Abstract
Background. Attending physicians (AP) in urology represent a very heterogeneous group covering various clinical priorities and career objectives. To date, there are no reliable data on professional, personal and position-linked aspects of AP in urology working in university centers (univ-AP) opposed to those working in non-university centers (n-univ-AP). Materials and methods. The objective of ...
Abstract
Background. Attending physicians (AP) in urology represent a very heterogeneous group covering various clinical priorities and career objectives. To date, there are no reliable data on professional, personal and position-linked aspects of AP in urology working in university centers (univ-AP) opposed to those working in non-university centers (n-univ-AP). Materials and methods. The objective of this study was to analyze individual professional perspectives, professional and personal settings, specific job-related activities and individual professional goals of univ-AP opposed to n-univ-AP. Thus, a web-based survey containing 55 items was designed to perform a cross-sectional study that was then forwarded using a link which was sent via amailing list of the German Society of Urology. The survey was available for completion by AP at German urological centers from February to April 2019. Group-specific differences were evaluated using bootstrap-adjusted multivariate logistic regression models. Results. Of the 192 evaluable surveys, 61 (31.8%) and 131 (68.2%) were part of the univ-AP and n-univ-AP study group, respectively. Participating n-univ-AP compared to univ-AP held the position of AP (p= 0.022) significantly longer and were on call significantly more frequently (p< 0.001). AP in urology (self)-assessed themselves as autonomously confident in performing robotic, laparoscopic, open, endo-urologic, and plastic-reconstructive surgery in 12.4%, 25%, 59.6%, 92.1%, and 25.7%, respectively, with no significant differences between the two groups among all above mentioned surgical subdomains based on multivariate analysis. AP in urology were (very) content in 92% concerning the choice of their discipline, in 73.9% concerning their actual working circumstances, and in 60.2% concerning their level of surgical expertise. Only 27.1% and 19.9% were (very) content with the amount of available time for their personal professional development and for private affairs, respectively. As opposed to n-univ-AP, univ-AP would choose a career in clinical centers once again significantly more frequently (OR 2.87; p((BS))= 0.041), but assess the position of AP as their definitive career goal significantly less frequently (OR 0.42; p((BS))= 0.40). Univ-AP state significantly more frequently that they were running for the position of head of department or full professor (OR 5.64; p((BS))= 0.001). Conclusion. In this first survey study world wide on AP in urology divided according to their academic background, similarities and variances were analyzed, baring the potential to further improve identification of AP for a career in clinical centers.
Altmetric