Our objective was to determine the availability and utilization of urodynamic investigations by gynecologists in the preoperative evaluation of women with urinary incontinence. Gynecologists in the UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were asked what urodynamic investigations were required for four clinical scenarios. Analysis was restricted to frequent operators. Urodynamic investigations were available to 70% of frequent operators. For uncomplicated stress incontinence, cystometry was utilized by 72% of subspecialists and 44% of generalists ( P<0.001) who had access to urodynamic investigations. For stress incontinence and straining to void, uroflowmetry was utilized by 73% of subspecialists and 46% of generalists ( P<0.001) who had access to urodynamic investigations. We concluded that many gynecologists who frequently operate for female urinary incontinence do not have access to urodynamic investigations or do not utilize urodynamic investigations, or utilize investigations in a way that may be inadequate for the clinical problem. There are differences in utilization between subspecialists and generalists that are not explained by access. These observations could be explained by poor understanding or a lack of belief in the value of urodynamic investigations.