Search

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.

Introduction: The gender demographics within urology are changing as more women are entering the workforce. Since research productivity strongly influence career advancement, we aim to characterize gender differences in scholarly productivity and promotions in a cohort of graduated academic urologists., Materials and Methods: Urologists who graduated between 2002 and 2008 from 34 residency programs affiliated with the top 50 urology hospitals as ranked in 2009 by U.S. News & World Report were followed longitudinally. Only urologists affiliated with an academic teaching hospital were included for analysis., Results: A total of 543 residents graduated, 459 (84.5%) males and 84 (15.5%) females. Of these, 173 entered academia, 137 (79.2%) males and 36 (20.8%) females. Women had fewer publications compared to men (mean 19.3 versus 61.7, p = 0.001). Fewer women compared to men were promoted from assistant professor 11 (30.6%) versus 83 (60.6%), p = 0.005. Fewer women achieved associate professor 10 (27.8%) versus 67 (48.9%), p = 0.005 or professor ranks 1 (2.8%) versus 16 (11.7%), p = 0.005 respectively compared to men. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, after controlling for the number of total publications and number of years since graduation, gender was not predictive of achieving promotion, OR = 0.81 (95% CI 0.31-2.13), p = 0.673., Conclusions: Women are underrepresented in senior faculty roles in urology. Scholarly productivity seems to play a major role in academic promotion within urology. With increasing women in academic urology, further studies are needed to explore predictors of promotion and how women can achieve higher leadership roles in the field.