Student perceptions and understanding of urology in the United Kingdom - SPARK

Résumé fourni par la source

INTRODUCTION: Exposure to urology in the United Kingdom (UK) remains limited despite its clinical relevance. Most prior studies on student awareness and attitudes predate the COVID-19 pandemic and include non-final-year students. This study evaluated final-year students’ awareness, preparedness, and perceptions of urology across UK medical schools. METHODS: A 17-item survey was disseminated to final-year students in the UK between (June-July 2025) one-month from beginning clinical practice with Medical Schools Council approval. Domains included demographics, understanding of urology, perceptions of pre-clinical and clinical teaching, preparedness for practice, and career attitudes. Descriptive statistics summarized responses. RESULTS: Fifty-four students from 12 medical schools responded, 42 (77.8%) were female. While all had heard of urology, 16.7% were unaware it was a mixed medical-surgical specialty and 3.7% were unfamiliar with urologists’ daily roles, with awareness of roles varying from 66.0% (fertility) to 96.3% (genitourinary surgery). Procedural knowledge varied, with 11.1% completely unaware of operations performed. Nearly half (48.1%) rated pre-clinical teaching inadequate and 31.5% felt clinical teaching insufficient for the UKMLA. Confidence appeared limited, with only 42.6% prepared for history-taking and 20.4% for investigation interpretation. Career interest was low (12.9%), with lack of surgical interest and prior specialty commitment as common deterrents. Students identified workshops, simulation, and greater curricular integration as preferred improvements. CONCLUSION: In this survey study, final-year UK students demonstrated potential misconceptions about urology’s scope and reported limited preparedness alongside low career interest. Targeted educational initiatives and specialty outreach may enhance exposure, competence, and recruitment into urology.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.