medigraphic.com
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología

2021, Número 6

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Rev Mex Urol 2021; 81 (6)


Formación y desempeño de la mujer uróloga latina en los Estados Unidos

Hernández N, González RR

Idioma: Ingles.
Referencias bibliográficas: 18
Paginas:
Archivo PDF: 137.69 Kb.


RESUMEN

Con la creciente diversidad en la población de los Estados Unidos, han seguido los esfuerzos y el interés en la diversidad en el cuidado de la salud. El artículo ofrece una revisión perspicaz de estudios recientes que evalúan el papel de las mujeres y las minorías subrepresentadas en Urología para comprender mejor el estado de las latinas en esta disciplina. Revisamos la representación de las mujeres en la residencia de urología en los Estados Unidos (EE. UU.), los graduados médicos internacionales en urología y las iniciativas más recientes desarrolladas por los urólogos para aumentar la diversidad en la comunidad urológica para reflejar mejor las comunidades a las que sirven.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Dai JC, Agochukwu-Mmonu N, Hittelman AB. Strategies for Attracting Women and Underrepresented Minorities in Urology. Curr Urol Rep. 2019;20(10):61. doi: 10.1007/s11934- 019-0921-5

  2. Oberlin DT, Vo AX, Bachrach L, Flury SC. The Gender Divide: The Impact of Surgeon Gender on Surgical Practice Patterns in Urology. J Urol. 2016;196(5):1522–6. doi: 10.1016/j. juro.2016.05.030

  3. Marthi S, Enemchukwu E, Thavaseelan S. Defining the Variance: The Current State of Female and URM Concordance of Urology Resident Workforce to the General U.S. Population. Urology. 2021;S0090-4295(21)00672-5. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.06.039

  4. Vespa J, Armstrong DM, Medina L, U.S. Census Bureau. Demographic turning points for the United States: population projections for 2020 to 2060. Washington, D.C: Current population reports; 2018.

  5. Halpern JA, Lee UJ, Wolff EM, Mittal S, Shoag JE, Lightner DJ, et al. Women in Urology Residency, 1978-2013: A Critical Look at Gender Representation in Our Specialty. Urology. 2016;92:20–5. doi: 10.1016/j. urology.2015.12.092

  6. American Urological Association. The State of the Urology Workforce and Practice in the United States. American Urological Association.; 2020.

  7. Simons ECG, Thavaseelan S, Saigal C, Downs T. Diversifying Graduate Medical Education & the Urology Workforce: Re-imagining our Structures, Policies, Practices, Norms, & Values. Urology. 2021;S0090-4295(21)00554-9. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.06.011

  8. Shantharam G, Tran TY, McGee H, Thavaseelan S. Examining Trends in Underrepresented Minorities in Urology Residency. Urology. 2019;127:36–41. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.10.061

  9. Deville C, Hwang W-T, Burgos R, Chapman CH, Both S, Thomas CR. Diversity in Graduate Medical Education in the United States by Race, Ethnicity, and Sex, 2012. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(10):1706–8. doi: 10.1001/ jamainternmed.2015.4324

  10. Zheng MY, Overland M, Escobar D, Fakunle M, Li Y, Chu C, et al. Formal Mentorship as an Opportunity to Expand the Urology Pipeline: Under Represented Trainees Entering Residency (UReTER) Program Evaluation 2020- 2021. Urology. 2021;S0090-4295(21)00832-3. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.06.052

  11. Washington SL, Baradaran N, Gaither TW, Awad MA, Murphy GP, Downs TM, et al. Racial distribution of urology workforce in United States in comparison to general population. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(4):526–34. doi: 10.21037/tau.2018.05.16

  12. Wong D, Kuprasertkul A, Khouri RK, Ganesan V, Kenigsberg AP, Lemack GE. Assessing the Female and Underrepresented Minority Medical Student Experience in the Urology Match: Where Do We Fall Short? Urology. 2021;147:57– 63. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.08.076

  13. Halpern JA, Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Mittal S, Shoag JE, Hu JC, Lee RK. International Medical Graduate Training in Urology: Are We Missing an Opportunity? Urology. 2016;95:39–46. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.03.063

  14. Weissbart SJ, Stock JA, Wein AJ. Program directors’ criteria for selection into urology residency. Urology. 2015;85(4):731–6. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.12.041

  15. Nikonow TN, Lyon TD, Jackman SV, Averch TD. Survey of Applicant Experience and Cost in the Urology Match: Opportunities for Reform. J Urol. 2015;194(4):1063–7. doi: 10.1016/j. juro.2015.04.074

  16. Chen PG-C, Curry LA, Bernheim SM, Berg D, Gozu A, Nunez-Smith M. Professional challenges of non-U.S.-born international medical graduates and recommendations for support during residency training. Acad Med. 2011;86(11):1383–8. doi: 10.1097/ ACM.0b013e31823035e1

  17. Kutikov A, Bonslaver J, Casey JT, Degrado J, Dusseault BN, Fox JA, et al. The Gatekeeper Disparity: Why Do Some Medical Schools Send More Medical Students into Urology? J Urol. 2011;185(2):647–52. doi: 10.1016/j. juro.2010.09.113

  18. Cannon S, Seideman CA, Thavaseelan S, Wilson S, Zaila KE, Delgado J, et al. Urologists for Equity: A Collective Approach Toward Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Urology. Urology. 2021;S0090-4295(21)00706-8. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.07.017




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com