Forging academic excellence: crafting an open academic curriculum for European Urologists

Abstract

It has been reported that there is a limited amount of training on research/methodological skills during urological residency in Europe [1]. The Young Academic Urologists (YAU) of the European Association of Urology (EAU) aims to promote and perform high-quality research to provide high-quality evidence for the best urological care, as well as to promote educational programmes to boost European training standards and forge a platform for close international cooperation for the future urology leaders in Europe and beyond.

One of the goals at the YAU is to develop an open academic curriculum accessible to all EAU members. This curriculum strives to be pan-European, impartial, and of the highest quality, covering from basic to advanced topics in research skills, and led by consolidated experts in the field. For this purpose, a survey was developed to build the foundations of the project.

We created an on-line survey made of 11 questions using the SurveyMonkey platform (http://www.surveymonkey.com/). This cross-sectional survey study aimed to assess the design of a training curriculum for academic research. As there is no validated survey in this regard, the YAU board reviewed the survey before its distribution. The survey was a self-administered questionnaire that collected demographic variables, including age, gender, country, years of experience post-residency, and work setting. No personally identifiable information was gathered. Respondents were tasked with evaluating the potential content of the YAU academic curriculum (full survey available in the Data S1). The survey was distributed in three rounds: initially on 17 and 20 April 2023, with a reminder in May 2023, via mailing lists of the YAU (N = 186). Only complete surveys were included in the final analysis. We adhered to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) guidelines as recommended by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network [2]. As no identifiable personal information was collected, it was deemed exempt from formal Institutional Review Board approval [3]. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise demographic characteristics and survey responses.

We obtained 127 complete responses out of 186 recipients (response rate of 68%). Respondents had a median (range) age of 35 (26–67) years, with 80% (n = 102) being male. The sample represented 23 countries, predominantly Italy, Germany, and Spain, constituting 54% (n = 69) of the respondents. Of the participants, 111 (87%) work in a University Hospital setting, and the median (interquartile range) years of experience post-residency were 4 (2–7) years.

Regarding the curriculum, 124 (97%) of respondents agreed that mentors should be evaluated by trainees at the programme's end, and 125 (98%) concurred that the programme itself should undergo evaluation. Concerning the programme's duration, 51% (n = 65) preferred a 1-year duration, 21% (n = 27) opted for 2 years, 16% (n = 21) favoured 18 months, and 11% (n = 14) selected a 6-month duration.

When it comes to the assessment of the trainees within the programme the two preferred approaches were ‘to write a scientific paper with the assistance of the mentor’ (n = 77 [61%]) or to have ‘a continuous evaluation by the mentor’ (n = 78 [62%]), as respondents could choose more than one answer.

About the format (on-line, face-to-face, or hybrid), on-line (n = 55 [43%]) and hybrid (n = 52 [41%]) were the most voted options, leaving ‘face-to-face’ (n = 20 [16%]) as the third choice in all but one topic (presentation skills).

Finally, no clear consensus could be reached about the division of the content in the curriculum into a ‘basic, intermediate, and advanced’ category, most of the topics were considered either intermediate or advanced in a very similar percentage, and no topic was predominantly considered as ‘basic’.

The findings of this survey offer valuable insights into the preferences and priorities of young academic urologists regarding the development of an academic curriculum that effectively meets the needs and expectations of urology trainees.

The agreement among respondents regarding the evaluation of both, mentors and the programme itself underscores the importance of accountability and quality assurance in academic training programmes. This emphasis on evaluation provides an opportunity for continuous improvement and seeks that trainees receive the best education and mentorship possible. The variation in preferences regarding programme duration reflects the diverse needs and career trajectories of young urologists. While a significant proportion favoured a 1-year duration, there was also support for longer programmes, indicating a desire for a comprehensive training experience [4, 5].

Assessment methods that involve active engagement with research, such as writing scientific papers with mentor assistance or undergoing continuous evaluation by mentors, highlight the importance of hands-on learning and mentorship in research training. These methods not only foster practical research skills but also encourage meaningful interactions between mentors and trainees, facilitating knowledge transfer.

The predilection for on-line and hybrid formats over face-to-face interactions reflects the increasing integration of technology in education and training. On-line and hybrid formats offer greater flexibility and accessibility, enabling trainees to participate in educational activities regardless of geographical constraints, this is in line with prior published research on hybrid scientific meetings [6]. However, face-to-face interactions for topics such as presentation skills underscore the value of interpersonal communication and hands-on training in certain aspects of professional development [7].

While the survey captured valuable insights from a diverse sample of young urologists across multiple countries, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the reliance on self-reported data may introduce response bias and affect the external validity of the findings. Additionally, the sample may not fully represent all young urologists, particularly those from under-represented regions or practice settings.

The insights gained from this survey have helped to understand what needs to be included in an academic curriculum for young urologists (Fig. 1), with a focus on promoting high-quality research and professional development.

Fig. 1

Open in figure viewerPowerPoint

Graphic summary of the first version for an open academic curriculum proposed by the YAU of the EAU.

Along the same line, the Young Urologist Office launched the complementary ‘Talent Incubator Programme’ (https://uroweb.org/eau-talent-incubator-programme), a series of four boot camps developing several non-technical skills varying from leadership and communication, to mental well-being, as well as digital technology and research.

In the end, by incorporating the preferences and priorities of trainees, the proposed academic curriculum aims to cover a comprehensive set of topics in research methodology, focusing on both qualitative and quantitative approaches, study design, data collection, and statistical analysis. The curriculum emphasises literature review skills, teaching the critical evaluation and synthesis of existing literature, identification of knowledge gaps, and formulation of research questions. Research project proposal guidance will be provided, covering the development of clear objectives, methodologies, and the significance of research studies. The curriculum also addresses ethical considerations, emphasising ethics, confidentiality, and conflict of interest management.

Additionally, there will be a focus on data management (organisation, storage, documentation, and compliance with data protection regulations). The publication process will be covered, from manuscript preparation, writing styles, journal selection, peer review, and responding to feedback. Presentation skills to enhance the communication of findings both orally and visually, covering public speaking, slide design, and audience engagement. Grant writing strategies will also be taught, including identifying funding sources, developing budgets, and articulating research impact. Lastly, the curriculum introduces the use of novel technologies, such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and big data analytics, and explores how these technologies are transforming the research process from data collection to dissemination. The collected data from the present survey will help to materialise the first version of this open academic curriculum.