Abstract
Background:
Numerous factors influence the choice of a medical specialty, including lifestyle, prestige, and clinical exposure. Urology, a field that integrates medicine and surgery, has faced concerns regarding decreasing educational exposure, particularly in medical schools worldwide. This study aims to assess medical students’ awareness, perception, and knowledge of urology in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and identify factors influencing the decision to pursue urology as a career.
Methodology:
This cross-sectional survey was conducted among 193 medical students and interns from universities in Jeddah. Utilizing a structured questionnaire, participants were assessed on demographic information, clinical exposure, urological knowledge, and career aspirations. The data analysis employed descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests, with a significance level set at P < 0.05.
Results:
A high level of awareness about urology (90.2%) was observed among participants, with 74 students (38.3%) describing their knowledge as adequate, defined as rating their urological knowledge as “good” or “very good.” Although 72.5% of participants did not consider urology as a career, exposure through urology rotations was associated with greater interest in the field. Male participants were more likely to consider urology (P = 0.053) and had higher clinical exposure than females (P = 0.001). Clinical rotations positively influenced awareness, with 41.5% of students who completed a rotation expressing interest in pursuing urology versus 20.3% of those without rotation exposure (P = 0.002).
Conclusion:
While many medical students are aware of urology, increased clinical exposure is needed. About one-third expressed interest, mainly due to its medical-surgical integration and appealing lifestyle. Male students showed greater interest and participation in clinical rotations, which significantly enhanced their knowledge and career inclination.
Keywords: Clinical, education, exposure, interest, perception, Saudi Arabia, students, urology
INTRODUCTION
Choosing a medical specialization is one of the most critical decisions for medical students. This complex decision-making process involves various considerations, including lifestyle, societal orientation, professional prestige, hospital affiliation, scope of practice, and the influence of role models.[1] A urological training program encompasses various interrelated subspecialties, including andrology, female and reconstructive surgery, endourology, and urological oncology.[2] However, concerns are rising about the decreasing emphasis on urology education in medical colleges.[3] While 76% of European institutions require urology instruction, the percentage of medical schools in the USA that mandate a urology rotation has dropped significantly from 99% in 1956 to just 17% in 2010.[4] In a 2019 survey of 114 students, only 11 had previously participated in urological clerkships. While all the students reported being aware of the field of urology, only 74 were able to accurately identify the educational path and professional responsibilities of an urologist.
Furthermore, even among those who claimed awareness, their perceived knowledge was limited, as they mentioned, but it is improved only after targeted educational exposures.[5] In 2014, a study examined medical students’ perceptions of urology; the findings revealed that 84.2% of respondents believed they had sufficient knowledge of urolithiasis. In contrast, only 59.1% felt adequately informed about voiding dysfunction, 42.9% about pediatric urology, and 30.5% about uro-oncology. In addition, 58.1% of respondents indicated that they had insufficient knowledge of erectile dysfunction and renal transplantation.[6] The lack of thorough studies on urology education in medical schools critically undermines the evaluation and enhancement of medical students’ learning in this critical discipline.[7] A recent survey by Allahiany et al. evaluated how medical students perceived Saudi Arabian universities’ urology educational programs; they discovered that the majority of those interested in a career in urology were male students and that almost half of the respondents (48%) think that urology is essentially a male specialty.[8]
The current study aims to measure medical students’ awareness, perceptions, and knowledge of urology in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and to assess the factors influencing students’ consideration of urology as a career option.
METHODOLOGY
Study design
This cross-sectional survey-based study aims to evaluate medical students’ knowledge, awareness, and perceptions regarding urology, as well as the factors influencing their decision to consider urology as a career.
Study population and setting
The study included interns and medical students from their 3rd to 6th years at various universities in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The targeted participants were students from King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, King Abdulaziz University, Batterjee Medical College, Ibn Sina University, and the University of Jeddah.
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University of Jeddah. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants before completing the questionnaire.
