Geolani W Dy1, Nathan C Osbun2, Shane D Morrison3, David W Grant4, Paul A Merguerian5. 1. Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. 2. Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: nathanos@uw.edu. 3. Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 5. Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA; Division of Pediatric Urology, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Transgender individuals are underserved within the health care system but might increasingly seek urologic care as insurers expand coverage for medical and surgical gender transition. AIM: To evaluate urology residents' exposure to transgender patient care and their perceived importance of transgender surgical education. METHODS: Urology residents from a representative sample of U.S. training programs were asked to complete a cross-sectional survey from January through March 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Respondents were queried regarding demographics, transgender curricular exposure (didactic vs clinical), and perceived importance of training opportunities in transgender patient care. RESULTS: In total, 289 urology residents completed the survey (72% response rate). Fifty-four percent of residents reported exposure to transgender patient care, with more residents from Western (74%) and North Central (72%) sections reporting exposure (P ≤ .01). Exposure occurred more frequently through direct patient interaction rather than through didactic education (psychiatric, 23% vs 7%, P < .001; medical, 17% vs 6%, P < .001; surgical, 33% vs 11%, P < .001). Female residents placed greater importance on gender-confirming surgical training than did their male colleagues (91% vs 70%, P < .001). Compared with Western section residents (88%), those from South Central (60%, P = .002), Southeastern (63%, P = .002), and Mid-Atlantic (63%, P = .003) sections less frequently viewed transgender-related surgical training as important. Most residents (77%) stated transgender-related surgical training should be offered in fellowships. CONCLUSION: Urology resident exposure to transgender patient care is regionally dependent. Perceived importance of gender-confirming surgical training varies by sex and geography. A gap exists between the direct transgender patient care urology residencies provide and the didactic transgender education they receive.
INTRODUCTION: Transgender individuals are underserved within the health care system but might increasingly seek urologic care as insurers expand coverage for medical and surgical gender transition. AIM: To evaluate urology residents' exposure to transgender patient care and their perceived importance of transgender surgical education. METHODS: Urology residents from a representative sample of U.S. training programs were asked to complete a cross-sectional survey from January through March 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Respondents were queried regarding demographics, transgender curricular exposure (didactic vs clinical), and perceived importance of training opportunities in transgender patient care. RESULTS: In total, 289 urology residents completed the survey (72% response rate). Fifty-four percent of residents reported exposure to transgender patient care, with more residents from Western (74%) and North Central (72%) sections reporting exposure (P ≤ .01). Exposure occurred more frequently through direct patient interaction rather than through didactic education (psychiatric, 23% vs 7%, P < .001; medical, 17% vs 6%, P < .001; surgical, 33% vs 11%, P < .001). Female residents placed greater importance on gender-confirming surgical training than did their male colleagues (91% vs 70%, P < .001). Compared with Western section residents (88%), those from South Central (60%, P = .002), Southeastern (63%, P = .002), and Mid-Atlantic (63%, P = .003) sections less frequently viewed transgender-related surgical training as important. Most residents (77%) stated transgender-related surgical training should be offered in fellowships. CONCLUSION: Urology resident exposure to transgender patient care is regionally dependent. Perceived importance of gender-confirming surgical training varies by sex and geography. A gap exists between the direct transgender patient care urology residencies provide and the didactic transgender education they receive.
Authors: Shane D Morrison; Geolani W Dy; H Jonathan Chong; Sarah K Holt; Nicholas B Vedder; Mathew D Sorensen; Byron D Joyner; Jeffrey B Friedrich Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2017-04
Authors: Lei Alexander Qin; Samantha L Estevez; Ella Radcliffe; Wei Wei Shan; Jill M Rabin; David W Rosenthal Journal: Transgend Health Date: 2021-07-30
Authors: Sarah Alexandra Marshall; Mary Kathryn Allison; Mary Kathryn Stewart; Noel D Thompson; Dani S Archie Journal: Transgend Health Date: 2018-12-18