MP54-03 DIVERSITY IN UROLOGY RESIDENCY APPLICATIONS: COMPARING APPLICATION CHARACTERISTICS AND CAREER OUTCOMES OF UNDERREPRESENTED IN MEDICINE (URM) AND NON-URM CANDIDATES

You have accessJournal of UrologyDiversity, Equity & Inclusion: Increasing Representation in Urology (MP54)1 May 2024MP54-03 DIVERSITY IN UROLOGY RESIDENCY APPLICATIONS: COMPARING APPLICATION CHARACTERISTICS AND CAREER OUTCOMES OF UNDERREPRESENTED IN MEDICINE (URM) AND NON-URM CANDIDATES William A. Pace, Kevin D. Li, Cameron Nosrat, Mohamed H. Siddeek, Alejandro D. Lopez, and Alan W. Shindel William A. PaceWilliam A. Pace , Kevin D. LiKevin D. Li , Cameron NosratCameron Nosrat , Mohamed H. SiddeekMohamed H. Siddeek , Alejandro D. LopezAlejandro D. Lopez , and Alan W. ShindelAlan W. Shindel View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008944.36895.9d.03AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Urology has few physicians identifying as underrepresented in medicine (URM), underscoring the need for diverse resident recruitment. We analyzed differences in applications and career outcomes of URM and non-URM urology applicants. METHODS: Our data included 227 students applying to the University of California San Francisco Urology Residency in 2014. Data on demographics, application metrics, and career outcomes were gathered. URM was defined as Latino, African American, or Native American. Primary outcomes were match result and career position as of September 2021. RESULTS: Of 227 applicants, 43 (18.9%) were URM and 184 (81.1%) non-URM (Table 1). Gender composition was comparable: 73% males in non-URM and 63% in URM. URM applicants were older (27 vs. 26, p<.01) and more often had a master's degree (33% vs. 16%, p=0.03). They had lower median STEP 1 scores (232 vs. 243, p<0.001), were less frequently in Alpha Omega Alpha (12% vs. 33%, p<0.01), and received honors in surgery less often (59% vs. 39%. p=0.03). Publication count, number of away rotations, and recommendation letter word count did not statistically differ. Outcomes including urology match rates (77% vs. 65%), matching at top 25 urology programs (30% vs. 39%), pursuing a fellowship or academic career (32% vs. 23%), and matching at rotation sites (29% vs. 29%) did not statistically differ between non-URM and URM applicants (Table 2, p>0.05). Current positions, such as academic and private practices, did not statistically differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in application metrics between URM and non-URM applicants, career outcomes were comparable. More research is needed to understand application disparities and better support URM candidates in the urology match. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e875 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information William A. Pace More articles by this author Kevin D. Li More articles by this author Cameron Nosrat More articles by this author Mohamed H. Siddeek More articles by this author Alejandro D. Lopez More articles by this author Alan W. Shindel More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...