[Attending physicians in urology working at university centers or non-university centers-what are the differences? : Results of a web-based cross-sectional study at German hospitals]. / Urologische Oberärztinnen und Oberärzte an universitären oder nicht-universitären Kliniken ­ welche Unterschiede gibt es? : Ergebnisse einer webbasierten Querschnittstudie an deutschen Kliniken.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Attending physicians (AP) in urology represent a very heterogeneous group covering various clinical priorities and career objectives. To date, there are no reliable data on professional, personal and position-linked aspects of AP in urology working in university centers (univ-AP) opposed to those working in non-university centers (n-univ-AP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The objective of this study was to analyze individual professional perspectives, professional and personal settings, specific job-related activities and individual professional goals of univ-AP opposed to n­univ-AP. Thus, a web-based survey containing 55 items was designed to perform a cross-sectional study that was then forwarded using a link which was sent via a mailing list of the German Society of Urology. The survey was available for completion by AP at German urological centers from February to April 2019. Group-specific differences were evaluated using bootstrap-adjusted multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of the 192 evaluable surveys, 61 (31.8%) and 131 (68.2%) were part of the univ-AP and n­univ-AP study group, respectively. Participating n­univ-AP compared to univ-AP held the position of AP (p = 0.022) significantly longer and were on call significantly more frequently (p < 0.001). AP in urology (self)-assessed themselves as autonomously confident in performing robotic, laparoscopic, open, endo-urologic, and plastic-reconstructive surgery in 12.4%, 25%, 59.6%, 92.1%, and 25.7%, respectively, with no significant differences between the two groups among all above mentioned surgical subdomains based on multivariate analysis. AP in urology were (very) content in 92% concerning the choice of their discipline, in 73.9% concerning their actual working circumstances, and in 60.2% concerning their level of surgical expertise. Only 27.1% and 19.9% were (very) content with the amount of available time for their personal professional development and for private affairs, respectively. As opposed to n­univ-AP, univ-AP would choose a career in clinical centers once again significantly more frequently (OR 2.87; p(BS) = 0.041), but assess the position of AP as their definitive career goal significantly less frequently (OR 0.42; p(BS) = 0.40). Univ-AP state significantly more frequently that they were running for the position of head of department or full professor (OR 5.64; p(BS) = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this first survey study world-wide on AP in urology divided according to their academic background, similarities and variances were analyzed, baring the potential to further improve identification of AP for a career in clinical centers.