Assessing gender trends in Canadian urology
Introduction: The number of female medical students and physicians entering the workforce is increasing. Despite this trend, some surgical specialties are still considered male-dominant. Urology has a significant male predominance in both residency and independent practice. This male predominance could have an impact on the physician workforce, mentorship opportunities for females pursuing surgery, and on medical student attraction to urology as a specialty. Research conducted in the U.S. has shown that although fewer females enter the field of urology, acceptance rates between the two genders are similar. This study aims to identify if a trend towards gender-specific acceptance into urology residency exists within Canada. We also seek to identify if gender trends in acceptance to urology differ from other surgical specialties in Canada and assess the current workforce trends in Canadian urological practice.
Methods: Canadian Residency Matching Services (CaRMS) data from the previous 10 years was analyzed. This data was accessed from the CaRMS website.1 Logistic regression analyses were used to assess if any significant difference exists between the rates of female and male applicant acceptance into urology. These rates were then compared to the rates of female and male acceptance into surgical residency as a whole and to specific surgical specialties, such as general surgery, orthopedics, and otolaryngology.
Results: Within urology applicants, there is no evidence that the success rate over time between males and females differs (p=0.47). Within surgical residency applicants, there is no evidence that the success rate over time differs between male and female applicants (p=0.84). In comparing these two rates, there is also no significant difference between rates of acceptance to urology vs. surgery in general for female applicants (p=0.45). General surgery has a higher growth of females entering into the specialty compared to urology (p=0.016). Conversely, otolaryngology (p=0.123) and orthopedics (p=0.163) did not show a significant difference in the rates of female acceptance as compared to males over time. Our small sample size of 451 applicants over the 10-year time span (122 female, 329 male) could represent a limitation, however, we did ensure to analyze a 10-year sample to attempt to get an accurate representation of any trends.
Conclusions: Our data identifies that there is no significant trend toward male acceptance into urology over female applicants. There is no significant difference related to female acceptance specifically into urology or any difference between rates of females accepted into urology as compared to all other surgical subspecialties combined.
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.