You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Practice Patterns, Cost Effectiveness I1 Apr 2010352 MENTORING, FELLOWSHIP TRAINING AND ACADEMIC CAREERS OF WOMEN UROLOGISTS Brooke Harnisch, Kelly Stolzmann, and Lori Lerner Brooke HarnischBrooke Harnisch More articles by this author , Kelly StolzmannKelly Stolzmann More articles by this author , and Lori LernerLori Lerner More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.418AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES It is unknown what factors influence the decision of women urologists to pursue fellowship training. We sought to determine if demographics, mentorship, practice environments, salary and life satisfaction differed between those women that pursued fellowship training as compared to those that did not. METHODS An Institutional Review Board approved 114-item questionnaire was sent to all 365 American board certified women urologists in 2007. Data including subspecialty training, age at residency graduation, academic rank in medical school, length of urology training program, type of mentorship, practice environment, salary and life satisfaction were analyzed. RESULTS Response rate = 69% (n=243). 42% pursued fellowship training: Female Urology 36%; Pediatrics 22%; Oncology 12%. Age at residency completion and academic achievements prior to residency did not impact pursuit of fellowship training. 71% of all respondents reported a mentor during residency training, male and/or female. However, mentorship had no influence on pursuing fellowship (p=0.12). Fellowship trained women were more likely to practice in community (p<0.0001) as opposed to university affiliated hospitals (p=0.056). There were no differences in salary or overall life satisfaction between fellowship and non-fellowship trained women. When asked if they agreed with the statement “Women medical students need role models of successful women faculty members,” 89% agreed or strongly agreed, 9% were neutral, 1% was uncertain and 1% disagreed. As regards to mentors, 26% (62) of women had female mentors during training, 74% (178) did not. 65%(155) had male mentors. Twenty nine percent of respondents had no mentor at all. Seventy-seven percent (181) of respondents received emotional support and encouragement during their training by attending staff. However, the presence of support by attendings had no bearing on the pursuit of a fellowship. Women who had attending support and/or mentorship were no more likely to choose an university environment. 54% of academic women urologists are fellowship trained. CONCLUSIONS One consequence of training a low number of women urologists is that there are fewer women on surgical faculty at medical schools and in training programs, which limits the women role models available for students and residents. While this is unlikely to be the main deterrent to women entering urology, fellowship training, or an academic practice environment, the lack of role models/mentors could be an influencing factor. Despite this, a large number of women urology residents pursue fellowship training. Boston, MA© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited bySaltzman A, Hebert K, Prats S, Richman A, Togami J, Rickey L and Montgomery M (2018) Women Urologists: Trends in Mentoring and Career ChoicesUrology Practice, VOL. 3, NO. 4, (302-308), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2016. Volume 183Issue 4SApril 2010Page: e140 Peer Review Report Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Brooke Harnisch More articles by this author Kelly Stolzmann More articles by this author Lori Lerner More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...