Urology Residency and Research: Round Table Discussion and Plea for Innovation

Unlocking Peer Review: Elevating Scholarly Writing and Research Competence in Urology Residency

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

It is incumbent upon training programs to set the foundation for evidence-based practices and to create opportunities for trainees to develop into academic leaders. As dedicated resident research time and funding have declined in recent years, residency programs and the field at large will need to create new ways to incorporate scholarly activity into residency curricula.

RECENT FINDINGS

Literature across specialties demonstrates barriers to resident involvement including lack of time, cost, and absent scholarly mentorship. Peer review stands as a ready-made solution that can be formalized into a collaborative relationship with journals. A formal relationship between professional societies, academic journals, and residencies can facilitate the use of peer review as a teaching tool for residency programs.

Dedicated Residency Research Time and Its Relationship to Urologic Career Academic Success

OBJECTIVE

To explore the relationship between research time during urologic training and career academic success.

METHODS

We included urologists graduating residency between 2002 and 2008 from 36 programs affiliated with a top 50 hospital for urology as ranked by the United States News and World Report, and collected research time during residency, fellowship training, current appointment (private practice, assistant professor, associate professor, professor, chair), national institutes of health (NIH) grant accrual, NIH R01 grant accrual, and current H-index in Scopus database. Publication output during and after residency was identified through the PubMed database.

RESULTS

In our cohort of 543 urologists, 66.3% of graduating trainees pursued private practice. Increasing residency research time was associated with increased publication count (P <.001), pursuit of professor positions (P <.001), and NIH funding (P <.001). One year of dedicated research increased the odds of being in the top 10th percentile of publication output during residency (odds ratio [OR]: 5.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.7-12.1), pursuing a fellowship (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.3-3.1), promotion to professor (OR: 4.9, 95% CI: 2.0-12.2), obtaining a NIH grant (OR: 6.2, 95% CI: 2.3-16.5), and decreased the odds of pursuing private practice (OR: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.3-0.6). As amount of time dedicated to research in urologic residency increased from 3-4 to 6-12 months, OR increased for career academic success metrics.

CONCLUSION

Although a minority of trainees enter academics, dedicated time for research in urologic residency is associated with career academic success, with more research time associated with increased publication output, academic appointments, and grant funding.

Underrepresentation of functional conditions of the lower urinary tract in adults in US federal research funding

AIMS

Evaluation and treatment of functional conditions of the lower urinary tract (fcLUT), a subset of benign urinary tract conditions, is highly subjective due to overlapping symptomatology. Despite high prevalence and socioeconomic cost, there has been little improvement in their treatment and lack of progress in understanding their pathophysiology. This study investigates trends in quantity, monetary amounts, and awardees' characteristics of federally funded research awards for fcLUT compared to nonurologic benign conditions (NUBCs) and urologic malignancies.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and federal RePORTER databases in December 2019. We identified currently active awards in fcLUT, NUBC, and malignant urologic conditions and the associated demographic features of awardees. The authors also examined temporal funding trends for such awards.

RESULTS

These database searches revealed that there are consistently fewer awards and funding dollars for the study of fcLUT compared to other benign conditions with similar prevalences. While most research topics have received increased funding in awards and overall funding dollars over time, fcLUT funding has remained relatively flat. Urologists are also underrepresented; only 11 of the 86 recipients of NIH R01 awards to study fcLUT have clinical training in urology.

CONCLUSIONS

Even when compared to NUBC, funding for the study of fcLUT remains low and has stagnated over time. Further, investigators who are clinicians in the field of urology are in the minority of those doing this study. Given the need for clinical perspectives in fcLUT research, the lack of urologist representation will inhibit discovery and translational advances.

Evaluation of Urology Residency Training and Perceived Resident Abilities in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To identify differences and potential deficiencies in urology residency training programs in the United States as they are perceived by residents/recent graduates and program directors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 45-question and 38-question survey was sent to chief residents/recent graduates and program directors, respectively, at all 120 US urology programs regarding prior medical education, urologic training curricula, and perceived surgical proficiency, among other topics.

RESULTS

Survey response rate was 58% and 52% for residents and program directors, respectively. Responses regarding program characteristics (e.g., salary, vacation) and research training were similar between program directors and residents. However, their responses regarding skills training and subspecialty training (e.g., robotics and pediatrics) differed substantially. Program directors reported the availability of advanced skills trainers (robot-88%, laparoscopic-86%), whereas fewer residents felt they were available (robot 54% and laparoscopic 72%). The same discrepancies persisted with questions about subspecialty exposure (e.g., program directors reported 48% renal transplant experience vs. 13% reported by residents). Most residents felt comfortable performing essential urology procedures (e.g., cystoscopy/ureteroscopy, open nephrectomy). In contrast, the majority expressed a lack of confidence in performing unsupervised advanced minimally invasive procedures (e.g., laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy, endopyelotomy). Among the responding residents, 72% pursued fellowship training; nearly two-thirds of these residents chose to enter fellowship in order to overcome perceived training deficiencies.

