Skip to main content

Improving Gender Diversity in Urologic Residency Training

Current Urology Reports volume 22, Article number: 60 (2021) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Women remain underrepresented in urology despite being well-represented in medicine overall. A more diverse urological workforce has the potential to lead to better health outcomes for patients. This paper presents an overview of barriers faced by women in urology at the student, resident, and attending level and potential solutions to mitigate these issues.

Recent Findings

Although the number of women entering urology has increased since the first woman became a board-certified urologist in 1962, women still are underrepresented, advance more slowly, and hold only a small percentage of leadership positions. Women in urology and surgical fields in general face numerous challenges and obstacles which can be improved to bring and keep more women in the field of urology. Recent efforts by both academic urologists and trainees themselves offer hope for change.

Summary

Women in urology face challenges in the field which include more limited mentorship opportunities, harassment and bias, and ‘pigeonholing’. Recent efforts by both academic urologists and trainees themselves offer hope for change to attract and keep more women in the field. These efforts include the American Urological Association's public commitment to advocating for and fostering a diverse and inclusive environment within urology. A more diverse urological workforce has the potential to lead to better health outcomes for patients, particularly in those populations where access to urological care may be limited.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Availability of Data and Material

Publicly available data.

References

  1. 2020 FACTS: applicants and matriculants data. AAMC. 2021 [cited 2021 Jun 9]. Available from: https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/students-residents/interactive-data/2020-facts-applicants-and-matriculants-data.

  2. Halpern JA, Lee UJ, Wolff EM, Mittal S, Shoag JE, Lightner DJ, et al. Women in urology residency, 1978–2013: a critical look at gender representation in our specialty. Urology. 2016;92:20–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bennett CL, Baker O, Rangel EL, Marsh RH. The gender gap in surgical residencies. JAMA Surg. 2020;155:893–4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Herbella FAM. Surgical lessons learned by conducting an orchestra. Surgery Elsevier. 2020;167:679–80.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Census Results - American Urological Association. 2021 [cited 2020 Mar 9]. Available from: https://www.auanet.org/research/research-resources/aua-census/census-results.

  6. Porten SP, Gaither TW, Greene KL, Baradaran N, Anger JT, Breyer BN. Do Women work less than men in urology: data from the American Urological Association Census. Urology. 2018;118:71–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Saha S, Guiton G, Wimmers PF, Wilkerson L. Student body racial and ethnic composition and diversity-related outcomes in US medical schools. JAMA. 2008;300:1135–45.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Linzer M, Harwood E. Gendered expectations: do they contribute to high burnout among female physicians? J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33:963–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Chyu J, Peters CE, Nicholson TM, Dai JC, Taylor J, Garg T, et al. Women in leadership in urology: the case for increasing diversity and equity. Urology. 2021;150:16–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dall T, West T, Chakrabarti R, Iacobucci W, Brunec P. The complexities of physician supply and demand: projections from 2013 to 2025. Final Report Association of American Medical Colleges. 2015.

  11. McKibben MJ, Kirby EW, Langston J, Raynor MC, Nielsen ME, Smith AB, et al. Projecting the urology workforce over the next 20 years. Urology. 2016;98:21–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kanter RM. Some effects of proportions on group life: skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. Am J Sociol. University of Chicago Press; 1977;82:965–90.

  13. Yoder JD. Rethinking tokenism: looking beyond numbers. Gend Soc. SAGE Publications Inc; 1991;5:178–92.

  14. Koenig AM. Comparing prescriptive and descriptive gender stereotypes about children, adults, and the elderly. Front Psychol. 2018;9 [cited 2020 Mar 11]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6028777/.

  15. Meyerson SL, Sternbach JM, Zwischenberger JB, Bender EM. The effect of gender on resident autonomy in the operating room. J Surg Educ. 2017;74:e111–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ross DA, Boatright D, Nunez-Smith M, Jordan A, Chekroud A, Moore EZ. Differences in words used to describe racial and gender groups in Medical Student Performance Evaluations. PLoS One. 2017;12 [cited 2020 May 26]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5549898/.

