ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The dramatic reduction of clinical and research activities within medical and surgical departments during COVID-19, coupled with the inability of medical students to engage in research, away rotations and academic meetings, have all posed important implications on residency match. METHODS: Using Twitter application programming interface available data, 83,000 program-specific and 28,500 candidate-specific tweets were extracted for the analysis. Applicants to urology residency were identified as matched vs unmatched based on 3-level identification and verification. All elements of microblogging were captured through Anaconda Navigator. The primary endpoint was residency match, assessed as correlation to Twitter analytics (ie retweets, tweets). The final list of matched/unmatched applicants through this process was cross-referenced with internal validation of information obtained from the American Urological Association. RESULTS: A total of 28,500 English language posts from 250 matched and 45 unmatched applicants were included in the analysis. Matched applicants generally showed higher number of followers (median 171 [IQR 88-317.5] vs 83 [42-192], p=0.001), tweet likes (2.57 [1.53-4.52] vs 1.5 [0.35-3.03], p=0.048), and recent and total manuscripts (1 [0-2] vs 0 [0-1], p=0.006); 1 [0-3] vs 0 [0-1], p=0.016) in comparison to the unmatched cohort. On multivariable analysis, after adjusting for location, total number of citations and manuscripts, being a female (OR 4.95), having more followers (OR 1.01), individual tweet likes (OR 1.011) and total number of tweets (OR 1.02) increased overall odds of matching into a urology residency. CONCLUSIONS: Our study of the 2021 urology residency application cycle and use of Twitter highlighted distinct differences among matched and unmatched applicants and their respective Twitter analytics, highlighting a potential professional development opportunity offered by social media in underscoring applicants' profiles.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine the response to a virtual educational curriculum in reconstructive urology presented during the COVID-19 pandemic. To assess learner satisfaction with the format and content of the curriculum, including relevance to learners' education and practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A webinar curriculum of fundamental reconstructive urology topics was developed through the Society of Genitourinary Reconstructive Surgeons and partnering institutions. Expert-led sessions were broadcasted. Registered participants were asked to complete a survey regarding the curriculum. Responses were used to assess the quality of the curriculum format and content, as well as participants' practice demographics. RESULTS: Our survey yielded a response rate of 34%. Survey responses showed >50% of practices offer reconstructive urologic services, with 37% offered by providers without formal fellowship training. A difference in self-reported baseline knowledge was seen amongst junior residents and attendings (P < .05). Regardless of level of training, all participants rated the topics presented as relevant to their education/practice (median response = 5/5). Responders also indicated that the curriculum supplemented their knowledge in reconstructive urology (median response = 5/5). The webinar format and overall satisfaction with the curriculum was highly rated (median response = 5/5). Participants also stated they were likely to recommend the series to others. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate success of an online curriculum in reconstructive urology. Given >50% of practices surveyed offer reconstruction, we believe the curriculum's educational benefits (increasing access and collaboration while minimizing the risk of in-person contact) will continue beyond the COVID-19 pandemic and that this will remain a relevant educational platform for urologists moving forward.