Impact of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Professional Decision-Making Among Urology Applicants

• Published in: Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.) N.J.), 2024-05, Vol.187, p.49-54
• Main Authors: Peters, Chloe E., Seideman, Casey A., Kauderer, Sophie, Gore, John L., Holt, Sarah K., Mehta, Akanksha, Singer, Eric A., Tabakin, Alexandra L., Thavaseelan, Simone, Vemulakonda, Vijaya, Posid, Tasha, Velez, Danielle
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Abortion, Induced - legislation & jurisprudence; Abortion, Induced - statistics & numerical data; Adult; Decision Making; Female; Humans; Internship and Residency - statistics & numerical data; Male; Surveys and Questionnaires; United States; Urology - education
• ISSN: 0090-4295; 1527-9995
• DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2023.12.032

An Institutional Review Board-exempt REDCap survey was distributed through the Society of Academic Urologists to all 508 applicants registered for the 2023 Urology Match following the rank list submission deadline on January 10, 2023. The survey closed on February 1, 2023. Responses were anonymized, aggregated, and characterized using descriptive statistics. Thematic mapping of open text comments was performed by 2 reviewers. The response rate was 42% (215/508). Eighty-eight percent of respondents disapproved of the Dobbs ruling. Twenty percent of respondents (15% male/24% female) eliminated programs in states where abortion is illegal. Fifty-nine percent (51% male/70% female) would be concerned for their or their partner’s health if they matched in a state where abortion was illegal, and 66% (55% male/82% female) would want their program to assist them or their partner if they required abortion care during residency. Due to the competitive nature of Urology, 68% of applicants reported feeling at least somewhat obligated to apply in states where abortion legislation conflicts with their beliefs. Of the 65 comments provided by respondents, 4 common themes emerged: (1) avoidance of states with restrictive abortion laws; (2) inability to limit applications because of the competitiveness of urology; (3) impacts on personal health care; and (4) desire for advocacy from professional urology organizations. The Dobbs ruling will impact the urology workforce by affecting urology applicants’ decision-making regarding residency selection and ranking. Although the competitiveness of the Urology Match pressures applicants to apply broadly, many are taking reproductive health care access into consideration.