Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Pediatr Urol. 2017 Feb;13(1):68-72. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.09.002. Epub 2016 Oct 8.

The American Academy of Pediatrics Workforce Survey for the Section on Urology 2015.

Author information

1
Department of Urology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, USA. Electronic address: ellen.shapiro@nyumc.org.
2
Division of Pediatric Urology, University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA.
3
Women's and Children's Hospital of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Division of Workforce and Medical Education Policy assumed the task of organizing the updated AAP Workforce Survey, which was modeled after the Future of Pediatric Education II study.

OBJECTIVE:

The objective of the present study was to evaluate changes in practice patterns of all pediatric medical and surgical specialists over time, to facilitate advocacy work by the Academy at federal and state levels.

STUDY DESIGN:

The survey was sent to members of the AAP Section on Urology and the Society for Pediatric Urology between June and November 2014. The survey included general and sub-specialty-specific questions. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 18.0. Descriptive statistics, including frequency distributions and measures of central tendency, were used to summarize all responses.

RESULTS:

A total of 255 pediatric urologists returned the survey, giving a response rate of 56.4%. The specialty remained vibrant, and members remained content in their career choice. About two-thirds practiced in a full-time clinical setting, and had research, teaching, and/or administrative duties. About 75% reported no change in clinical volume or case complexity, although 50% reported an increase in their referral base. A 50% increase in minor cases and a 43.3% decrease in open cases were reported. Only 13% planned to retire within the next 3-6 years. The current job market for fellows was unrestricted for 51.3%, significantly restricted for location for 23.1%, and restricted with regard to practice type for 25.6%. Overall, 51%, 37%, and 13% of the respondents expressed the opinions that over the next 5 years, too many specialists in pediatric urology were currently being trained, just the right number, and too few, respectively. Medical student interest remained encouraging.

DISCUSSION:

One of the primary objectives of the survey was to gain insights into whether there was concordance between the number of trainees and the current and future job opportunities. Unfortunately, the main limitations of the survey were the questions on retirement and adding a partner. Since the survey was anonymous, there was a missed opportunity to direct fellows to specific job openings. In addition, every member of a large group may have individually responded, inflating the responses or, in some cases, negating the responses if the partners did not agree.

CONCLUSION:

Pediatric urologists have an overall sense of contentment of career choice, despite shifts in complex open surgical volume and increasing competition. Surveys that are not anonymous would provide specific geographical manpower needs.

KEYWORDS:

Pediatric urology; Survey; Workforce

PMID:
28089294
DOI:
10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.09.002
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center