did not self-identify as Asian, black, Hispanic, or white. The same criteria were applied to AAMC Diversity in Medicine data for full-time US medical faculty for 2018, which was the most recent publicly available dataset. RESULTS: Study demographics can be seen in Table 1. Of 435 full-time urology faculty members, 83 (19%) were Asian, 11 (2.5%) were black, 10 (2.3%) were Hispanic, and 315 (72%) were white. The 2019 AUA census included 415 resident respondents which identified as 21% Asian, 3% black, 6% Hispanic, and 68% white. Racial distributions between urologic faculty and residents were significantly different (p=0.001). Greater differences in URM representation existed at associate professor (p<0.001), assistant professor (p<0.001), and instructor (p<0.001) levels. Representation in urology faculty also differed from US medical faculty at professor (p<0.001), assistant professor (p=0.02), and instructor (p=0.002) levels. Associate professor representation was similar (p=0.08) among urology and US medical faculty. CONCLUSIONS: As of 2021, the racial representation of urology faculty at all ranks significantly differed from that of current urology residents, with a greater proportion of persons in URM groups currently in training compared to faculty. We noted differences in URM representation at most ranks between urology and US medical faculty. Continued recruitment of diverse individuals will improve representation in the field of urology in general and lead to greater representation amongst academic faculty. Source of Funding: None © 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 207Issue Supplement 5May 2022Page: e150 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Michelle Chen More articles by this author Jeffrey Ellis More articles by this author Justin Friedlander More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...