Women Radiologists in the United States: Results from the American College of Radiology's 2003 Survey

Women in Radiology: A perspective from Spain

INTRODUCTION

There are gender inequalities in all fields, including radiology. Although the situation is improving, the presence of radiologists in leadership positions continues to be a minority. The objective of this article is to analyse the situation of women in the spanish radiology, comparing it with Europe and the United States.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We selected the years 2000-2022 as reference period to make a comparison with feminization data throughout history. In addition, relevant specific data from the just begun 2023 were also included. The variables in which we investigated feminization were the following: medical students, medical graduates, radiology residents and specialists, section chiefs, department chairs, radiology residency programme directors, radiology university professors, presidents of the main radiological entities and societies in Spain, Europe and the United States, recipients of the main awards given by these radiological societies and chief editors of their journals. In order to perform this analysis we conducted an in-depth bibliographic research, we contacted the radiological societies of Spain, Europe and the USA and we carried out a survey in the main Spanish radiology departments.

RESULTS

The female presence in radiology decreases as we rise to leadership positions, a situation that is patent in Spain, Europe and the US, comparison that will be analysed in depth throughout the article. In Spanish hospitals in 2021 there were 58.1% female radiology residents, 55% female radiologists, 42.9% female section chiefs and 24.4% female department chairs. In SERAM's history there have been 10% female presidents, 22% female gold medallists and 5% female editors-in-chief. If we analyse data from 2000 to 2023, female presidents reach 32% and female gold medallists 31%.

CONCLUSIONS

Although gender inequality is declining, in radiology women continue to be underrepresented in leadership positions. Work must be done in order to build a diverse and inclusive profession that reflects demographic reality.

Medical student perspectives on radiology subspecialties prior to core clerkship

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Radiology remains underrepresented in U.S. medical school clinical curricula, and preconceived opinions about the field may impact whether students pursue elective exposure. A core radiology clerkship at one academic institution presents an opportunity to evaluate students' early preferences for different radiology subspecialties, thus informing curricular design and inspiring student recruitment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

At a single allopathic medical school, a required, four-week, clinical-year radiology clerkship that occurs in the second year includes immersive one-week experiences in two subspecialties. Prior to their clerkship, students rank their immersion preferences by distributing 100 points across eight fields, the values of which were analyzed as a proxy for interest. A secondary survey was distributed to active first- and second-year medical students to further investigate the factors drawing them to radiology.

RESULTS

Immersive experiences in musculoskeletal, body, and breast imaging were most preferred, earning ≥20 points from 41.6 %, 34.3 %, and 31.9 % of students, respectively. Women were significantly more likely than men to express interest in breast imaging (35.8 % vs. 24.8 %, p = 0.037) and pediatric radiology (28.8 % vs. 12.8 %, p = 0.001). Men were significantly more likely than women to prefer body imaging (41.9 % vs. 30.2 %, p = 0.034), neuroradiology (29.1 % vs. 19.5 %, p = 0.048), and nuclear medicine (11.1 % vs. 5.1 %, p = 0.044).

CONCLUSION

Early in their clinical education, medical students prefer certain subspecialties, especially musculoskeletal, body, and breast imaging. Women expressed significantly stronger interest in breast imaging and pediatric radiology, while men indicated significantly stronger interest in body imaging, neuroradiology, and nuclear medicine.

Female representation in radiology subspecialty interest groups in Australia and New Zealand

INTRODUCTION

Women comprise 31% of the Australian and New Zealand radiology workforce, and 35% of radiology trainees. To date, there has been no study of female representation within clinical radiology subspecialties in Australia and New Zealand. This study aims to quantify female representation among the clinical radiology subspecialty interest groups (SIGs) in Australia and New Zealand.

METHODS

A list of SIGs was compiled using the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) website. The executive of each SIG or the RANZCR Standards committee was contacted with a request to provide the number of female versus male members for each subspecialty group and their executive.

RESULTS

Six out of 10 SIGs reported a low proportion of female members; this was most pronounced for IRSA (interventional radiology; 7% women), AMSIG (musculoskeletal imaging; 13% women) and CCINR (interventional neuroradiology; 13% women). Female radiologists accounted for >50% of membership in four SIGs: OGSIG (obstetrics/gynaecology imaging; 87% women), BIG (breast imaging; 73% women), ARGANZ (abdominal imaging; 69% women) and ANZSTR (thoracic imaging; 69% women). Female executive representation ranged from 0% (IRSA (interventional radiology) and ANZSNR (neuroradiology)) to 100% (OGSIG (obstetrics/gynaecology imaging)).

