Grant funding among underrepresented minority and women urologists at academic institutions.

INTRODUCTION: Grant funding to Urology has decreased over the last decade. Documented lack of gender and race diversity at the faculty level raises concerns for funding disparities. This study sought to characterize disparities based upon race and gender in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding data to Urologic faculty. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data from 145 ACGME accredited Urology residency programs incorporating faculty gender and underrepresented in medicine (URiM) status was utilized. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Report Tool was queried between 1985 and 2023 for grants related to current Urology faculty. URiM status, gender, years of practice, academic rank, and Doximity residency program rank were factors in multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2,131 faculty were included. Three hundred one Urologists received 793 urologic grants for a total of $993,919,052 in funding. By race, grants were awarded to: White 72.9%, Asian 21.8%, Hispanic 3.0%, Black 2.1%. Men received 708 grants (89.3%) worth $917,083,475 total. Women received 85 grants (10.7%) worth $76,835,577 total. Likelihood of being awarded a grant was significantly associated with non-URiM status (p < 0.001) and men (p < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, Doximity rank (p < 0.001) and academic rank (p < 0.001) were significant predictors of receiving a grant; male gender, URiM status, and years of practice were not. Academic rank was also a significant predictor of number of grants received (p = 0.04) and total funding (p = 0.04); years of practice, Doximity rank, URiM status, and gender were not. CONCLUSIONS: NIH grants were more likely awarded to higher ranked faculty from higher Doximity ranked institutions with no differences based on URiM status or gender.

Academic Productivity Among Underrepresented Minority and Women Urologists at Academic Institutions.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize academic productivity for underrepresented minorities (URMs) vs non-URMs and by gender in Urology. METHODS: A database was created from 145 Urology residency programs. URM status was determined by origin of name, photo, biography, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Doximity. A PubMed query was performed for publication output. URM status, gender, post-graduate year/years of practice, and Doximity residency rank were factors in multivariable analysis. RESULTS: For residents, the median total publications was 2 [1,5] for URMs and 2 [1,5] for non-URMs (P=.54). The median first/last author publications was 1 [0,2] for URMs and 1 [0,2] for non-URMs (P=.79). The median total publications was 2 [0,4] for women and 2 [1,6] for men (P=.003). The median first/last author publications was 1 [0,2] for women and 1 [0,2] for men (P=.14). For faculty, the median total publications was 12 [3,32] for URMs and 19 [6,45] for non-URMs (P=.0002). The median first/last author publications was 4.5 [1,12] for URMs and 7 [2,20] for non-URM faculty (P=.0002). The median total publications was 11 [5,25] for women and 20 [6,49] for men (P<.0001). The median first/last author publications was 4 [1,11] for women and 8 [2,22] for men (P<.0001). On multivariable analysis, there was no difference in total publications and first/last author publications for URMs vs non-URMs. There remained a difference between genders for residents and faculty with total publications but not first/last author publications (P=.002/P=.10 residents, P=.004/P=.07 faculty). CONCLUSION: Academic productivity was not different in URMs and non-URMs for both residents and faculty. Men residents and faculty had more total publications compared to women.

Factors Influencing Underrepresented in Medicine Urologist Recruitment to Academic Institutions.

INTRODUCTION: We characterize factors associated with recruitment of underrepresented in medicine urology trainees and faculty to academic institutions given the excessive disparity between urology and other fields of medicine. METHODS: A database of urology faculty and residents in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education programs was created. Demographic data were obtained from departmental websites, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Doximity. Program prestige was defined by U.S. News and World Report rankings. Program location and city size were determined using the U.S. Census data. Multivariable analysis was performed assessing the association of gender, AUA section, city size, and rankings on underrepresented in medicine recruitment. RESULTS: Of urologists in this study 8.7% were underrepresented in medicine status. More women urologists were underrepresented in medicine (31.4%) than non-underrepresented in medicine (21.3%; P < .001). Factors predictive of more underrepresented in medicine urologists were practice in South Central AUA section (OR 2.1, P = .04), and medium metro areas (OR 1.6, P < .01). Among residents, factors predictive of more underrepresented in medicine urologists were female gender (P < .001), living in medium metro areas (P = .03), and training in top 10 programs (P = .001). Underrepresented in medicine faculty were more likely to be women compared to non-underrepresented in medicine faculty (P = .05). Pearson correlation test found no association between the presence of underrepresented in medicine faculty and underrepresented in medicine residents (r = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Underrepresented in medicine urology residents and faculty were more likely to be women, compared to non-underrepresented in medicine residents and faculty. Underrepresented in medicine residents are more prevalent in medium metro areas and in top 10 programs. More underrepresented in medicine faculty status was not associated with more underrepresented in medicine residents.

Transparency of racial participation reporting in randomized controlled trials of minimally invasive surgical techniques.

BACKGROUND: Enrolment of racial/ethnic minorities in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has historically been poor, despite efforts at improving access to RCTs. Under-representation of racial/ethnic minorities limits the external validity and generalizability of trials. Our objective was to determine to what extent are published RCTs of minimally invasive surgical techniques reporting the racial composition of their study cohorts and to describe the racial composition of patients enrolled in these trials, where data were available. METHODS: EMBASE (OvidSP®), MEDLINE (OvidSP®), and Cochrane (Wiley®) databases were systematically searched from inception to December 22, 2017 to identify all RCTs comparing minimally invasive and classical surgical techniques. The Mann-Kendall trend test was used to evaluate reporting trends over the study period. Predictors of racial reporting were evaluated using logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 9,321 references of which 496 RCTs met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Racial information was reported in 20 (4.03%) studies. There was no significant improvement in racial reporting over the study period (p for trend = 0.31). Of the 17 different patient populations accounting for the 20 RCTs, 14 (82.4%) originated from the USA. Multicenter RCTs had significantly increased likelihood of reporting racial composition of the patient cohort (odds ratio 5.10, p = 0.025). White/Caucasian patients accounted for 84.5% of the pooled patient population, with Black/African American, Asian and Latin/Hispanic patients accounting for 7.9%, 1.2%, and 2.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among RCTs assessing minimally invasive surgical techniques over the past 30 years, data on included patients' race is poorly reported. In addition to important efforts to improve access to clinical trials for racial and ethnic minorities, efforts aimed at improving reporting and transparency of surgical RCTs are sorely needed.