The Future State of Race/Ethnicity in Urology: Urology Workforce Projection From 2021-2061.

OBJECTIVE: To project the proportion of the urology workforce that is from under-represented in medicine (URiM) groups between 2021-2061. METHODS: Demographic data were obtained from AUA Census and ACGME Data Resource Books. The number of graduating urology residents and proportion of URiM graduating residents were characterized with linear models. Stock and Flow models were used to project future population numbers and proportions of URiM practicing urologists, contingent on assumptions regarding trainee demographics, retirement trends, and growth in the field. RESULTS: Currently, there is an increase in the percentage of URiM graduates by 0.145% per year. If historical trends continue, URiM urologists will likely comprise 16.2% of urology residency graduates and 13.3% of the practicing urological workforce in 2061. These percentages would constitute an underrepresentation of URiM urologists relative to the projected 44.2% of the U.S. population who would identify as American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black/African American, Latinx/Hispanic and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander by 2060.1 An increase in the percentage of URiM graduates by 0.845% per year would result in 44.2% URiM urology residency graduates and 26.1% URiM practicing urologists by 2061. An interactive app was designed to allow for a range of assumptions to be explored and for future data to be incorporated. CONCLUSION: URiM physician representation within urology over the next 40years will remain disproportionately low compared to that of the projected share of people of color in the general U.S. POPULATION: In order to achieve the AUA's Diversity, Equity and Inclusion goals, a concerted effort to implement interventions to recruit, train, and retain a generation of racially diverse urologists appears necessary.

The harms of racial miscategorization: Comparing multiracial individuals' well-being in the continental U.S. versus Hawai'i.

OBJECTIVE: The current work explores the effects of racial miscategorization (incongruence between other people's racial categorization of an individual and that individual's racial self-identification) and subjective well-being of multiracial individuals in Hawai'i versus California. We set out to examine how multiracial individuals experience racial miscategorization in more or less ethnically diverse environments and how this experience shapes the extent to which they feel a sense of belonging and inclusion. METHOD: The study consisted of interviews with 55 multiracial undergraduate and graduate students conducted in Hawai'i (20 self-identified women and 9 self-identified men, with ages ranging from 18 to 47 years; M = 22.93, SD = 6.40) and California (16 self-identified women, 9 self-identified men, and 1 self-identified gender nonbinary person, with ages ranging from 18 to 31 years; M = 20.96, SD = 2.76). RESULTS: Thematic analysis identified two central themes relevant to subjective well-being: (a) racial miscategorization and its consequences and (b) contextual differences in the experiences of miscategorization. Results suggest that racial miscategorization is a pervasive experience among multiracial people and is associated with negative psychological well-being. We also found that environments with greater representation of multiracial individuals, such as Hawai'i, are associated with less racial miscategorization, more inclusion, and better psychological well-being among multiracial individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Racial miscategorization is a prominent and aversive experience among multiracial individuals, but multiracial environments can serve as a psychological buffer. Racial miscategorization has important theoretical and practical implications for racial and ethnic identity research, which we discuss. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Someone Like Me: An Examination of the Importance of Race-Concordant Mentorship in Urology.

OBJECTIVE: To describe differences in urology mentorship exposure for medical students across race/ethnicity and to explore how much potential mentees valued the importance of race-concordant mentorship. METHODS: All medical students at UCLA received a cross-sectional survey. Dependent variables were perceived quality of mentorship in urology and association between race-concordant mentorship and perceived importance of race-concordant mentorship. Mentors were self-selected by medical students. Variables were compared across race/ethnicity using descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses. Subset analyses looking at race-concordance between mentor and student was performed using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests. This was performed to determine if there were differences, across race/ethnicity, in rating of importance of having a race-concordant mentor. RESULTS: The likelihood of having a urologist as a mentor was similar across race/ethnicity. Under-Represented in Medicine (URiM) students were more likely to report that having a mentor of the same race/ethnicity was extremely important (Asian 9%, Black 58%, Latinx 55% and White 3%, P < .001) compared to their non-URiM peers who were more likely to rate having a race-concordant mentor as not at all important (Asian 34%, Black 5%, Latinx 8%, White 79%, P < .001). URiM students with race-concordant mentors were still more likely to rate having a mentor of the same race/ethnicity as extremely/very important (73%) compared to their non-URiM peers (9%, P = .001). URiM students with race-discordant mentors also rated importance of mentors of the same race/ethnicity as extremely/very important (67%) compared to their non-URiM peers (11%, P = .006). CONCLUSION: URiM medical students regard race-concordant mentorship as extremely important. Interventions addressing mentor racial/ethnic concordance and those promoting culturally responsive mentorship may optimize recruitment of URiM students into urology.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Medical Student Timing and Perceived Quality of Exposure to Urology.