Sampling method
The study employed a snowball sampling technique to recruit participants. It involved 193 medical interns and students.
Inclusion criteria
Medical students or interns currently enrolled at one of the listed universities.
Exclusion criteria
Participants were excluded if they were preclinical students (1st or 2nd year), were not enrolled at one of the listed universities, or submitted incomplete or duplicate responses.
Justification
Snowball sampling enabled the researchers to gather responses quickly and efficiently by leveraging peer networks, ensuring a wider reach across the target population in multiple universities – especially in the absence of a centralized student registry.
Limitations
Snowball sampling may introduce selection bias, as students often share the survey with peers from similar academic circles. As a result, the sample may not fully represent the broader student population. The nonrandom nature of this approach may limit the generalizability of the findings.
Data collection tool
A structured questionnaire was created using Google Forms and was distributed electronically. The questionnaire included several sections addressing demographics, clinical exposure, urological awareness and perception, and factors affecting career consideration.
Development and testing
The questionnaire was pilot tested among a small group of medical students to assess clarity, readability, and flow. Based on their feedback, minor revisions were made to improve question phrasing and structure. Although the questionnaire was not formally validated using statistical methods, its content was reviewed by urology faculty and medical education experts to ensure relevance and content validity.
Participant anonymity
Participation was fully anonymous. No identifying information such as names, emails, or student IDs was collected. All responses were kept confidential and used solely for research purposes.
Data analysis
Descriptive statistics were presented as numerical values and percentages. For comparative analysis, the Chi-square test was employed. A significance level of P < 0.05 was established for all tests conducted using SPSS version 29 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA).
RESULTS
The study population
A total of 193 students and interns participated in the survey. Of these participants, 65 (33.7%) reported having completed a prior urology rotation experience. Table 1 illustrates the demographics of the participants.
Table 1.
The demographics of the participants in the study questionnaire
| Variant | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Male | 102 (52.8) |
| Female | 91 (47.2) |
| Year in medical school | |
| 3rd year | 17 (8.8) |
| 4th year | 28 (14.5) |
| 5th year | 42 (21.8) |
| 6th year | 81 (42) |
| Intern | 25 (13) |
| University | |
| Albatarji | 9 (4.7) |
| Ibn Sina | 16 (8.3) |
| KAU | 43 (22.3) |
| KSAU-HS | 27 (14) |
| University of Jeddah | 98 (50.8) |
| Have you completed a clinical clerkship/rotation in Urology during your medical school training? | |
| No, do not plan to complete in future | 64 (33.2) |
| Plan to complete in future by requirement | 40 (20.7) |
| Plan to complete in future by choice | 24 (12.4) |
| Yes, completed by requirement | 42 (21.8) |
| Yes completed by choice | 23 (11.9) |
| Prior urology rotation | |
| No | 128 (66.3) |
| 1 week | 15 (7.8) |
| 2 weeks | 25 (13) |
| 3 weeks | 1 (0.5) |
| 4 weeks | 22 (11.4) |
| 2 months | 1 (0.5) |
| 6 months | 1 (0.5) |
KAU: King Abdulaziz University; KSAU-HS: King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences
Awareness of urology specialty
One hundred and seventy-four (90.2%) participants were aware of and oriented to the urology specialty. Seventy-four (38.3%) participants described their knowledge of the urology specialty, compared to other specialties, as adequate, while 52 (26.9%) as poor, 39 (20.2%) as good, 16 (8.3%) as excellent, and 12 (6.2%) as no knowledge. Participants had diverse views on the urology training pathway. The majority, 114 (59.1%), defined it as a urology residency program. However, 18.7% believed that the urology training involved completing an internal medicine residency, followed by a urology fellowship, and 17.1% through a general surgery residency followed by a urology fellowship. A minority of participants had different expectations, such as a transitional year followed by a urology residency (3.6%) or starting with an obstetrics and gynecology internship followed by a urology residency (1.6%).
