Evaluation of the accessibility and content of urology residency websites

• Published in: Urology annals Vol. 14; no. 4; pp. 322 - 327
• Main Authors: Nocera, Alexander, Boudreau, Hunter, Boyd, Carter, Martin, Kimberly, Rais-Bahrami, Soroush
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: India Wolters Kluwer India Pvt. Ltd 01.10.2022; Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd; Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd; Wolters Kluwer - Medknow; Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
• Subjects: american urological association match; Analysis; Career development; graduate medical education; Original; residency training; residency website; Urology; graduate medical education; American urological association match; residency website; residency training
• ISSN: 0974-7796; 0974-7834
• DOI: 10.4103/ua.ua_45_21

Introduction: Students applying for urology residency often have limited resources for obtaining information on prospective programs. Applicants commonly rely on institutional websites to compare program elements. The information on these websites can attract or deter applicants and can have a major impact on application costs, rank lists, and career goals. The objective of this study was to determine the accessibility and content of urology residency program websites. Materials and Methods: A list of accredited urology residency programs was obtained from the American Urological Association residency directory in 2020. A total of 141 program websites were evaluated for the presence of 53 criteria, which were categorized into five groups: Personnel information, applicant information, program information, training/research, and resident benefits. Residencies lacking an available website or functional links were excluded from the study. Results: Of the 53 criteria analyzed, only 24 were featured on more than 50% of the websites. Less than 10% of the programs had available information regarding resident contact information (5.67%), alumni contact information (2.84%), frequently asked questions (9.22%), electives (9.93%), night float (5.67%), and board pass rates (5.67%). The three factors most commonly available included program description (100%), coordinator contact information (88.65%), and clinical sites (87.94%). None of the 141 programs had all 53 criteria available on their website. Conclusions: The majority of current urology residency websites may lack the accessibility and content necessary for candidates to make application decisions for desired programs. Residency programs should consider revising their websites to enhance resident recruitment and facilitate applicants' decision-making process.