It has been reported that there is a limited amount of training on research/methodological skills during urological residency in Europe [1]. The Young Academic Urologists (YAU) of the European Association of Urology (EAU) aims to promote and perform high-quality research to provide high-quality evidence for the best urological care, as well as to promote educational programmes to boost European training standards and forge a platform for close international cooperation for the future urology leaders in Europe and beyond.

One of the goals at the YAU is to develop an open academic curriculum accessible to all EAU members. This curriculum strives to be pan-European, impartial, and of the highest quality, covering from basic to advanced topics in research skills, and led by consolidated experts in the field. For this purpose, a survey was developed to build the foundations of the project.

We created an on-line survey made of 11 questions using the SurveyMonkey platform (http://www.surveymonkey.com/). This cross-sectional survey study aimed to assess the design of a training curriculum for academic research. As there is no validated survey in this regard, the YAU board reviewed the survey before its distribution. The survey was a self-administered questionnaire that collected demographic variables, including age, gender, country, years of experience post-residency, and work setting. No personally identifiable information was gathered. Respondents were tasked with evaluating the potential content of the YAU academic curriculum (full survey available in the Data S1). The survey was distributed in three rounds: initially on 17 and 20 April 2023, with a reminder in May 2023, via mailing lists of the YAU (N = 186). Only complete surveys were included in the final analysis. We adhered to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) guidelines as recommended by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network [2]. As no identifiable personal information was collected, it was deemed exempt from formal Institutional Review Board approval [3]. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise demographic characteristics and survey responses.

We obtained 127 complete responses out of 186 recipients (response rate of 68%). Respondents had a median (range) age of 35 (26–67) years, with 80% (n = 102) being male. The sample represented 23 countries, predominantly Italy, Germany, and Spain, constituting 54% (n = 69) of the respondents. Of the participants, 111 (87%) work in a University Hospital setting, and the median (interquartile range) years of experience post-residency were 4 (2–7) years.

Regarding the curriculum, 124 (97%) of respondents agreed that mentors should be evaluated by trainees at the programme's end, and 125 (98%) concurred that the programme itself should undergo evaluation. Concerning the programme's duration, 51% (n = 65) preferred a 1-year duration, 21% (n = 27) opted for 2 years, 16% (n = 21) favoured 18 months, and 11% (n = 14) selected a 6-month duration.

When it comes to the assessment of the trainees within the programme the two preferred approaches were ‘to write a scientific paper with the assistance of the mentor’ (n = 77 [61%]) or to have ‘a continuous evaluation by the mentor’ (n = 78 [62%]), as respondents could choose more than one answer.

About the format (on-line, face-to-face, or hybrid), on-line (n = 55 [43%]) and hybrid (n = 52 [41%]) were the most voted options, leaving ‘face-to-face’ (n = 20 [16%]) as the third choice in all but one topic (presentation skills).

Finally, no clear consensus could be reached about the division of the content in the curriculum into a ‘basic, intermediate, and advanced’ category, most of the topics were considered either intermediate or advanced in a very similar percentage, and no topic was predominantly considered as ‘basic’.

The findings of this survey offer valuable insights into the preferences and priorities of young academic urologists regarding the development of an academic curriculum that effectively meets the needs and expectations of urology trainees.

The agreement among respondents regarding the evaluation of both, mentors and the programme itself underscores the importance of accountability and quality assurance in academic training programmes. This emphasis on evaluation provides an opportunity for continuous improvement and seeks that trainees receive the best education and mentorship possible. The variation in preferences regarding programme duration reflects the diverse needs and career trajectories of young urologists. While a significant proportion favoured a 1-year duration, there was also support for longer programmes, indicating a desire for a comprehensive training experience [4, 5].

Assessment methods that involve active engagement with research, such as writing scientific papers with mentor assistance or undergoing continuous evaluation by mentors, highlight the importance of hands-on learning and mentorship in research training. These methods not only foster practical research skills but also encourage meaningful interactions between mentors and trainees, facilitating knowledge transfer.

The predilection for on-line and hybrid formats over face-to-face interactions reflects the increasing integration of technology in education and training. On-line and hybrid formats offer greater flexibility and accessibility, enabling trainees to participate in educational activities regardless of geographical constraints, this is in line with prior published research on hybrid scientific meetings [6]. However, face-to-face interactions for topics such as presentation skills underscore the value of interpersonal communication and hands-on training in certain aspects of professional development [7].