CONCLUSIONS

Program directors and residents have differing perceptions regarding the education and resources associated with US urology residency training programs. US graduates of urology residency programs express a perceived lack of confidence in several procedures that are commonly encountered in a general urologic practice.

Urology Residency Training in Italy: Results of the First National Survey

BACKGROUND

Numerous surveys have been performed to determine the competence and the confidence of residents. However, there is no data available on the condition of Italian residents in urology.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the status of training among Italian residents in urology regarding scientific activity and surgical exposure.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A web-based survey that included 445 residents from all of the 25 Italian Residency Programmes was conducted between September 2015 and November 2015.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The main outcomes were represented by scientific activity, involvement in surgical procedures, and overall satisfaction.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

In total, 324 out of 445 (72.8%) residents completed the survey. Overall, 104 (32%) residents had not published any scientific manuscripts, 148 (46%) published ≤5, 38 (12%) ≤10, 26 (8%) ≤15, four (1%) ≤20, and four (1%) >20 manuscripts, respectively. We did not observe any differences when residents were stratified by sex (p=0.5). Stent positioning (45.7%), extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (30.9%), transurethral resection of bladder tumor (33.0%), hydrocelectomy (24.7%), varicocelectomy (17%), ureterolithotripsy (14.5%), and orchiectomy (12.3%) were the surgical procedures more frequently performed by residents. Overall, 272 residents (84%) expressed a good satisfaction for urology specialty, while 178 (54.9%) expressed a good satisfaction for their own residency programme. We observed a statistically decreased trend for good satisfaction for urology specialty according to the postgraduate year (p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Italian Urology Residency Programmes feature some heavy limitations regarding scientific activity and surgical exposure. Nonetheless, satisfaction rate for urology specialty remains high. Further improvements in Residency Programmes should be made in order to align our schools to others that are actually more challenging.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this web-based survey, Italian residents in urology showed limited scientific productivity and low involvement in surgical procedures. Satisfaction for urology specialty remains high, demonstrating continuous interest in this field of study from residents.

[Research fellowship in the curriculum of French urologists-in-training: a study by the French Association of Urologists-in-training (AFUF)]

OBJECTIVES

To assess motivations, the practical organization and the funding of a research fellowship in the training curriculum of French urologists-in-training.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online questionnaire was sent to members of the AFUF and to participants of a research training seminar "Graines et Sol" organised by the AFU, between July and September 2013. Results are presented as the median (interquartile range).

RESULTS

Sixty answers out of 115 research fellows (response rate 52%) were computed. Median age was 29 years (28-30) during the research year and male proportion 75%. The AFU grant was obtained by 57.4% of applicants, 56.4% for various grants and 47.6% for the research fellowship university grant. The annual gross amount was 29,870€ (22,710-30,195), without any significant difference between residency subdivisions. Financial supplements were obtained by being on-duty (26.2%), on-call (28.6%) and replacements (25%). The research fellowship year was done between 4th and 5th years of residency (53%), for a one-year length (96.7%) and in France (86.6%). Urologic cancerology was the thematic the most studied (60%). The research fellowship was done in view of an academic career (31.7%) or was done to wait for a post-residency position (20.8%). About a quarter was being proposed a chief-residency position before the beginning of the research year. During this year, 76.7% published. About 63% were interested in pursuing with a PhD.

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the interest for a research fellowship by French urologists-in-training. Financial support thanks to grants facilitated the conduct of a research fellowship in the aim of an academic career for most of them.

Urology training in the developing world: The trainees' perspective in Kurdistan, Iraq

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the advanced systems of urology residency in the developed world, to compare them to a system in the developing world, and thereby identify the shortcomings and make recommendations to improve residency programmes for urology in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

METHODS

A survey was conducted amongst the urology Residents (55) in the three governorates of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, to assess the accessibility of the training programme, the types of the residency programmes, skills acquisition, the use of modern technology for teaching and assessment, the environment of the settings of practice, and the status of research in their training.

RESULTS

An overwhelming majority (88%) of trainees reported difficulty in securing a training position. A high proportion (43%) felt disappointed at the beginning of their training. There is no unified curriculum of training, and more than two-thirds of the respondents reported a lack of a proper evidence-based medical education. There is no formal subspecialty training programme. Of the respondents, 65% referred to the difficulties in the environment for training, and that there was a low level of research involvement (12%).

