(Poster 17) Website Transparency of URPS Fellowship Programs: A Cross-sectional Study

Objectives: Since the COVID-19 pandemic, Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery (URPS) fellowship programs have transitioned to mostly virtual recruitment methods. Digital resources have become the primary source of information for prospective applicants. However, the existing level of transparency and the quality of the websites for URPS fellowship programs are not well-defined. This study aimed to (1) evaluate the transparency of URPS fellowship program websites and (2) examine any variations in transparency between programs based in OBGYN and those based in urology.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study to examine the websites of all OBGYN and urology-based URPS fellowship programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) in February 2025. We excluded programs that were not actively participating in the current cycle per the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) or the programs’ websites. To quantify website transparency, we adapted a previously published measure that included eight transparency categories: program priorities, curriculum, profiles, quality of life, resident opportunities, interview processes, selection criteria, and social media presence (Table 1). Additionally, we added descriptions of surgical experiences, research curriculum, and acceptance of OBGYN and/or urology applicants to better align with the specific training objectives of URPS fellowships. Two authors independently assessed all items in each category, and any disagreements were resolved by a third author. We conducted descriptive statistical analysis for the overall group and utilized student’s t-tests for comparative analysis.

Results: There were 74 ACGME-accredited programs and 67 were included in the study (55 OBGYN-based and 12 urology-based programs). The overall transparency rate of all URPS programs was 44% (Table 2). The category with the highest transparency rates was program profiles (57%) with most programs offering profile information on faculty and current fellows. Other higher transparency categories were program curriculum (59%, e.g., training site locations and research curriculum) and program priorities (57%, e.g., mission statements). Conversely, the categories with the lowest transparency rates were resident opportunities (8%, e.g. away rotations or online open house opportunities), social media presence (18%), and interview processes (27%).

In comparison to urology programs, OBGYN programs exhibited greater transparency rate (47% vs 37%, p=.01). When analyzing specific transparency categories between the two groups, OBGYN programs had higher transparency rates than urology programs in program priorities (61% vs 46%, p=.03) and interview processes (30% vs 17%, p=.03).

Conclusions: The overall transparency of the websites for all URPS fellowship programs was only 42%, with the category of program profiles achieving the highest transparency rate at 64%. In comparison to urology-based programs, those based in OBGYN exhibited a greater level of transparency, specifically regarding program priorities and interview processes. Our research identifies several opportunities to improve website transparency, which would enable applicants in making well-informed decisions as they progress toward their URPS training.