Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Introduction: Vasectomy is one of the only forms of male-controlled contraception, yet it is the only form of contraception not generally performed by traditional family planning providers: family medicine physicians and obstetricians/gynecologists (OB/GYNs). Our study aims to assess the willingness of urologists to train family planning providers on this procedure.
Methods: For this IRB approved/exempt study, electronic surveys were sent to all American urology residency program directors via REDCap. In addition, in person surveys were conducted at the American Urology Association (AUA) 2019 Conference. Statistical analyses were performed using Student t-tests for continuous data and Pearson chi-squared tests for categorical data.
Results: Forty-nine AUA conference responses and 26 residency program director responses were collected. Most urologists surveyed were willing to train other urologists (85.1%), while they were less willing to train non-urologists: general surgeons (20.3%), family medicine physicians (20.3%), and OB/GYNs (10.8%). While more urologists were willing to train family medicine physicians versus OB/GYNs (P < .01), more urologists believed it would be more difficult for family medicine practitioners to learn vasectomy (P < .01). Urologists were worried about competition, that training others would decrease cases for urologists, and family planning providers would have insufficient volume. In addition, urologists were concerned that family medicine physicians had a lack of surgical skills and OB/GYNs would be unfamiliar with anatomy.
Conclusion/Implications: Overall, urologists show an unwillingness to train family planning providers. In order to provide comprehensive care, family planning providers should find allies to help learn the procedure or partner with vasectomy providers.
Methods: For this IRB approved/exempt study, electronic surveys were sent to all American urology residency program directors via REDCap. In addition, in person surveys were conducted at the American Urology Association (AUA) 2019 Conference. Statistical analyses were performed using Student t-tests for continuous data and Pearson chi-squared tests for categorical data.
Results: Forty-nine AUA conference responses and 26 residency program director responses were collected. Most urologists surveyed were willing to train other urologists (85.1%), while they were less willing to train non-urologists: general surgeons (20.3%), family medicine physicians (20.3%), and OB/GYNs (10.8%). While more urologists were willing to train family medicine physicians versus OB/GYNs (P < .01), more urologists believed it would be more difficult for family medicine practitioners to learn vasectomy (P < .01). Urologists were worried about competition, that training others would decrease cases for urologists, and family planning providers would have insufficient volume. In addition, urologists were concerned that family medicine physicians had a lack of surgical skills and OB/GYNs would be unfamiliar with anatomy.
Conclusion/Implications: Overall, urologists show an unwillingness to train family planning providers. In order to provide comprehensive care, family planning providers should find allies to help learn the procedure or partner with vasectomy providers.
Introduction: Vasectomy is one of the only forms of male-controlled contraception, yet it is the only form of contraception not generally performed by traditional family planning providers: family medicine physicians and obstetricians/gynecologists (OB/GYNs). Our study aims to assess the willingness of urologists to train family planning providers on this procedure.
Methods: For this IRB approved/exempt study, electronic surveys were sent to all American urology residency program directors via REDCap. In addition, in person surveys were conducted at the American Urology Association (AUA) 2019 Conference. Statistical analyses were performed using Student t-tests for continuous data and Pearson chi-squared tests for categorical data.
Results: Forty-nine AUA conference responses and 26 residency program director responses were collected. Most urologists surveyed were willing to train other urologists (85.1%), while they were less willing to train non-urologists: general surgeons (20.3%), family medicine physicians (20.3%), and OB/GYNs (10.8%). While more urologists were willing to train family medicine physicians versus OB/GYNs (P < .01), more urologists believed it would be more difficult for family medicine practitioners to learn vasectomy (P < .01). Urologists were worried about competition, that training others would decrease cases for urologists, and family planning providers would have insufficient volume. In addition, urologists were concerned that family medicine physicians had a lack of surgical skills and OB/GYNs would be unfamiliar with anatomy.
Conclusion/Implications: Overall, urologists show an unwillingness to train family planning providers. In order to provide comprehensive care, family planning providers should find allies to help learn the procedure or partner with vasectomy providers.
Methods: For this IRB approved/exempt study, electronic surveys were sent to all American urology residency program directors via REDCap. In addition, in person surveys were conducted at the American Urology Association (AUA) 2019 Conference. Statistical analyses were performed using Student t-tests for continuous data and Pearson chi-squared tests for categorical data.
Results: Forty-nine AUA conference responses and 26 residency program director responses were collected. Most urologists surveyed were willing to train other urologists (85.1%), while they were less willing to train non-urologists: general surgeons (20.3%), family medicine physicians (20.3%), and OB/GYNs (10.8%). While more urologists were willing to train family medicine physicians versus OB/GYNs (P < .01), more urologists believed it would be more difficult for family medicine practitioners to learn vasectomy (P < .01). Urologists were worried about competition, that training others would decrease cases for urologists, and family planning providers would have insufficient volume. In addition, urologists were concerned that family medicine physicians had a lack of surgical skills and OB/GYNs would be unfamiliar with anatomy.
Conclusion/Implications: Overall, urologists show an unwillingness to train family planning providers. In order to provide comprehensive care, family planning providers should find allies to help learn the procedure or partner with vasectomy providers.
