M R Feneley1, R C Feneley. 1. Department of Urology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To report the findings of a questionnaire survey among consultant urologists in the United Kingdom (UK) designed to examine their personal experience of research and their opinion of its contribution in urological training. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 205 consultant urologists in the UK and 154 (75%) replied. Their replies were examined to ascertain the time spent in research, the production of publications, presentations and in gaining a higher university degree. Subsequent research activity was also related to the achievement of these endpoints. RESULTS: Among the 154 consultant urologists who replied. 130 (84%) had undertaken research during their training, for a period varying from 6 months to more than 2 years. Among the 130, 99 (76%) considered this to have been well spent; 76 (58%) obtained a higher degree, 86 (66%) achieved at least three publications in peer-reviewed journals and 90 (69%) had given at least five presentations to learned societies. Inadequate supervision in particular was cited as contributing to underachievement and motivation was also considered important to success. CONCLUSIONS: The contribution of research in urological training has been assessed traditionally by the presentation of a thesis to a university for a higher degree, but alternative methods of assessment should perhaps be sought for those wishing to spend less than 18 months in research.
OBJECTIVES: To report the findings of a questionnaire survey among consultant urologists in the United Kingdom (UK) designed to examine their personal experience of research and their opinion of its contribution in urological training. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 205 consultant urologists in the UK and 154 (75%) replied. Their replies were examined to ascertain the time spent in research, the production of publications, presentations and in gaining a higher university degree. Subsequent research activity was also related to the achievement of these endpoints. RESULTS: Among the 154 consultant urologists who replied. 130 (84%) had undertaken research during their training, for a period varying from 6 months to more than 2 years. Among the 130, 99 (76%) considered this to have been well spent; 76 (58%) obtained a higher degree, 86 (66%) achieved at least three publications in peer-reviewed journals and 90 (69%) had given at least five presentations to learned societies. Inadequate supervision in particular was cited as contributing to underachievement and motivation was also considered important to success. CONCLUSIONS: The contribution of research in urological training has been assessed traditionally by the presentation of a thesis to a university for a higher degree, but alternative methods of assessment should perhaps be sought for those wishing to spend less than 18 months in research.