Thirty-one (16.1%) participants defined the role of an urologist in managing diseases related to the female and male urinary tract, child urinary tract, female reproductive organs, male reproductive organs, proteinuria, and glomerulonephritis, as illustrated in Figure 1. In the context of urologists’ clinical practice, 53.9% of participants indicated that urologists engage in various activities, including operating outpatient clinics, conducting ward rounds in hospitals, admitting patients, and performing both outpatient and inpatient procedures. The remaining participants anticipated alternative work regimens, as demonstrated in Figure 2.
Figure 1.
A chart illustrating survey participants’ views on the role of urologists in disease management
Figure 2.
A chart illustrating the perspectives of survey participants on the definition of clinical practice among urologists
Influence on consideration of urology as career choice
A total of 53 participants, representing 27.5% of the cohort, expressed an interest in pursuing a career in the urology specialty. It was observed that clinical rotation in urology had a significant influence on students’ consideration of this specialty; specifically, 41.5% of those who had participated in a clinical rotation in urology indicated an interest in pursuing a career in this field, compared to 20.3% of students who had not engaged in urology rotation (P = 0.002) [Table 2].
Table 2.
Factors affecting consideration to pursue a career in urology by the participants
| Variant | Neutral influence, n (%) | Slightly negative influence, n (%) | Slightly positive influence, n (%) | Strongly negative influence, n (%) | Strongly positive influence, n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coursework in medical school | 96 (49.7) | 25 (13) | 26 (13.5) | 22 (11.4) | 24 (12.4) |
| Personality fit | 66 (34.2) | 45 (23.3) | 24 (12.4) | 33 (17.1) | 25 (13) |
| Influenced by friends or colleagues | 96 (49.7) | 31 (16.1) | 25 (13) | 26 (13.5) | 15 (7.8) |
| Self or family member with urologic problem | 117 (60.6) | 26 (13.5) | 19 (9.8) | 18 (9.3) | 13 (6.7) |
| Prior clinical exposure (shadowing or mentor) | 103 (53.4) | 30 (15.5) | 22 (11.4) | 17 (8.8) | 21 (10.9) |
| Financial earning potential | 84 (43.5) | 30 (15.5) | 34 (17.6) | 18 (9.3) | 27 (14) |
| Gender distribution in urology | 83 (43) | 35 (18.1) | 18 (9.3) | 42 (21.8) | 15 (7.8) |
| Integration of medicine and surgery | 70 (36.3) | 26 (13.5) | 34 (17.6) | 22 (11.4) | 41 (21.2) |
| Use of technology in urology (ex: lasers, robots | 70 (36.3) | 26 (13.5) | 41 (21.2) | 24 (12.4) | 32 (16.6) |
| Lifestyle during residency | 90 (46.6) | 34 (17.6) | 29 (15.0) | 21 (10.9) | 19 (9.8) |
| Lifestyle after training | 76 (39.4) | 31 (16.1) | 27 (14) | 19 (9.8) | 40 (20.7) |
The two factors that had a strong positive influence on considering urology as a career were the integration of medicine and surgery in urology practice and lifestyle after training, as chosen by 21.2% and 20.7% of the participants, respectively. Conversely, gender distribution and personality fit were the two common factors that have a strong negative influence in considering urology in their career as chosen by 21.8% and 17.1%, respectively, as depicted in Table 2.
Awareness and perception of urology specialty differences according to participants’ gender
Male participants were compared to females regarding the distribution of study years and orientation to the urology specialty, as depicted in Table 3.
Table 3.