Training the next generation of vasectomy providers: A survey of urologists
Ms. Meredith Xepoleas
Affiliations:
University of Southern California
University of Southern California
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Introduction: Vasectomy is one of the only forms of male-controlled contraception, yet it is the only form of contraception not generally performed by traditional family planning providers: family medicine physicians and obstetricians/gynecologists (OB/GYNs). Our study aims to assess the willingness of urologists to train family planning providers on this procedure.
Methods: For this IRB approved/exempt study, electronic surveys were sent to all American urology residency program directors via REDCap. In addition, in person surveys were conducted at the American Urology Association (AUA) 2019 Conference. Statistical analyses were performed using Student t-tests for continuous data and Pearson chi-squared tests for categorical data.
Results: Forty-nine AUA conference responses and 26 residency program director responses were collected. Most urologists surveyed were willing to train other urologists (85.1%), while they were less willing to train non-urologists: general surgeons (20.3%), family medicine physicians (20.3%), and OB/GYNs (10.8%). While more urologists were willing to train family medicine physicians versus OB/GYNs (P < .01), more urologists believed it would be more difficult for family medicine practitioners to learn vasectomy (P < .01). Urologists were worried about competition, that training others would decrease cases for urologists, and family planning providers would have insufficient volume. In addition, urologists were concerned that family medicine physicians had a lack of surgical skills and OB/GYNs would be unfamiliar with anatomy.
Conclusion/Implications: Overall, urologists show an unwillingness to train family planning providers. In order to provide comprehensive care, family planning providers should find allies to help learn the procedure or partner with vasectomy providers.
Methods: For this IRB approved/exempt study, electronic surveys were sent to all American urology residency program directors via REDCap. In addition, in person surveys were conducted at the American Urology Association (AUA) 2019 Conference. Statistical analyses were performed using Student t-tests for continuous data and Pearson chi-squared tests for categorical data.
Results: Forty-nine AUA conference responses and 26 residency program director responses were collected. Most urologists surveyed were willing to train other urologists (85.1%), while they were less willing to train non-urologists: general surgeons (20.3%), family medicine physicians (20.3%), and OB/GYNs (10.8%). While more urologists were willing to train family medicine physicians versus OB/GYNs (P < .01), more urologists believed it would be more difficult for family medicine practitioners to learn vasectomy (P < .01). Urologists were worried about competition, that training others would decrease cases for urologists, and family planning providers would have insufficient volume. In addition, urologists were concerned that family medicine physicians had a lack of surgical skills and OB/GYNs would be unfamiliar with anatomy.
Conclusion/Implications: Overall, urologists show an unwillingness to train family planning providers. In order to provide comprehensive care, family planning providers should find allies to help learn the procedure or partner with vasectomy providers.
Introduction: Vasectomy is one of the only forms of male-controlled contraception, yet it is the only form of contraception not generally performed by traditional family planning providers: family medicine physicians and obstetricians/gynecologists (OB/GYNs). Our study aims to assess the willingness of urologists to train family planning providers on this procedure.
Methods: For this IRB approved/exempt study, electronic surveys were sent to all American urology residency program directors via REDCap. In addition, in person surveys were conducted at the American Urology Association (AUA) 2019 Conference. Statistical analyses were performed using Student t-tests for continuous data and Pearson chi-squared tests for categorical data.
Results: Forty-nine AUA conference responses and 26 residency program director responses were collected. Most urologists surveyed were willing to train other urologists (85.1%), while they were less willing to train non-urologists: general surgeons (20.3%), family medicine physicians (20.3%), and OB/GYNs (10.8%). While more urologists were willing to train family medicine physicians versus OB/GYNs (P < .01), more urologists believed it would be more difficult for family medicine practitioners to learn vasectomy (P < .01). Urologists were worried about competition, that training others would decrease cases for urologists, and family planning providers would have insufficient volume. In addition, urologists were concerned that family medicine physicians had a lack of surgical skills and OB/GYNs would be unfamiliar with anatomy.
Conclusion/Implications: Overall, urologists show an unwillingness to train family planning providers. In order to provide comprehensive care, family planning providers should find allies to help learn the procedure or partner with vasectomy providers.
Methods: For this IRB approved/exempt study, electronic surveys were sent to all American urology residency program directors via REDCap. In addition, in person surveys were conducted at the American Urology Association (AUA) 2019 Conference. Statistical analyses were performed using Student t-tests for continuous data and Pearson chi-squared tests for categorical data.
Results: Forty-nine AUA conference responses and 26 residency program director responses were collected. Most urologists surveyed were willing to train other urologists (85.1%), while they were less willing to train non-urologists: general surgeons (20.3%), family medicine physicians (20.3%), and OB/GYNs (10.8%). While more urologists were willing to train family medicine physicians versus OB/GYNs (P < .01), more urologists believed it would be more difficult for family medicine practitioners to learn vasectomy (P < .01). Urologists were worried about competition, that training others would decrease cases for urologists, and family planning providers would have insufficient volume. In addition, urologists were concerned that family medicine physicians had a lack of surgical skills and OB/GYNs would be unfamiliar with anatomy.
Conclusion/Implications: Overall, urologists show an unwillingness to train family planning providers. In order to provide comprehensive care, family planning providers should find allies to help learn the procedure or partner with vasectomy providers.
{{ help_message }}
{{filter}}