OBJECTIVE: To contextualize the low representation of Under-Represented in Medicine (URiM) in urology, we examine differences in timing and perceived quality of urology clinical and research exposures for medical students across race/ethnicity. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to all medical students at University of California, Los Angeles. Dependent variables were timing of urology exposure and perceived quality of urology exposure. Descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses were used to compare variables across race/ethnicity. Logistic regression was used to determine odds of early exposure to urology across race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Black and Latinx students were significantly less likely to discover urology before MS3 (P <.001). Although URiM students were more likely to recall receiving a urology interest group invitation (Asian 46%, Black 53%, Latinx 67%, White 48%, P = .03), they were less likely to attend an event (Asian 23%, Black 4%, Latinx 3% and White 15%, P <.001) despite being more likely to be interested in urology (Asian 32%, Black 38%, Latinx 50%, White 28%, P = .01). Black students were more likely to gain exposure via family/friend with a urological diagnosis. Black and Latinx students were twice as dissatisfied with timing and method of medical school exposure to urology versus their peers. There were differences across race/ethnicity for whether or not a student had engaged in urology research (Asian 10%, Black 5%, Latinx 2%, White 2%, P = .01). CONCLUSION: Racial/ethnic disparities exist in early exposure to urology, involvement in urology interest group, access to research, and satisfaction with exposure to urology. Interventions addressing the timing and quality of urology exposures may optimize recruitment of URiM students into urology.

Trends in the Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the US Urology Workforce.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the historical trends and factors underlying the current state of racial/ethnic representation within the urology workforce at each stage of the educational pipeline. METHODS: Using data from the US Census Bureau and the Association of American Medical Colleges, trends in racial/ethnic distribution for 2007-2008 to 2019-2020 were tracked in the educational pipeline for academic urologists. This pipeline was defined as progressively diminishing cohorts, starting with the US population, leading to medical school application, acceptance, and graduation, through to urology residency application, matching, and graduation, and ending with urology faculty appointment. A comparative cohort analysis was performed for academic year 2018-2019 for differences in racial/ethnic distribution across cohorts by binomial tests. RESULTS: From 2007-2008 to 2019-2020, while the proportion of Latinx/Hispanic urology applicants increased by 0.38% per year (95% CI 0.24, 0.52), their proportion in the urology resident population remained unchanged (0.07% per year, 95% CI -0.20, 0.06) from 2011-2012 to 2019-2020. There was a decrease in the proportion of Black urology applicants (-0.13% per year, 95% CI -0.24, -0.02) and no change in the resident population (-0.03% per year, 95% CI -0.11, 0.05), despite an increase in total number of residents (n = 1043 to n = 1734) from 2009-2010 to 2019-2020. In 2018-2019, there were step-wise decreases in proportion of Black and Latinx/Hispanic members represented at critical stages of the educational pipeline (P <0.0001). CONCLUSION: Attrition in URM urologists occur at key educational stages. This paper offers opportunities for the design of interventions to diversify the urology workforce.

Implications of research staff demographics for psychological science.

Long-standing research traditions in psychology have established the fundamental impact of social categories, such as race and gender, on people's perceptions of themselves and others, as well as on general human cognition and behavior. However, there is a general tendency to ignore research staff demographics (e.g., researchers' race and gender) in research development and research reports. Variation in research staff demographics can exert systematic and scientifically informative influences on results from psychological research. Consequently, research staff demographics need to be considered, studied, and/or reported, along with how these demographics were allowed to vary across participants or conditions (e.g., random assignment, matched with participant demographics, or included as a factor in the experimental design). In addition to providing an overview of multidisciplinary evidence of research staff demographics effects, it is discussed how research staff demographics might influence research findings through (a) ingroup versus outgroup effects, (b) stereotype and (implicit) bias effects, and (c) priming and social tuning effects. Finally, an overview of recommended considerations is included (see Appendix) to help illustrate how to systematically incorporate relevant research staff demographics in psychological science. (PsycINFO Database Record