(644) FSD vs MSD training: Assessment of Female Sexual Dysfunction Fellowships in the United States

Abstract Introduction Female sexual dysfunction (FSD) affects up to 43% of women in the United States compared to male sexual dysfunction (MSD) which affects around 31% of men. Although FSD is largely underdiagnosed and undertreated there has also been an increasing interest among medical students and urology and gynecology residents to specialize in FSD. Given this novel relationship, it is important to gauge how gender inequality may manifest in public, academic, and professional contexts and how to target these disparities to optimize FSD patient care quality. Objective The aim of the study at hand is to explore gender disparities in FSD versus MSD from three different angles: public interest, academic interest, and professional interest in the US. Methods Google Trends data was analyzed for the search terms "male sexual disorder" and "female sexual disorder" and other related terms from 2004 onwards. Academic publications from PubMed were reviewed from 1944-2024 (June) to compare the research output on male and female sexual disorders. Program websites of accredited U.S. urology residencies listed on the AUA website were analyzed. This publicly accessible fellowship was used as a representative measure of professional training offered for FSD versus MSD. Comparative analysis was performed to compare the proportion of programs with FSD and MSD content. Results Google Trends data showed a consistent increase of similar slope in search interest for both male and female sexual disorders since 2012, with peak interest in recent years. Analysis of academic publications also revealed a comparable volume of research on male and female sexual disorders since 1944. However, fellowship data indicates that around 20-25 male sexual dysfunction fellowships are offered in the US annually as opposed to the 6 female sexual dysfunction fellowships. The six fellowships are located in Cleveland Ohio, Bethesda Maryland, Phoenix Arizona, Washington D.C., San Diego California, and Irvine California. Similarly, MSD fellowships have a strong distribution along the East and West coast, with occasional opportunities in the Midwest and Mideast. It is also worth mentioning that as of five years ago, there was only one fellowship offered, implying that the current FSD fellowship programs are recent developments. This is a significant difference in fellowship opportunities for male and female sexual dysfunction, emphasizing the issue of gender disparities in professional healthcare. Conclusions Despite both male and female sexual disorders showing similar levels of increase in interest from the public and research academia, fellowship training for female sexual disorders have not achieved the same level of attention as male disorders. There are significantly fewer professional opportunities for physicians to train and specialize in FSD because of the limited fellowship programs offered in the US compared to MSD. We hope that by highlighting these disparities, the medical community will recognize the urgent need for training in this field, leading to the development in the future of more academic and professional fellowships specializing in FSD. Disclosure No