Pathways for Recruiting and Retaining Women and Underrepresented Minority Clinicians and Physician Scientists Into the Radiation Oncology Workforce: A Summary of the 2019 ASTRO/NCI Diversity Symposium Session at the ASTRO Annual Meeting

Impact of discrimination on training and career of radiation oncologists in France

Purpose

In France, radiation oncologists are predominantly men with only 44 % of women. Many studies have highlighted gender disparities in medicine. The main objective of our study was to assess the impact of discriminations on radiation oncologists' career.

Materials and methods

An anonymous online questionnaire, adapted from the one used by the ESMO W4O group, was sent to all radiation oncologists in France between March and June 2022. It included questions related to professional experience, gender, socio-ethnicity, sexual orientation, and personal life.

Results

Among the 999 radiation oncologists and 168 residents in France, 225 questionnaires were collected (19.2 %). Among the respondents, 60 % were women and 25 % were residents. The mean age was 39.2 years (range: 25-78). The career satisfaction rate was 92 %, with no gender difference. Gender was considered to have a negative impact on the career development by 65 % of women. Social origin was an obstacle to career development for 37 % of all the respondents, and ethnic origin for 25 %. Sixty two percent of women reported having experienced inappropriate behavior or sexual harassment in their workplace, 38 % felt that having a child had "extremely" or "very" much impacted their career versus 8.5 % of men (p < 0.001). The most popular proposals for improvement were the creation of a network of women radiation oncologists with specific educational programs and the addition of quotas in institutions and key positions.

Conclusions

This study is the first one assessing the various type of discrimination experienced by radiation oncologists in France. We make a few proposals for improvement of training and working conditions, regardless of the origin and gender.

Oncology Physician Workforce Diversity: Rationale, Trends, Barriers, and Solutions

ABSTRACT

This chapter will discuss (1) the rationale for physician workforce diversity and inclusion in oncology; (2) current and historical physician workforce demographic trends in oncology, including workforce data at various training and career levels, such as graduate medical education and as academic faculty or practicing physicians; (3) reported barriers and challenges to diversity and inclusion in oncology, such as exposure, access, preparation, mentorship, socioeconomic burdens, and interpersonal, structural, systemic bias; and (4) potential interventions and evidence-based solutions to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion and mitigate bias in the oncology physician workforce.

The Current State of Departmental Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Efforts Within US Academic Radiation Oncology Departments

PURPOSE

Promoting a diverse workforce of health care professionals that delivers equitable patient care is an important goal in oncology, as in all of medicine. Although most medical schools have a diversity office and associated initiatives, little is known about radiation oncology (RO) department-level efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). We describe the current state of DEI leadership and initiatives in RO departments in the US to guide future policies and programs.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 124 US RO departments affiliated with a medical school were contacted to identify departmental DEI leadership. Identified DEI leaders were asked to complete an anonymous survey assessing characteristics of their departmental DEI leadership, committee/organizational structure, activities, and perceived barriers to, and effect of, their work. Descriptive statistics are reported.

RESULTS

Among 85 RO departments that responded (68.5% response rate), 48 (56.5%) reported having a departmental DEI leader. Thirty-four DEI leaders completed the survey (70.8%). Of those who answered each survey question, most DEI leaders were assistant or associate professors (n = 24, 82.8%), women (n = 19, 73.1%), and identified with at least one non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity (n = 15, 53.6%). Nineteen (57.6%) had an associated departmental DEI committee; with 10 of these starting in 2020 or later. Few DEI leaders had administrative support (38.2%), funding (29.4%), protected time (23.5%), or increased compensation for added duties Fifteen (50.0%) believed their DEI-focused efforts were considered for promotion. The most reported initiatives included offering programming/education, supporting students from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine, improving recruitment practices/hiring, and implementing pipeline/pathway projects. The perceived impact of DEI initiatives included an increased culture of respect (89.7%), improved health care disparity awareness (75.9%), and improved systemic/structural racism awareness (79.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Departmental DEI efforts are increasingly common within RO, however, the structure, resources, and recognition associated with DEI work are variable. Additional dedicated resources and recognition for these efforts will help ensure a culture of inclusive excellence for the RO workforce and patients.

Development and dissemination of structured hashtags for radiation oncology: Two-Year trends

Purpose

For radiation oncology, social media is a favored communication platform, but it uses non-structured hashtags, which limits communication. In this work, we created a set of structured hashtags with key opinion leaders in radiation oncology, and we report on their use after two years post-deployment.

