Hypospadias is a prevalent congenital anomaly that requires effective parental education. Current online resources often exceed recommended readability levels, potentially hindering understanding. This study evaluates the utility of ChatGPT in providing accurate, clear, and actionable information towards parental education about hypospadias. A structured set of questions was posed to ChatGPT 4.0 covering diagnosis, treatment options, and postoperative care. Responses were quantitatively assessed using the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool for Printable Materials (PEMAT-P) to measure understandability and actionability. Qualitative evaluations were conducted by six pediatric urologists who rated the information for accuracy on a scale from 1 (completely accurate) to 4 (completely inaccurate). The Fleiss' Kappa statistic was calculated to assess inter-observer agreement among the urologists. The quantitative assessment yielded understandability scores between 84 % and 92 % (average 88 %), while actionability scores ranged from 37 % to 70 % (average 51 %). In the qualitative assessment, 41 % of responses were deemed completely accurate, with 35 % considered accurate but inadequate, and 24 % rated as inaccurate. The overall Kappa value was 0.607, indicating substantial agreement among reviewers regarding the accuracy of the information provided by ChatGPT. ChatGPT can effectively convey information about hypospadias, but enhancing the actionability of its responses is crucial. Inaccuracy is still a main concern in using AI-generated search engine. Future updates should include more accurate and reliable responses and visual aids addition may support parents in navigating their child's care.

Introduction: Urological conditions significantly impact global health, with increasing demand for urologists in both developed and developing countries. Disparities in access to surgical care between high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are evident. Despite advancements in urology, LMIC training programs often follow outdated curricula and traditional methods. Methodology: A comprehensive search strategy identified urology training programs in LMICs using the EduRank website, Google searches, and PubMed. Data were collected from the literature, official documents, and online resources, focusing on variables such as program duration, research requirements, and resident salaries. Results: The analysis revealed significant variability in program structures and requirements across LMICs. Residency training durations ranged from 4 to 6 years, with inconsistent research obligations and resident salaries averaging USD 12,857 annually, with a range from USD 5412 to USD 18,174. Fellowship opportunities were limited, with only a small number of programs achieving international accreditation. Conclusions: This study reveals disparities among urology training programs in LMICs, emphasizing the challenges faced by LMICs in providing comprehensive education. Outdated curricula, limited faculty, and insufficient resources contribute to the variability in training quality within LMICs. To bridge these gaps, there is a pressing need for standardized and locally tailored educational frameworks. Future research should focus on direct comparisons with programs in HICs to develop strategies that improve training opportunities and ensure equitable access to advanced urological education and care worldwide.

Introduction: Urological conditions significantly impact global health, with increasing demand for urologists in both developed and developing countries. Disparities in access to surgical care between high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are evident. Despite advancements in urology, LMIC training programs often follow outdated curricula and traditional methods. Methodology: A comprehensive search strategy identified urology training programs in LMICs using the EduRank website, Google searches, and PubMed. Data were collected from literature, official documents, and online resources, focusing on variables such as program duration, research requirements, and resident salaries. Results: The analysis revealed significant variability in program structures and requirements across LMICs. Residency training durations ranged from 4 to 6 years, with inconsistent research obligations and resident salaries averaging $12,857 annually, with a range from 5,412 to 18,174$. Fellowship opportunities were limited, with only a small number of programs achieving international accreditation. Conclusion: The study highlights substantial disparities in urology training between HICs and LMICs. There is an urgent need for standardized and locally tailored training frameworks to enhance the quality of urology education in LMICs. Future research should focus on developing strategies to improve training opportunities, ensuring equitable access to advanced urological care and education globally.