Differences in awareness and perception of urology specialty considering gender distribution among participants
| Male, (n=102), n (%) | Female, (n=91), n (%) | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Year in medical school | |||
| 3rd year | 7 (6.86) | 10 (10.99) | 0.162 |
| 4th year | 13 (12.75) | 15 (16.48) | |
| 5th year | 25 (24.51) | 17 (18.48) | |
| 6th year | 39 (38.24) | 42 (41.18) | |
| Intern | 18 (17.65) | 7 (7.69) | |
| Awareness of urology specialty | |||
| Yes | 92 (90.2) | 82 (90.1) | 0.984 |
| No | 10 (9.8) | 9 (9.9) | |
| Considering the urology specialty in the future career prior to urology clerkship experience | |||
| Yes | 34 (33.3) | 19 (20.9) | 0.053 |
| No | 68 (66.7) | 72 (79.1) | |
| Have you completed a clinical clerkship/rotation in urology during your medical school training? | |||
| No, do not plan to complete in future | 24 (23.5) | 40 (43.9) | 0.001 |
| Plan to complete in future by requirement | 21 (20.6) | 19 (20.9) | |
| Plan to complete in future by choice | 12 (11.8) | 12 (13.2) | |
| Yes, completed by requirement | 25 (24.5) | 17 (18.7) | |
| Yes completed by choice | 20 (19.6) | 3 (3.3) | |
| Duration of your clinical rotation/clerkship in urology | |||
| No | 57 (55.88) | 71 (78.02) | 0.047 |
| 1 week | 11 (10.78) | 4 (4.39) | |
| 2 weeks | 15 (14.71) | 10 (10.99) | |
| 3 weeks | 1 (0.98) | 0 | |
| 4 weeks | 1 (15.69) | 6 (6.59) | |
| 2 months | 1 (0.98) | 0 | |
| 6 months | 1 (0.98) | 0 | |
| Influence of the clinical rotation in urology on awareness about the urology specialty | |||
| Positive influence | 35 (34.31) | 19 (20.88) | 0.116 |
| Neutral influence | 58 (56.86) | 62 (68.13) | |
| Negative influence | 9 (8.82) | 10 (10.99) | |
| Knowledge about the urology specialty compared to other specialties) | |||
| Excellent | 13 (12.75) | 3 (3.3) | |
| Good | 20 (19.61) | 19 (20.88) | |
| Adequate | 41 (40.2) | 33 (36.26) | 0.085 |
| Poor | 22 (21.57) | 30 (32.97) | |
| No knowledge | 6 (5.88) | 6 (6.59) | |
| Urology training pathway | |||
| A urology residency program | 68 (66.7) | 46 (50.55) | |
| Internal medicine residency followed by a urology fellowship | 10 (9.8) | 26 (28.57) | 0.005 |
| General surgery residency followed by urology fellowship | 17 (16.7) | 16 (17.58) | |
| A transitional year followed by urology residency | 6 (5.88) | 1 (1.1) | |
| Obstetrics and gynecology internship followed by urology residency | 1 (0.98) | 2 (2.19) | |
Our findings show that male participants are more likely to consider the urology specialty in their future careers, with 33.3% of males compared to 20.9% of females (P = 0.053). Clinical rotation in urology was significantly lower in female participants, as 78.1% did not take a urology rotation compared to 55.88% among males, with a statistically significant difference (P = 0.001). 3.29% of females had completed a urology rotation by choice, and 18.7% had completed a urology rotation by requirement. Similarly, 19.61% of males had completed a urology rotation by choice, and 24.51% had completed a urology rotation by requirement (P = 0.001), as illustrated in Figure 3. In a survey regarding the influence of rotation in urology on awareness of the urology specialty, 34.3% of male participants reported a positive impact, in contrast to 20.88% of female participants (P = 0.116) [Table 3]. Male participants claimed a better knowledge of the urology specialty than female participants. 32.85% of males described their knowledge of urology as excellent or good, compared to 24.18% of females (P = 0.085) [Figure 4]. Table 3 demonstrates the impact of gender on awareness and perception of the urology specialty.
Figure 3.
Charts depicting the prevalence of clinical rotations in the urology specialty, considering gender distribution among participants
Figure 4.
