title: [Teaching and perception of urology by medical students at the end of the second cycle: an appraisal].
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Our purpose was to determine how the medical students from the second cycle perceived urology and what their learning methods were.
  
  
  METHODS
  An e-questionnaire was sent to 1600 students in 16 teaching faculties during the last year of their second cycle.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Overall, we obtained 590 answers (36.8%). In our population, 70.2% of the students were women. Of them, 24.1% had been already enrolled in an academic urology unit. Urology was defined as a medical, surgical and medico-surgical discipline by 3.7%, 37.8% and 58% of the students, respectively. Urology was considered as very important, important, not very important and not important at all by 5.1%, 54.4%, 37.5% and 2.4% of the students. The teaching methods used to learn urology were duplicated-notes for ENC preparation (45.3%), conferences for ENC (French national ranking exam) preparation (43.7%), courses of the national urology college (38.6%) and courses of the faculty (32%). The best mastered items were lithiasis disease (86.3%), voiding dysfunction (76.3%) and urological cancers (56.7%). On the contrary, only 34.7% and 28% considered their knowledge sufficient on the erectile dysfunctions and on renal transplantation. Lastly, 7.3% intended to become urologists. Having a work experience in a urology unit was significantly associated to the feeling of being prepared to become an intern (p<0.001) and to the project of becoming a urologist (p<0.001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Urology was considered like an important discipline by half of the students at the end of the second cycle even though it is under-represented in the national teaching programme for ENC. A third of the students used courses from the faculty to learn urology and a quarter of them had a work experience in a urology unit during their second cycle.
authors.affiliation: Service d'urologie, université d'Angers, Angers cedex 9, France.
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Bigot
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Campillo
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Orsat
authors.forename: J-C
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: Bernhard
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Mathieu
authors.forename: N
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Koutlidis
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Lebdai
authors.forename: E
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Xylinas
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Beley
authors.forename: I
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Richard
authors.forename: J-P
authors.initials: JP
authors.lastname: Saint-André
authors.forename: A-R
authors.initials: AR
authors.lastname: Azzouzi
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Rouprêt
mesh_terms: D001290:Attitude; D005260:Female; D005602:France; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D013337:Students, Medical / Q000523:psychology*; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D014572:Urology / Q000193:education*