MP57-11 RACIAL AND GENDER DIVERSITY ON AMERICAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (AUA) AND EUROPEAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (EAU) GUIDELINE PANELS

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP57-11 RACIAL AND GENDER DIVERSITY ON AMERICAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (AUA) AND EUROPEAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (EAU) GUIDELINE PANELS Matthew Holten, Zahrah Shakur, Shahnaz Sultan, Nissrine Nakib, Christopher Warlick, and Philipp Dahm Matthew HoltenMatthew Holten More articles by this author , Zahrah ShakurZahrah Shakur More articles by this author , Shahnaz SultanShahnaz Sultan More articles by this author , Nissrine NakibNissrine Nakib More articles by this author , Christopher WarlickChristopher Warlick More articles by this author , and Philipp DahmPhilipp Dahm More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003310.11AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Equity and acceptability are important domains when it comes to clinical guideline development, requiring broad stakeholder representation. We conducted this study to assess the panel composition on the two most important guideline developers in urology. METHODS: Based on a predefined protocol we identified all current AUA and EAU guideline documents from the organizations’ respective websites. Two members of the research team independently and in duplicate abstracted information on the guideline topic, number of panel members (voting and non-voting), support staff and consultants. We determined the panel members’ likely gender (woman, man, or non-binary) and racialization (white [not racialized] or non-white [racialized]) based on name, internet picture, pronouns used, bios available, and gender listed on their profile. Racialization data was further validated using the Ethnicity Estimator algorithm. RESULTS: We included 31 AUA and 20 EAU guidelines in this study. The median panel size was 19 (interquartile range [IQR]: 17; 21), including a median of 12 (IQR: 10; 14) voting and 7 (IQR: 4; 8) non-voting members. Panel composition of voting members was largely male (median: 83.3%; IQR: 72.7%; 92.9%) and white (median: 88.2%; IQR: 83.3%; 92.9%). About one in five guideline panels did not include a single female (11; 21.6%) or racialized individual (10; 19.6%). Overall, only 11 of 617 (1.8%) voting members were racialized women. When comparing oncology and non-oncology related guidelines, female (26.4% versus 25.8%; p=0.129) and non-white representation (21.9% versus 28.4%; p=0.129) was similar. For AUA and EAU guideline panels, female representation was similar (26.1% versus 25.8%; p=0.946) whereas racialized individuals were more frequent on AUA guidelines (29.3% versus 20.9%; p=0.048). CONCLUSIONS: As in other arenas of urology (such as the general workforce and academic leadership), female and racialized individuals are underrepresented on guideline panels of the two major professional organizations. More transparency in the panel member selection process and intentional efforts to promote gender parity and diversity are needed. Source of Funding: Departmental © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e788 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Matthew Holten More articles by this author Zahrah Shakur More articles by this author Shahnaz Sultan More articles by this author Nissrine Nakib More articles by this author Christopher Warlick More articles by this author Philipp Dahm More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...