While the survey captured valuable insights from a diverse sample of young urologists across multiple countries, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the reliance on self-reported data may introduce response bias and affect the external validity of the findings. Additionally, the sample may not fully represent all young urologists, particularly those from under-represented regions or practice settings.

The insights gained from this survey have helped to understand what needs to be included in an academic curriculum for young urologists (Fig. 1), with a focus on promoting high-quality research and professional development.

Along the same line, the Young Urologist Office launched the complementary ‘Talent Incubator Programme’ (https://uroweb.org/eau-talent-incubator-programme), a series of four boot camps developing several non-technical skills varying from leadership and communication, to mental well-being, as well as digital technology and research.

In the end, by incorporating the preferences and priorities of trainees, the proposed academic curriculum aims to cover a comprehensive set of topics in research methodology, focusing on both qualitative and quantitative approaches, study design, data collection, and statistical analysis. The curriculum emphasises literature review skills, teaching the critical evaluation and synthesis of existing literature, identification of knowledge gaps, and formulation of research questions. Research project proposal guidance will be provided, covering the development of clear objectives, methodologies, and the significance of research studies. The curriculum also addresses ethical considerations, emphasising ethics, confidentiality, and conflict of interest management.

Additionally, there will be a focus on data management (organisation, storage, documentation, and compliance with data protection regulations). The publication process will be covered, from manuscript preparation, writing styles, journal selection, peer review, and responding to feedback. Presentation skills to enhance the communication of findings both orally and visually, covering public speaking, slide design, and audience engagement. Grant writing strategies will also be taught, including identifying funding sources, developing budgets, and articulating research impact. Lastly, the curriculum introduces the use of novel technologies, such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and big data analytics, and explores how these technologies are transforming the research process from data collection to dissemination. The collected data from the present survey will help to materialise the first version of this open academic curriculum.

据报道，在欧洲泌尿外科住院医师期间，关于研究/方法技能的培训数量有限 [1]。欧洲泌尿外科协会 （EAU） 的青年学术泌尿科医生 （YAU） 旨在促进和开展高质量的研究，为最佳泌尿外科护理提供高质量的证据，并促进教育计划，以提高欧洲培训标准，并为欧洲及其他地区的未来泌尿外科领导者搭建一个密切国际合作的平台。

YAU 的目标之一是开发一个开放的学术课程，所有 EAU 成员都可以参加。该课程力求泛欧、公正和最高质量，涵盖研究技能的从基础到高级主题，并由该领域的综合专家领导。为此，制定了一项调查来为该项目奠定基础。

我们使用 SurveyMonkey 平台 （http://www.surveymonkey.com/） 创建了一个由 11 个问题组成的在线调查。这项横断面调查研究旨在评估学术研究培训课程的设计。由于这方面没有经过验证的调查，YAU 董事会在分发调查之前审查了该调查。该调查是一份自填问卷，收集了人口统计变量，包括年龄、性别、国家、居住后的经验年限和工作环境。没有收集到个人身份信息。受访者的任务是评估 YAU 学术课程的潜在内容（完整调查可在数据 S1 中找到）。该调查分三轮分发：最初于 2023 年 4 月 17 日和 20 日，并于 2023 年 5 月通过 YAU 的邮件列表（N = 186）进行提醒。最终分析仅包括完整的调查。我们遵守了提高健康研究质量和透明度 （EQUATOR） 网络 [2] 推荐的互联网电子调查报告结果清单 （CHERRIES） 指南。由于没有收集任何可识别的个人信息，因此被认为无需机构审查委员会的正式批准 [3]。描述性统计用于总结人口统计特征和调查回复。

我们在 186 名接受者中获得了 127 份完整的回复（回复率为 68%）。受访者的中位（范围）年龄为 35 （26-67） 岁，其中 80% （n = 102） 为男性。样本来自 23 个国家，主要是意大利、德国和西班牙，占受访者的 54% （n = 69）。在参与者中，111 人 （87%） 在大学医院工作，住院医师后经验的中位数（四分位距）为 4 （2-7） 年。

