Annual educational expenses of European urology residents and the role of sponsorship in urology training: a survey-based analysis

Abstract

Introduction The aim of this article was to evaluate the personal monetary costs associated with the urology residency. Material and methods The European Society of Residents in Urology (ESRU) designed a 35-item survey and distributed it via email and social media to urology residents in Europe. Monthly net salary and educational expenses (general expenses, literature, congresses and courses) and opinions regarding sponsorship and expenditure were evaluated. Comparisons between different countries and salary cut-offs were made. Results A total of 211 European urology residents completed the survey from 21 European countries. The median interquartile range (IQR) age was 30 (18–42) years and 83.0% were male. A total of 69.6% receive less than €1500 net per month and 34.6% spent ≥€3000 on education in the previous 12 months. Sponsorships came mainly from the pharmaceutical industry (57.8%), but 56.4% of trainees thought that the ideal sponsor should be the hospital/urology department. Only 14.7% of respondents stated that their salary is sufficient to cover training expenses, and 69.2% agreed that training costs have an influence on family dynamics. Conclusions Personal expenses during training are high, are not sufficiently covered by the salary and impact family dynamics for a majority of residents in Europe. The majority thought that hospitals/national urology associations should contribute to the educational costs. For homogeneous opportunities across Europe, institutions should strive to increase sponsorship.

Industry payments to family medicine residents in Portugal: a descriptive analysis of the national transparency database

“…This arrangement appears to benefit both parties, as it reduces costs for physicians (and healthcare systems) while allowing companies to promote their products. 15 Residents often believe themselves to be more immune to industry influence than their peers. 16 The influence of the industry can introduce bias that steers clinicians towards pharmacological interventions, potentially causing them to overlook non-pharmacological or preventive care, 17–19 which are essential in the FM setting.…”