MP66-14 WEBSITE TRANSPARENCY AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION AMONG UROLOGY RESIDENCY PROGRAMS

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP66-14 WEBSITE TRANSPARENCY AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION AMONG UROLOGY RESIDENCY PROGRAMS Joon Kyung Kim, Benjamin Morrison, Katelyn Spencer, and Benjamin Dropkin Joon Kyung KimJoon Kyung Kim More articles by this author , Benjamin MorrisonBenjamin Morrison More articles by this author , Katelyn SpencerKatelyn Spencer More articles by this author , and Benjamin DropkinBenjamin Dropkin More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003329.14AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, urology residency programs have had to adjust their typical practices, including the adoption of virtual recruiting and interviewing. Such efforts have included utilizing social media and improving program websites, which are often the starting point for potential applicants to obtain information about a program. We sought to evaluate the transparency and quality of information dissemination among urology residency program websites. METHODS: The websites of all 143 non-military, accredited United States urology residency programs were evaluated for various measures grouped into distinct categories including program priorities, program curriculum, program profiles, program quality of life, medical student opportunities, interview process, selection/exclusion criteria, and social media. Programs that have yet to graduate residents were excluded. Programs were separated based on American Urological Association (AUA) section. Percentage values were determined by the number of programs reporting information on a particular measure. RESULTS: The most reported category was program profiles (84%), with many programs providing details such as resident hometowns, faculty research interests, and alumni fellowship matches. The least reported category was selection/exclusion criteria (32%), with 8% of programs discussing a minimum/preferred Step 1 score and 23% discussing osteopathic applicants. Program mission/objective statements, training site locations, and current resident and faculty profiles were subcategories reported by greater than 90% of programs. DEI and wellness initiatives/statements were discussed by 45% and 36% of programs, respectively. For virtual opportunities, 21% of programs provided online open house information, and 85% had an active Twitter account with 34% providing direct links. Average AUA overall transparency was 53.7%, with the Northeastern Section highest at 62.4%. CONCLUSIONS: The importance of transparency and quality of information dissemination is greater than ever with the increasing utilization of virtual formats in the residency application process. Our results indicate several areas of improvement that urology residency programs can amend to provide improved transparency for applicants during the application process. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e938 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Joon Kyung Kim More articles by this author Benjamin Morrison More articles by this author Katelyn Spencer More articles by this author Benjamin Dropkin More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...