Increasing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Urology Residency Recruitment: Recommendations From the Society of Women in Urology.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a framework for diversifying the urologic workforce through residency recruitment by integrating principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) into program mission and values, application review, and interview process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this narrative review, the Society of Women in Urology Advancing DEI in Urology Residency Recruitment Task Force identified 4 areas for incorporating DEI into residency recruitment: defining a residency program's mission and values, holistic application review, an objective interview process, and implementing DEI principles into a program. Using PubMed and Google Scholar, we performed a non-systematic literature search of articles from January 2014 to January 2024. Search terms included combinations of "diversity", "equity", "inclusion", "residency", "holistic review", "applications", "interviews", and "initiatives". Additional resources were identified through citations of selected articles. Based on findings from these articles, Task Force members made recommendations for best practices. RESULTS: The diversity of practicing urologists is disproportionate to that of the United States population. Emerging evidence demonstrates that DEI efforts in healthcare are associated with better outcomes and reduction in healthcare inequities. We offer strategies for residency programs to integrate DEI initiatives into their recruitment, application review, and interview process. Furthermore, we address extending DEI principles into a program's mission and culture to create an inclusive environment conducive to training and supporting individuals from unique backgrounds. CONCLUSION: It is critical to recruit and retain diverse talent in urology to improve patient care. We urge residency programs and their supporting institutions to adopt DEI principles into their recruitment efforts.

Vaginal Stenosis After Gender-affirming Vaginoplasty: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature and report the incidence of vaginal stenosis (VS) after vaginoplasty and compare the incidence rates by surgical technique and follow-up duration. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review according to PRISMA guidelines. Original research on primary vaginoplasty was included. Exclusion criteria included non-English studies, mixed cohorts without subgroup analysis, revision vaginoplasty, and papers without stenosis rates. The search was ran in Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane on September 9, 2022. Stenosis rates were compared with descriptive statistics using SPSS. RESULTS: Fifty-nine studies with a cumulative 7338 subjects were included. The overall incidence of VS was 5.83% (range 0%-34.2%). Combining VS with introital stenosis (IS) and contracture results in a cumulative incidence of 9.68%. The rate of VS in the penile inversion vaginoplasty subgroup (PIV) was 5.70%, compared to 0.20% in primary intestinal vaginoplasty. The rate of IS in the PIV group was 3.13% and 4.7% in the intestinal vaginoplasty subgroup. CONCLUSION: The overall rate of VS was 5.83%, which is lower than previously documented. This may be related to the inclusion of more recent studies and analysis limited to primary vaginoplasty. The similar rate of IS in PIV and intestinal vaginoplasty subgroups may be secondary to multiple suture lines and the need for dilation through this anastomosis. Our research demonstrates a need for a standardized definition of VS.

Effect of Holistic Review, Interview Blinding, and Structured Questions in Resident Selection: Can we Predict Who Will Do Well in a Residency Interview?

OBJECTIVE: To examine the Urology residency application process, particularly the interview. Historically, the residency interview has been vulnerable to bias and not determined to be a predictor of future residency performance. Our goal is to determine the relationship between pre-interview metrics and post-interview ranking using best practices for Urology resident selection including holistic review, blinded interviews, and structured behaviorally anchored questions. METHODS: Applications were assessed on cognitive (Alpha Omega Alpha, class rank, junior year clinical clerkship grades) and non-cognitive attributes (letters of recommendation [LOR], personal statement [PS], demographics, research, personal characteristics) by reviewers blinded to USMLE scores and photograph. Interviewers were blinded to the application other than PS and LORs. Interviews consisted of a structured behaviorally anchored question (SBI) and an unstructured interview (UI). Odds ratios were determined comparing pre-interview and interview impressions. RESULTS: Fifty-one applicants were included in the analysis. USMLE step 1 score (average 245) was associated with Alpha Omega Alpha, class rank, junior year clinical clerkship, and PS. The UI score was associated with the LOR (P = .04) whereas SBI scores were not (P = .5). Faculty rank was associated with SBI, UI, and overall interview (OI) scores (P < .001). Faculty rank was also associated with LOR. Resident impression of interviewees were associated with faculty interview scores (P = .001) and faculty rank (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Traditional interviews may be biased toward application materials and may be balanced with behavioral questions. While Step 1 score does not offer additional information over other PI metrics, blinded interviews may offer discriminant validity over a PI rubric.