CONCLUSIONS

Urology training is not easily accessible, there is no unified programme of residency, there are limited facilities, and a minimal assessment of practical skills. The environment for practice needs enormous improvements and a strong foundation for research should be created.

Canadian urology resident scholarly performance

INTRODUCTION

Scholarly research is a key component of Canadian urology residency. Through comparison of scholarly performance of urology residents before residency with that achieved during residency, we aimed to elicit predictive factors for completion of research activities.

METHODS

Electronic surveys were sent to 152 urology residents of 11 accredited Canadian programs. Survey questions pertained to post-graduate training year (PGY), formal education, scholarly activity completed before and after the start of residency, protected/dedicated research time, structured research curriculum and pursuit of fellowship training.

RESULTS

Surveys were completed by 42 residents from 10 programs. Only 26% of residents had a structured research curriculum, 38% a dedicated research rotation and 43% protected research time. We found that 45% of residents published at least 1 manuscript so far during residency (mean 1.14 ± 0.32), and 43% submitted at least 1 manuscript (mean 0.86 ± 0.25). During residency, 62% of residents completed ≥1 formal research presentation (median number 1.5; range: 0-≥10). Only the level of PGY significantly affected the number of manuscripts published (p < 0.001) and number of formal research presentations (p < 0.001) completed during residency. In total, 86% of residents planning to pursue fellowship training had a mean number of publications and presentations during residency of 1.25 ± 0.37 and 2.25 ± 0.54, respectively.

INTERPRETATION

Level of PGY significantly affected quantitative scholarly activity, but the numbers and types of presentations performed prior to residency, completion of an honours or graduate degree and plans to pursue fellowship training did not.

El papel de la investigación en la formación de especialistas medicoquirúrgicos

Para  que un programa  de  especialización  médica o quirúrgica cumpla con el objetivos de formar especialistas con los conocimientos y habilidades propios del área específica de  formación, estos deben incluir espacios académicos que permita que los residentes entren en contacto con  la  investigación. Este artículo de ensayo  revisa  las razones y evidencias que soportan esta afirmación, la  cual  no  solo  es  relevante para  la  formación de los profesionales sino para el desarrollo de los pueblos, e incluye una serie de propuestas que permiten el desarrollo de actividades de investigación formativa al interior de las especialidades médicas y quirúrgicas.

Urology resident publication output and its relationship to future academic achievement

PURPOSE

Scholarly research is considered by many to be an important component of residency training but little is known about the quantity and types of publications produced by urology residents. To our knowledge whether publication efforts during residency predict future academic publication performance is also unknown. We evaluated resident productivity, as measured by peer reviewed publication output, and determined its relation to future publication output as junior faculty.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We assembled a list of graduating residents from 2002 to 2004 who were affiliated with the top 50 urology hospitals, as ranked in 2009 by U.S. News&World Report. PubMed® was queried to determine the publication total in the last 3 years of residency of each individual and during years 2 to 4 after residency graduation. Resident publication output was stratified by research time and fellowship training. The relationship between resident productivity and future achievement was assessed.

RESULTS

We assessed the publication output of 251 urologists from a total of 34 training programs affiliated with the top 50 urology hospitals. Subjects published a mean total of 3.5 and a mean of 2.0 first author papers during training. Greater research time during residency was associated with increased productivity during and after residency. Publication during training correlated with publication during the early academic career.

CONCLUSIONS

Publication output correlated with increasing dedicated research time and was associated with the pursuit of fellowship training and an academic career. Publication during residency predicted future academic achievement.

Basic science research in urology training

The role of basic science exposure during urology training is a timely topic that is relevant to urologic health and to the training of new physician scientists. Today, researchers are needed for the advancement of this specialty, and involvement in basic research will foster understanding of basic scientific concepts and the development of critical thinking skills, which will, in turn, improve clinical performance. If research education is not included in urology training, future urologists may not be as likely to contribute to scientific discoveries.Currently, only a minority of urologists in training are currently exposed to significant research experience. In addition, the number of physician-scientists in urology has been decreasing over the last two decades, as fewer physicians are willing to undertake a career in academics and perform basic research. However, to ensure that the field of urology is driving forward and bringing novel techniques to patients, it is clear that more research-trained urologists are needed. In this article we will analyse the current status of basic research in urology training and discuss the importance of and obstacles to successful addition of research into the medical training curricula. Further, we will highlight different opportunities for trainees to obtain significant research exposure in urology.