Charts comparing the opinions of survey participants regarding their knowledge of urology in relation to other medical specialties
Impact of clinical rotations in urology on awareness and perception of urology specialty
Among participants who completed their rotation in urology, 95.38% exhibited an awareness of the specialty, in contrast to 87.5% of those who did not undertake a urology rotation. This difference does not reach a statistically significant difference (P = 0.082), as illustrated in Table 4. Clinical rotations in urology had a positive impact on awareness and perception of the urology specialty. Participants who completed their rotation in urology expressed greater knowledge of the specialty and were more oriented to urology training and clinical practice pathways, as depicted in Table 4.
Table 4.
Impact of clinical rotations in urology on awareness and perception of urology specialty
| Participants with clinical rotations in urology (n=65), n (%) | Participants without clinical rotations in urology (n=128), n (%) | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Male | 45 (69.23) | 57 (44.53) | 0.001 |
| Female | 20 (30.77) | 71 (55.47) | |
| University | |||
| Albatarji | 1 (1.54) | 8 (6.25) | 0.003 |
| Ibn Sina | 5 (7.69)) | 11 (8.59) | |
| KAU | 17 (26.15) | 26 (20.31) | |
| KSAU-HS | 17 (26.15) | 10 (7.81) | |
| University of Jeddah | 25 (38.46) | 73 (57.03) | |
| Year in medical school | |||
| 3rd year | 0 (0) | 17 (13.28) | <0.001 |
| 4th year | 1 (1.54) | 27 (21.09) | |
| 5th year | 16 (24.62) | 26 (20.31) | |
| 6th year | 28 (43.1) | 53 (41.41) | |
| Intern | 20 (30.77) | 5 (3.9) | |
| Awareness of urology specialty | |||
| Yes | 62 (95.38) | 112 (87.5) | 0.082 |
| No | 3 (4.62) | 16 (12.5) | |
| Influence of the clinical rotation in urology on awareness about the urology specialty | |||
| Positive influence | 37 (56.92) | 17 (13.28) | <0.001 |
| Neutral influence | 25 (38.46) | 95 (74.22) | |
| Negative influence | 3 (4.62) | 16 (12.5) | |
| Considering the urology specialty in the future career prior to urology clerkship experience | |||
| Yes | 27 (41.54) | 26 (20.31) | 0.002 |
| No | 38 (58.46) | 102 (79.69) | |
| Knowledge about the urology specialty compared to other specialties | |||
| Excellent | 13 (20) | 3 (2.34) | <0.001 |
| Good | 22 (33.85) | 17 (13.28) | |
| Adequate | 25 (38.46) | 49 (38.28) | |
| Poor | 5 (7.69) | 47 (36.72) | |
| No knowledge | 0 | 12 (9.38) | |
| Urology training pathway | |||
| A urology residency program | 43 (66.15) | 71 (55.47) | 0.024 |
| Internal medicine residency followed by a urology fellowship | 4 (6.15) | 32 (25) | |
| General surgery residency followed by urology (%) fellowship | 13 (20) | 20 (15.63) | |
| A transitional year followed by urology residency | 3 (4.62) | 4 (3.13 | |
| Obstetrics and gynecology internship followed by urology residency | 2 (3.1) | 1 (0.78) | |
KAU: King Abdulaziz University; KSAU-HS: King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences
DISCUSSION
Our study demonstrated that most participants, 90.2%, were knowledgeable about the urology specialty but had a limited depth of understanding. It also highlighted the crucial role of clinical rotations in shaping knowledge and interest, with students who completed rotations exhibiting more significant interest in urology (41.54% vs. 20.3%, P = 0.002). These findings are consistent with a study conducted in the UK, where only 41% of participants felt that they had received sufficient clinical exposure to urology during training, highlighting the gap between awareness and practical understanding.[4] Moreover, the strong correlation between clinical exposure and increased interest underscores the importance of active engagement over passive learning. In addition, a lack of previous clinical exposure is associated with decreasing interest, with just 7% of those selecting urology as their profession.[9] Across all research, gender disparities, the perception of urology as an overwhelmingly male-dominated specialty, and lifestyle issues were significant barriers. In our study, males are significantly more inclined than females to seek a profession in urology as “gender distribution” and “personality fit” were unfavorable factors. The Saudi survey also stated that urology is perceived as a male-dominated profession, deterring female students from selecting it as a career, as well as 67.5% of individuals saw urology as male dominated.[10]
These findings align with Binsaleh et al.’s national data, which reflect similar concerns about inclusivity and access among Saudi medical students.[6] The underrepresentation of female students in rotations suggests broader systemic barriers, such as gendered mentorship opportunities and limited female role models in the field.
