Cargando…
Evaluation of the accessibility and content of urology residency websites
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9731186/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36506000 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ua.ua_45_21 |
_version_ | 1784845853586882560 |
---|---|
author | Nocera, Alexander P Boudreau, Hunter S. Boyd, Carter J Martin, Kimberly D. Rais-Bahrami, Soroush |
author_facet | Nocera, Alexander P Boudreau, Hunter S. Boyd, Carter J Martin, Kimberly D. Rais-Bahrami, Soroush |
author_sort | Nocera, Alexander P |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9731186 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97311862022-12-09 Evaluation of the accessibility and content of urology residency websites Nocera, Alexander P Boudreau, Hunter S. Boyd, Carter J Martin, Kimberly D. Rais-Bahrami, Soroush Urol Ann Original Article 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. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022 2022-06-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9731186/ /pubmed/36506000 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ua.ua_45_21 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Urology Annals https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Nocera, Alexander P Boudreau, Hunter S. Boyd, Carter J Martin, Kimberly D. Rais-Bahrami, Soroush Evaluation of the accessibility and content of urology residency websites |
title | Evaluation of the accessibility and content of urology residency websites |
title_full | Evaluation of the accessibility and content of urology residency websites |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of the accessibility and content of urology residency websites |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of the accessibility and content of urology residency websites |
title_short | Evaluation of the accessibility and content of urology residency websites |
title_sort | evaluation of the accessibility and content of urology residency websites |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9731186/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36506000 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ua.ua_45_21 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT noceraalexanderp evaluationoftheaccessibilityandcontentofurologyresidencywebsites AT boudreauhunters evaluationoftheaccessibilityandcontentofurologyresidencywebsites AT boydcarterj evaluationoftheaccessibilityandcontentofurologyresidencywebsites AT martinkimberlyd evaluationoftheaccessibilityandcontentofurologyresidencywebsites AT raisbahramisoroush evaluationoftheaccessibilityandcontentofurologyresidencywebsites |