在课程方面，124 名 （97%） 受访者同意导师应在课程结束时由学员进行评估，125 名 （98%） 同意课程本身应接受评估。关于计划的持续时间，51% （n = 65） 倾向于 1 年持续时间，21% （n = 27） 选择 2 年，16% （n = 21） 倾向于 18 个月，11% （n = 14） 选择持续时间为 6 个月。

当谈到对计划内学员的评估时，两种首选方法是 “在导师的协助下写一篇科学论文” （n = 77 [61%]） 或 “导师的持续评估” （n = 78 [62%]），因为受访者可以选择多个答案。

关于形式（在线、面对面或混合）、在线（n = 55 [43%]）和混合（n = 52 [41%]）是得票最多的选项，留下 “面对面”（n = 20 [16%]） 作为除一个主题（演讲技巧）外的所有选项的第三选择。

最后，对于将课程中的内容分为 “基础、中级和高级 ”类别，无法达成明确的共识，大多数主题被认为是中级或高级的，比例非常相似，没有主题主要被认为是 “基础 ”的。

这项调查的结果为年轻学术泌尿科医生在开发有效满足泌尿外科实习生需求和期望的学术课程方面的偏好和优先事项提供了宝贵的见解。

受访者对导师和课程本身的评估达成一致，强调了学术培训课程中问责制和质量保证的重要性。这种对评估的重视为持续改进提供了机会，并寻求受训者接受最好的教育和指导。关于项目持续时间的偏好差异反映了年轻泌尿科医生的不同需求和职业轨迹。虽然很大一部分人赞成 1 年持续时间，但也支持更长的计划，这表明希望获得全面的培训经验 [4， 5]。

涉及积极参与研究的评估方法，例如在导师的协助下撰写科学论文或接受导师的持续评估，突出了实践学习和指导在研究培训中的重要性。这些方法不仅培养了实用的研究技能，还鼓励导师和学员之间进行有意义的互动，促进知识转移。

与面对面互动相比，人们偏爱在线和混合形式，这反映了技术在教育和培训中的日益整合。在线和混合形式提供了更大的灵活性和可访问性，使受训者能够不受地域限制地参与教育活动，这与之前发表的关于混合科学会议的研究一致 [6]。然而，针对演讲技巧等主题的面对面互动强调了人际沟通和实践培训在专业发展的某些方面的价值 [7]。

虽然该调查从多个国家/地区的不同年轻泌尿科医生样本中获得了宝贵的见解，但应该承认一些局限性。首先，对自我报告数据的依赖可能会引入反应偏倚并影响结果的外部有效性。此外，样本可能无法完全代表所有年轻的泌尿科医生，尤其是那些来自代表性不足地区或实践环境的泌尿科医生。

从这项调查中获得的见解有助于了解年轻泌尿科医生的学术课程需要包括哪些内容（图 1），重点是促进高质量的研究和专业发展。

同样，青年泌尿科医生办公室推出了互补的“人才孵化器计划”（https://uroweb.org/eau-talent-incubator-programme），这是一个由四个训练营组成的系列训练营，旨在培养多种非技术技能，从领导和沟通到心理健康，以及数字技术和研究。

最后，通过结合学员的偏好和优先事项，拟议的学术课程旨在涵盖研究方法中的一套综合主题，侧重于定性和定量方法、研究设计、数据收集和统计分析。该课程强调文献综述技能，教授对现有文献的批判性评价和综合，识别知识差距，以及提出研究问题。将提供研究项目提案指导，涵盖明确目标、方法的制定和研究的重要性。该课程还涉及道德考虑，强调道德、保密和利益冲突管理。

此外，还将重点关注数据管理（组织、存储、文档和数据保护法规的合规性）。将涵盖出版过程，从手稿准备、写作风格、期刊选择、同行评审和回应反馈。增强口头和视觉研究结果交流的演示技巧，包括公开演讲、幻灯片设计和观众参与。还将教授资助申请写作策略，包括确定资金来源、制定预算和阐明研究影响。最后，该课程介绍了人工智能、机器学习和大数据分析等新技术的使用，并探讨了这些技术如何改变从数据收集到传播的研究过程。从本次调查中收集的数据将有助于实现这个开放式学术课程的第一个版本。