Doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO) representation in urology: trends and insights across american urological association regions

Atieh Ashkezari; Charles Wood; Min-Kyung Jung; Jacob Khurgin

doi:10.32604/cju.2026.079236

Journal Menu

Special Issues

Table of Content

Doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO) representation in urology: trends and insights across american urological association regions

Atieh Ashkezari^1,*, Charles Wood¹, Min-Kyung Jung¹, Jacob Khurgin²
1 College of Osteopathic Medicine, New York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, NY, USA
2 Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Maimonides Health, Brooklyn, NY, USA
* Corresponding Author: Atieh Ashkezari. Email: email , email

Canadian Journal of Urology https://doi.org/10.32604/cju.2026.079236

Received 17 January 2026; Accepted 01 June 2026; Published online 20 September 2026

Download PDF

Abstract

Background: Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) graduates remain underrepresented in urology residency programs despite increasing representation in the broader physician workforce. The study aimed to quantify DO representation among urology residents and faculty across U.S. residency programs, evaluate regional variation, and assess the association between DO faculty presence and DO resident recruitment. Methods: We utilized publicly available data from the American Urological Association (AUA) website, and affiliated Graduate Medical Education pages to identify U.S. urology residency programs. Programs were categorized by AUA region, and resident and faculty credentials, Doctor of Medicine (MD) vs. Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO), were extracted. DO representation among residents and faculty was calculated as a percentage of total counts. Regional differences were assessed using a chi-square test. The association between DO faculty presence and DO resident recruitment was evaluated using a chi-square test, with calculation of the odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval. Results: DO residents made up approximately 6.45% of urology trainees nationally, which is significantly lower than their representation across all specialties. Significant regional variation was observed (p < 0.001). The Mid-Atlantic had the most DO residents (13.66%), while New England had the fewest (1.40%), with an odds ratio of 11.1 (95% CI: 2.6–47.4). DO faculty representation also varied by region (p < 0.001). Programs with at least one DO faculty member had significantly higher DO resident representation than programs without DO faculty (15.50% vs. 2.73%, p < 0.001), corresponding to an odds ratio of 6.5 (95% CI: 4.4–9.7). Conclusion: Persistent underrepresentation of DO graduates in urology, coupled with noticeable regional disparities, highlights the need for targeted strategies to improve mentorship, clinical exposure, and recruitment pathways. These findings may also affect workforce planning and access to urologic care.