Columbia University New York Presbyterian Hospital
Introduction: As the United States (US) urologic workforce becomes more diverse, experiences of discrimination in urologists’ practices warrant evaluation. This analysis assesses rates of urologist-reported differential treatment in practice and practice limitations based on characteristics of urologists’ identity. Methods: Census samples were collected from the 2021 AUA Census through voluntary, self-reporting of US based urologists. The Census samples were then linked with U.S. practicing urologist population file to adjust for the non-response bias by assigning a proper sample weight to each sample. Responses to two questions of the 2021 AUA Census related to 1) (negative) differential treatment experienced in practice and 2) limitations in patients/diagnoses seen in practice due to different aspects of respondent identity were evaluated. Responses were stratified based on respondent’s self-reported gender and race (white vs. non-white) and compared using a chi-squared test. Results: 1,742 urologists, representing 13,790 practicing US based urologists through post-stratified weighting, answered the Census. Overall, amongst those who answered the relevant questions, 16.3% of respondents reported having experienced differential treatment in practice due to their identity and 6.1% of respondents reported being limited to seeing certain patients/diagnoses in practice due to respondent identity. Women were more likely to both have experienced differential treatment in practice (75.0% vs. 10.2%, p < 0.001) and to be limited in seeing certain patients/diagnoses (27.0% vs. 3.7%, p < 0.001). Similarly, respondents who self-identified as non-white were more likely to both have experienced differential treatment in practice (30.4% vs. 14.1%, p < 0.001) and to be limited in seeing certain patients/diagnoses (12.8% vs. 5.0%, p < 0.001) (Table 1). Conclusions: Female and non-white urologists are more likely to experience both differential treatment in their practice and limitations in the scope of their practice. Further studies are needed to understand if these experiences of discrimination in urologists’ practices are driven by patients, other providers, or a combination of both factors. SOURCE OF Funding: None