Both research results emphasize the insufficiency of current urology education. Our study focused on the poor comprehension of training paths and clinical roles, advocating increasing clinical rotations and introducing urological content earlier in the curriculum. The cited research broadens the scope by addressing the absence of structured urology training during the preclinical and clinical years, suggesting mandated urology lectures and practical experiences.[1,2,4] This is consistent with earlier findings that showed significant deficits in urological knowledge, even among graduating students and primary care providers, which can have downstream implications on patient outcomes.[3] Furthermore, the literature underscores the critical role of academic institutions in promoting exposure to urological subspecialties and developing confidence in surgical fields.[2,7] It emphasizes the need to provide future physicians, including those pursuing primary care, with vital urological knowledge to enhance patient outcomes for common conditions such as benign prostatic hyperplasia.[5] Based on the findings of this study, we recommend extending the duration of urology rotations to provide more significant experiences, launching educational campaigns that emphasize urological technological innovations, and incorporating workshops.
Limitations of the study
It is essential to consider that such results, including those in our study, rely on self-reported data, which may introduce social desirability bias – students might have overstated their interest or knowledge due to perceived expectations. Furthermore, the snowball sampling method used may have led to sampling bias, with potential overrepresentation from specific institutions and underrepresentation of early-year students, particularly those with limited clinical exposure.
CONCLUSION
Many medical students possess a fundamental awareness of the urology specialty. Approximately one-third of respondents expressed an interest in pursuing a career in urology, primarily due to the integration of medical and surgical practices within this field and the appealing lifestyle that follows training. Male medical students demonstrate a greater inclination to consider urology as a future professional path than their female counterparts, and they also reported more significant participation in clinical rotations in urology. Engagement in these rotations has significantly enhanced participants’ understanding and perceptions of the specialty. Those who completed urology rotations displayed superior knowledge and were more inclined to pursue training and clinical practice opportunities within the field of urology. We recommend integrating mandatory 2-week urology rotations during the clinical years to ensure adequate exposure and better-informed career decisions.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
Nil.
Assessment of overall perception and interest in urology among medical student in Jeddah
Welcome! This survey aims to understand the awareness and perceptions of medical students in Jeddah regarding urology. Your participation will help improve urological education and career interest in this vital field. The survey is anonymous and will take about 3 minutes to complete.
Thank you for your valuable input!
By filling and submitting this form you agree to participate in this study.
* Indicates required question
1. Gender *
Mark only one oval.
Male
Female
2. Year in Medical School *
Mark only one oval.
3rd Year
4th Year
5th Year
6th Year
Intern
3. University*
Dropdown
Mark only one oval.
University of Jeddah
KAu
KSU-HS
Ibn sina
Albatarji
4. Are you aware of a speciality called Urology? *
Mark only one oval.
Yes
No
5. Define the role of a Urologist: Manages diseases involving… (Select all that apply.) *
Check all that apply.
⎕Female and male urinary tract
⎕Child urinary tract Female
⎕reproductive organs
⎕Male reproductive organs
⎕Proteinuria and glomerulonephritis
6. A urologist does the following... (Select all that apply.) *
Check all that apply.
⎕Has outpatient clinic
⎕Does ward rounds in the hospital
⎕Admits patients to the hospital
⎕Performs outpatient procedures
⎕Performs inpatient procedures/surgeries
7. A urologist is trained via the following pathway after medical school *
Mark only one oval.