  17. Wynn AT, Correll SJ. Puncturing the pipeline: do technology companies alienate women in recruiting sessions? Soc Stud Sci SAGE Publications Ltd. 2018;48:149–64.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Buddeberg-Fischer B, Klaghofer R, Abel T, Buddeberg C. Swiss residents’ speciality choices–impact of gender, personality traits, career motivation and life goals. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:137.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Mueller AS, Jenkins TM, Osborne M, Dayal A, O’Connor DM, Arora VM. Gender differences in attending physicians’ feedback to residents: a qualitative analysis. J Grad Med Educ. 2017;9:577–85.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Fitzgerald JEF, Tang S-W, Ravindra P, Maxwell-Armstrong CA. Gender-related perceptions of careers in surgery among new medical graduates: results of a cross-sectional study. Am J Surg. 2013;206:112–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Heilman ME. Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Res Organ Behav. 2012;32:113–35.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Breyer BN, Butler C, Fang R, Meeks W, Porten SP, North AC, et al. Promotion Disparities in Academic Urology. Urology. 2020;138:16–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. American Urological Association. The state of urology workforce and practice in the United States 2018. Linthicum, Maryland; 2019 [cited 2020 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.AUAnet.org/common/pdf/research/census/State-Urology-Workforce-Practice-US.pdf.

  24. Lightner DJ, Terris MK, Tsao AK, Naughton CK, Lohse CM. Status of women in urology: based on a report to the society of university urologists. J Urol. 2005;173:560–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Talwar R, Bernstein A, Jones A, Crook J, Apolo AB, Taylor JM, et al. Assessing contemporary trends in female speakership within urologic oncology. Urology. 2021;150:41–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Watson KL, King LP. Double discrimination, the pay gap in gynecologic surgery, and its association with quality of care. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137:657–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Garg T, Antar A, Taylor JM. Urologic oncology workforce diversity: a first step in reducing cancer disparities. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2019 [cited 2020 Mar 10]. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1078143919301589.

  28. Derose KP, Hays RD, McCaffrey DF, Bakerg DW. Does physician gender affect satisfaction of men and women visiting the emergency department? J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:218–26.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Spencer ES, Deal AM, Pruthi NR, Gonzalez CM, Kirby EW, Langston J, et al. Gender differences in compensation, job satisfaction, and other practice patterns in urology. J Urol. 2016;195:450–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cochran A, Hauschild T, Elder WB, Neumayer LA, Brasel KJ, Crandall ML. Perceived gender-based barriers to careers in academic surgery. Am J Surg. 2013;206:263–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Jackson I, Bobbin M, Jordan M, Baker S. A survey of women urology residents regarding career choice and practice challenges. J Womens Health. 2002;2009(18):1867–72.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hu Y-Y, Ellis RJ, Hewitt DB, Yang AD, Cheung EO, Moskowitz JT, et al. Discrimination, abuse, harassment, and burnout in surgical residency training. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1741–52.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Oberlin DT, Vo AX, Bachrach L, Flury SC. The gender divide: the impact of surgeon gender on surgical practice patterns in urology. J Urol. 2016;196:1522–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Schlick CJR, Ellis RJ, Etkin CD, Greenberg CC, Greenberg JA, Turner PL, et al. Experiences of gender discrimination and sexual harassment among residents in general surgery programs across the US. JAMA Surg. 2021 [cited 2021 Aug 15]. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2021.3195.

  35. Babaria P, Abedin S, Berg D, Nunez-Smith M. “I’m too used to it”: a longitudinal qualitative study of third year female medical students’ experiences of gendered encounters in medical education. Soc Sci Med. 1982;2012(74):1013–20.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Brown J, Drury L, Raub K, Levy B, Brantner P, Krivak TC, et al. Workplace harassment and discrimination in gynecology: results of the AAGL member survey. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019;26:838–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gostout B, Glaser G, Torbenson V. Workplace harassment and discrimination in gynecology: reflections on the report of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists Member Survey. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019 [cited 2020 May 27]. Available from: https://europepmc.org/article/med/31128283.