Materials/Methods

Hashtags were created, voted on, and refined by crowdsourcing 38 international experts, including physicians, physicists, patients, and organizations from North America, Europe, and Australia. The finalized hashtag set was shared with the radiation oncology community in September 2019. The number of tweets for each hashtag was quantified via Symplur through December 2021. For the top five tweeted hashtags, we captured the number of yearly tweets in the pre-deployment and post-deployment periods from 09/01/2019 to 08/31/2021.

Results

The initial 2019 list contained 39 hashtags organized into nine categories. The top five hashtags by total number of tweets were: #Radonc, #PallOnc, #MedPhys, #SurvOnc, and #SuppOnc. Six hashtags had less than 10 total tweets and were eliminated. Post-deployment, there was an increase in the yearly tweets, with the following number of tweets by the second year post-deployment: #RadOnc (98,189 tweets), #MedPhys (15,858 tweets), and #SurvOnc (6,361 tweets). Two popular radiation oncology-related hashtags were added because of increased use: #DEIinRO (1,603 tweets by year 2) and #WomenWhoCurie (7,212 tweets by year 2). Over the two years, hashtags were used mostly by physicians (131,625 tweets, 34.8%).

Conclusion

We created and tracked structured social media hashtags in radiation oncology. These hashtags disseminate information among a diverse oncologic community. To maintain relevance, regular updates are needed.

Equity, diversity and inclusion of pediatric clinician-scientists in Canada: a thematic analysis

BACKGROUND

Underrepresented voices and perspectives are missing from academic and clinical health sciences. We aimed to define the unique opportunities and challenges of pediatric clinician-scientists related to equity, diversity and inclusion; and to identify key components of training needed to support people from equity-seeking groups as emerging and early-career pediatric clinician-scientists to generate diverse health research leaders in knowledge generation, implementation and translation.

METHODS

Using a qualitative descriptive approach, we examined the experiences of clinician stakeholders. Semistructured interviews were conducted with pediatric clinician-scientist stakeholders. Thematic analysis was performed.

RESULTS

We interviewed a total of 39 individuals. Our analysis resulted in 4 interrelated themes: the pervasiveness and invisibility of sexism; the invisibility and visibility of racism; proposed individual-level solutions to the sexism and racism; and proposed institutional and system-level changes to address the porous and leaky pipeline. These themes acknowledged that, ultimately, system change is required for addressing equity, diversity and inclusion in clinical and academic training environments.

INTERPRETATION

These findings highlight the importance of addressing systemic biases that limit the inclusion of women and racialized individuals in pediatric clinician-scientist careers. Further research is needed to explore the problem of exclusion, which will, in turn, inform education of pediatric clinician-scientists and inform better ways to promote equity, diversity and inclusivity; these steps are needed to foster systemic change in the cultures that perpetuate exclusivity in both academic and clinical communities.

Representation of Women in Canadian Radiation Oncology Trainees and Radiation Oncologists: Progress or Regress?

Purpose

Methods and Materials

Results

Conclusions

Where Are the Women in Radiation Oncology? A Cross-Sectional Multi-Specialty Comparative Analysis

Purpose

We aimed to evaluate the growth of women within the general radiation oncology (RO) workforce in comparison to the growth among other medical specialties. We also sought to create a predictive model for gender diversity to guide future recruitment efforts.

Methods and Materials

We identified 16 medical specialties, including RO, for analyses. We used data from the Association of American Colleges and assessed female representation at 4 time points (2006, 2011, 2016, and 2020). Additionally, we determined characteristics of medical specialties that were predictive of increased gender diversity. We performed univariate statistical analysis with linear regression to evaluate factors predictive of greater gender diversity among the medical specialties in our cohort.

Results

The proportion of women within the represented specialties increased over time. Obstetrics/gynecology (14,750 [2006], 23,921 [2020]; 18.7% absolute growth) and dermatology (3568 [2006], 6329 [2020]; 15.1% absolute growth) experienced the highest absolute growth in female representation between 2006 and 2020. When assessing changes between various time points in RO, the absolute change in female physicians increased by 1.5% between 2006 and 2011, by 2.2% between 2011 and 2016, and by only 0.4% between 2016 and 2020, which was the lowest growth pattern relative to the other 15 specialties. Factors predictive of gender diversity among specialties were lower average step 1 scores (P = .0056), fewer years of training (P = .0078), fewer work hours (P = .046), the availability of a standard third year clerkship for a given specialty (P = .0061), and a high baseline number of female physicians within a specialty (P = .0078). Research activities (P = .099) and interest among matriculating medical students (P = .28) were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

The percentage of women in RO lags behind other medical specialties and has been notably low in the last few years. Interventions that incorporate novel initiatives proposed within this study may accelerate current recruitment milestones.