E Sophie Spencer1, Allison M Deal2, Nicholas R Pruthi1, Chris M Gonzalez3, E Will Kirby1, Joshua Langston1, Patrick H McKenna4, Maxim J McKibben1, Matthew E Nielsen5, Mathew C Raynor1, Eric M Wallen6, Michael E Woods6, Raj S Pruthi6, Angela B Smith7. 1. Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 2. Cancer Outcomes Research Group, Biostatistics and Clinical Data Management, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 3. Department of Urology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. 5. Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Cancer Outcomes Research Group, Multidisciplinary Genitourinary Oncology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 6. Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Cancer Outcomes Research Group, Multidisciplinary Genitourinary Oncology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 7. Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Cancer Outcomes Research Group, Multidisciplinary Genitourinary Oncology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Electronic address: angela_smith@med.unc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The proportion of women in urology has increased from less than 0.5% in 1981 to 10% today. Furthermore, 33% of students matching in urology are now female. In this analysis we characterize the female workforce in urology compared to that of men with regard to income, workload and job satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collaborated with the American Urological Association to survey its domestic membership of practicing urologists regarding socioeconomic, workforce and quality of life issues. A total of 6,511 survey invitations were sent via e-mail. The survey consisted of 26 questions and took approximately 13 minutes to complete. Linear regression models were used to evaluate bivariable and multivariable associations with job satisfaction and compensation. RESULTS: A total of 848 responses (660 or 90% male, 73 or 10% female) were collected for a total response rate of 13%. On bivariable analysis female urologists were younger (p <0.0001), more likely to be fellowship trained (p=0.002), worked in academics (p=0.008), were less likely to be self-employed and worked fewer hours (p=0.03) compared to male urologists. On multivariable analysis female gender was a significant predictor of lower compensation (p=0.001) when controlling for work hours, call frequency, age, practice setting and type, fellowship training and advance practice provider employment. Adjusted salaries among female urologists were $76,321 less than those of men. Gender was not a predictor of job satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Female urologists are significantly less compensated compared to male urologists after adjusting for several factors likely contributing to compensation. There is no difference in job satisfaction between male and female urologists.
PURPOSE: The proportion of women in urology has increased from less than 0.5% in 1981 to 10% today. Furthermore, 33% of students matching in urology are now female. In this analysis we characterize the female workforce in urology compared to that of men with regard to income, workload and job satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collaborated with the American Urological Association to survey its domestic membership of practicing urologists regarding socioeconomic, workforce and quality of life issues. A total of 6,511 survey invitations were sent via e-mail. The survey consisted of 26 questions and took approximately 13 minutes to complete. Linear regression models were used to evaluate bivariable and multivariable associations with job satisfaction and compensation. RESULTS: A total of 848 responses (660 or 90% male, 73 or 10% female) were collected for a total response rate of 13%. On bivariable analysis female urologists were younger (p <0.0001), more likely to be fellowship trained (p=0.002), worked in academics (p=0.008), were less likely to be self-employed and worked fewer hours (p=0.03) compared to male urologists. On multivariable analysis female gender was a significant predictor of lower compensation (p=0.001) when controlling for work hours, call frequency, age, practice setting and type, fellowship training and advance practice provider employment. Adjusted salaries among female urologists were $76,321 less than those of men. Gender was not a predictor of job satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Female urologists are significantly less compensated compared to male urologists after adjusting for several factors likely contributing to compensation. There is no difference in job satisfaction between male and female urologists.
Authors: Lukasz Bialek; Slawomir Poletajew; Piotr Maciej Magusiak; Mikolaj Ostrach; Jakub Szpernalowski; Bartosz Dybowski; Piotr Radziszewski Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2018-11-21