• Govind Shantharam, Timothy Y Tran, Heather McGee, and Simone Thavaseelan.
• Warren Alpert School of Medicine at Brown University, Providence, RI. Electronic address: gshantharam92@gmail.com.
• Urology. 2019 May 1; 127: 36-41.

ObjectiveTo examine trends in underrepresented minority (URM) representation in urology residency. Comparison is made between URM representation in urology residency and URM representation in other surgical fields as well as all medical fields. We hypothesized that percentage of URM in urology has been limited when compared to both surgical fields and all other fields.Material And MethodsData on the race and ethnicity of residents were collected from ACGME Data Resource Books from 2012 to 2017. We defined URM as the aggregate of Asian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic, Black, Native America/Alaskan and Other. The proportion of URM was compared to the proportion of White in urology vs other surgical specialties and all fields of medicine. Analysis consisted of chi-square testing for each year and for all years combined.ResultsIn total, 5005 urology residents, 67,699 surgical residents, and 367,440 residents in all fields were identified. Comparative analysis demonstrated a significantly lower proportion of URM trainees in urology (30.8%) than surgery (33.6%) and all fields (42.3%), P <.001 for both analyses. Similar trends were observed in year-over-year analysis. Subanalyses of Hispanic, Black, Native American/Alaskan and Other representation as well as Asian representation in urology demonstrated comparable results as that found in the primary analysis (P <.001 for comparison between both surgical fields and all medical fields).ConclusionThe findings demonstrate that URM representation in urology trainees lags behind other fields. Recruitment and selection policies which take into account diversity are needed to improve inclusion of URM into the urologic pipeline and workforce.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

26 keywords...

hide…