General Surgery residency followed by urology fellowship
Internal Medicine residency followed by urology fellowship
Obstetrics and gynecology internship followed by urology residency
Transitional year followed by urology residency
Urology as its own residency program
8. How does your knowledge of urology compare to other clinical subjects? *
Mark only one oval.
Excellent
Good
Adequate
Poor
No knowledge
9. Have you completed a clinical clerkship/rotation in Urology during your medical school training? *
Mark only one oval.
Yes, completed by choice
Yes, completed by requirement
Plan to complete in future by choice
Plan to complete in future by requirement
No, do not plan to complete in future
10. Duration of your clinical rotation/clerkship in urology? *
Mark only one oval.
1 week
2 weeks
4 weeks
Other:_____________________________________________________
11. Were you considering a career in Urology prior to clerkship experience?
Mark only one oval.
Yes
No
12. How did the clinical rotation/clerkship in Urology influence your awareness of urology? *
Mark only one oval.
Positive influence
Neutral influence
Negative influence
13. Please check the influence each of following on your consideration to pursue a career in Urology. *
Mark only one oval per row.
| Strongly Negative Influence | Slightly Negative Influence | Neutral Influence | Slightly Positive Influence | Strongly Positive Influence | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coursework in medical school |
|
|
|
|
|
| Personality fit |
|
|
|
|
|
| Influenced by friends or colleagues |
|
|
|
|
|
| Self or family member with urologic problem (if N/A, select neutral influence) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Prior clinical exposure (shadowing or mentor) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Financial eaming potential |
|
|
|
|
|
| Gender distribution in Urology |
|
|
|
|
|
| Integration of medicine and surgery |
|
|
|
|
|
| Use of technology in urology (ex: lasers, robots) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lifestyle during residency |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lifestyle after training |
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCES
- 1.Kim S, Farrokhyar F, Braga LH. Survey on the perception of urology as a specialty by medical students. Can Urol Assoc J. 2016;10:349–54. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.3621. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Gohil R, Khan RS, Ahmed K, Kumar P, Challacombe B, Khan MS, et al. Urology training: Past, present and future. BJU Int. 2012;109:1444–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10653.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Mishail A, Shahsavari M, Kim J, Welliver RC, Jr., Vemulapalli P, Adler HL. Deficits in urological knowledge among medical students and primary care providers: Potential for impact on urological care. J Urol. 2008;180:2140–7. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.07.043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ng A, Wai-Shun Chan V, Asif A, Light A, Meng Lam C, Jayaraajan K, et al. LEARN: A multi-centre, cross-sectional evaluation of urology teaching in UK medical schools. BJU Int. 2022;130:676–87. doi: 10.1111/bju.15758. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Whiles BB, Thompson JA, Griebling TL, Thurmon KL. Perception, knowledge, and interest of urologic surgery: A medical student survey. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19:351. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1794-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Binsaleh S, Al-Jasser A, Almannie R, Madbouly K. Attitude and perception of urology by medical students at the end of their medical school: An appraisal from Saudi Arabia. Urol Ann. 2015;7:211–20. doi: 10.4103/0974-7796.150511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Jalili M, Mirzazadeh A, Azarpira A. A survey of medical students’ perceptions of the quality of their medical education upon graduation. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2008;37:1012–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Allahiany AA, Alsaywid BS, Ahmed M, Khan MA. Perception, attitude, and knowledge of undergraduate students on urology curriculum delivered by medical schools in Saudi Arabia. Indo Am J Pharm Sci. 2019;6:2065–71. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Jones P, Rai BP, Qazi HA, Somani BK, Nabi G. Perception, career choice and self-efficacy of UK medical students and junior doctors in urology. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9:E573–8. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.2919. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Addar AM, Bin Mosa MA, Alothman AS, Alabdulkareem A, Al Jahdali F, Alkhateeb SS. The perception and competency of undergraduates in urology: Is the clinical exposure necessary? Urol Ann. 2020;12:220–4. doi: 10.4103/UA.UA_39_19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]