  38. D’Agostino JP, Vakharia KT, Bawa S, Sljivic S, Natoli N. Intimidation and sexual harassment during plastic surgery training in the United States. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7:e2493.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Ceppa DP, Dolejs SC, Boden N, Phelan S, Yost KJ, Donington J, et al. Sexual harassment and cardiothoracic surgery: #UsToo? Ann Thorac Surg. 2020;109:1283–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Phillips NA, Tannan SC, Kalliainen LK. Understanding and overcoming implicit gender bias in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:1111–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109:16474.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Hoops H, Heston A, Dewey E, Spight D, Brasel K, Kiraly L. Resident autonomy in the operating room: Does gender matter? Am J Surg. 2019;217:301–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Devine PG, Forscher PS, Austin AJ, Cox WTL. Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: a prejudice habit-breaking intervention. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2012;48:1267–78.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Bortnick E, Stock J, Simma-Chiang V. Mentorship in urology residency programs in the United States. Urology. 2020;136:58–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Grimsby GM, Wolter CE. The journey of women in urology: the perspective of a female urology resident. Urology. 2013;81:3–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Harnisch BA, Stolzmann KL, Lerner LB. Mentoring, fellowship training and academic careers of women urologists. BJU Int. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2010;105:1629–31.

  47. Zhuge Y, Kaufman J, Simeone DM, Chen H, Velazquez OC. Is there still a glass ceiling for women in academic surgery? Ann Surg. 2011;253:637–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Reckelhoff JF. How to choose a mentor. Physiologist. 2008;51:152–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Osman NY, Gottlieb B. Mentoring across differences. MedEdPORTAL J Teach Learn Resour. Aug 2018 [cited 2020 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6342437/.

  50. North AC, Fang R, Anger J, Breyer BN, Meeks W, Goldman HB, et al. The gender pay gap in urology. Urol Pract. 2021;8(1):149–54. https://doi.org/10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Leibbrandt A, List JA. Do women avoid salary negotiations? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. Manag Sci. 2014;61:2016–24.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Bickel J. Women’s career development: what does this have to do with men? Ann Surg. 2011;253:644–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Babcock L, Laschever S. Women don’t ask: the high cost of avoiding negotiation and positive strategies for change. New York. NY Bantam Dell. 2007.

  54. American Urological Association. The state of urology workforce and practice in the United States 2019. Linthicum, Maryland; 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 20]. Available from: https://www.AUAnet.org/common/pdf/research/census/State-Urology-Workforce-Practice-US.pdf.

  55. Shantharam G, Tran TY, McGee H, Thavaseelan S. Examining trends in underrepresented minorities in urology residency. Urology. 2019;127:36–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Kim S, Farrokhyar F, Braga LH. Survey on the perception of urology as a specialty by medical students. Can Urol Assoc J. 2016;10:349–54.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Hill EJR, Bowman KA, Stalmeijer RE, Solomon Y, Dornan T. Can I cut it? Medical students’ perceptions of surgeons and surgical careers. Am J Surg. 2014;208:860–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Slaughenhoupt B, Ogunyemi O, Giannopoulos M, Sauder C, Leverson G. An update on the current status of medical student urology education in the United States. Urology. 2014;84:743–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Gaither T, Awad M, Breyer B, Greene K. Gender and racial disparities in early urology exposures during medical school. Urol Pract. 2019;6:129–34.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Kerfoot BP, Nabha KS, Masser BA, McCULLOUGH DL. What makes a medical student avoid or enter a career in urology? Results of an international survey. J Urol. 2005;174:1953–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Cannon S, Dy GW, Seideman C. Urologists for equity: letter to the urologic community. Urology. 2020 [cited 2020 Sep 24]; Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7417260/.

  62. Frey C. AUA Announces Diversity and Inclusion Task Force. AUA. 2020. [cited 2021 Jun 9]. Available from: http://auanet.mediaroom.com/2020-12-22-AUA-Announces-Diversity-and-Inclusion-Task-Force.

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Chideraa Ukeje and Ayman Elmasri contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 676 N St. Clair, Suite 2300, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA

    Chideraa Ukeje, Ayman Elmasri & Stephanie Kielb

Authors
  1. Chideraa Ukeje
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ayman Elmasri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephanie Kielb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Stephanie Kielb was responsible for the review conception. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Chideraa Ukeje, Ayman Elmasri, and Stephanie Kielb. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Chideraa Ukeje and Ayman Elmasri, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie Kielb.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

None.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Education

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ukeje, C., Elmasri, A. & Kielb, S. Improving Gender Diversity in Urologic Residency Training. Curr Urol Rep 22, 60 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-021-01074-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-021-01074-6

Keywords

  • Underrepresented
  • Women
  • Barriers
  • Limitations