CONCLUSION

Female representation within the membership and representative leadership of some SIGs is well below parity and active initiatives to improve female representation should be considered.

Canadian Radiology Gender Pay Gap-Reality or Myth?

Introduction: Prior studies on Canadian physicians' income have demonstrated a gender pay gap (GPG); however, there is a paucity of data in the Radiology specialty. A cross-sectional study was conducted to determine if practicing Canadian radiologists' self-reported income is related to gender, controlling for demographic and work variables. Methods: English and French online surveys were distributed by email and social media to radiologists and trainees (May-July 2021). The association between Gender (controlling for Ethnicity variables, Region, having Children, Full-/Part-Time work, and Academic position) and Self-Reported Income was examined using chi-square tests. Pearson correlations examined relationships between opinion variables. Analyses were conducted using SPSS V28.0. A priori significance was P < .05. Study had ethics approval. Results: Four hundred and fifty-four practicing Canadian radiologists responded. Majority were women (51.2%, n = 227), a non-visible Minority (71.7%, n = 317), and from Western Provinces (67.8%, n = 308). Significant relationship was established between Self-Reported Income and Gender (χ2 = 10.44, df = 2, P < .05). More men (70.6%, n = 120) than women (56.4%, n = 110), reported income "greater than $500 000"; fewer men (20.6%, n = 35) than women (35.9%, n = 70) reported "$300 000-$500 000"; a similar percent of men (8.8%, n = 15) and women (7.7%, n = 15) reported "less than $300 000." No relationship was found between self-reported income and gender for ethnicity variables, those without children, part-time, or non-academic radiologists. The opinion "Addressing the GPG is important" correlated to "Canadian Association of Radiologists should collect demographic data" (r = 0.63). Responses were low for ethnic minorities and non-western provinces. Conclusion: Our results suggest a GPG exists in Canadian radiology and is an important first step for future studies.

Analysis of gender in radiology in Australia and its importance to the profession and workforce planning

Medical workforce diversity is important with gender constituting a significant role. Male and female medical practitioners participate in the workforce differently: understanding the cultural and social expectations, economic productivity, professional opportunities, and the effects on workforce supply, will aid workforce planning. Having a workforce that reflects the diversity of the community is important in providing patient-centred care. As more than half of medical graduates are female, it would be expected that this is reflected in radiology specialty. We analyse the Australian gender-specific data from the Royal Australian and New Zealand Clinical Radiology (RANZCR) clinical radiology workforce census from 1992 to 2020, focusing on changes in gender representation, number of hours worked per week, differences in subspecialisation and geographical distribution. This analysis found that the proportion of the female radiologists increased from 13% to 29%: still an underrepresentation of women radiologists when compared with the gender distribution of medical students and junior doctors. This will persist in the short to medium term, given the tapering of female doctors entering radiology training. In terms of workforce planning, women are more likely to work less than their male counterparts in the early to mid-career. Women are underrepresentated in interventional and neurointerventional radiology. There is more self-reported subspecialty interest in breast and women's imaging. A review of the literature demonstrated a similar situation in comparable countries. We also considered the reasons, potential solutions for this, and knowledge gaps where research is needed.

Academic Radiology in the United States: Defining Gender Disparities in Faculty Leadership and Academic Rank

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Female physicians in academic medicine have faced barriers that potentially affect representation in different fields and delay promotion. Little is known about gender representation differences in United States academic radiology departments, particularly within the most pursued subspecialties.

PURPOSE

To determine whether gender differences exist in United States academic radiology departments across seven subspecialties with respect to academic ranks, departmental leadership positions, experience, and scholarly metrics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this cross-sectional study from November 2018 to June 2020, a database of United States academic radiologists at 129 academic departments in seven subspecialties was created. Each radiologist's academic rank, departmental leadership position (executive-level - Chair, Director, Chief, and Department or Division Head vs vice-level - vice, assistant, or associate positions of executive level), self-identified gender, years in practice, and measures of scholarly productivity (number of publications, citations, and h-index) were compiled from institutional websites, Doximity, LinkedIn, Scopus, and official NPI profiles. The primary outcome, gender composition differences in these cohorts, was analyzed using Chi² while continuous data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test. The adjusted gender difference for all factors was determined using a multivariate logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Overall, 5086 academic radiologists (34.7% women) with a median 14 years of practice (YOP) were identified and indexed. There were 919 full professors (26.1% women, p < 0.01) and 1055 executive-level leadership faculty (30.6% women, p < 0.01). Within all subspecialties except breast imaging, women were in the minority (35.4% abdominal, 79.1% breast, 12.1% interventional, 27.5% musculoskeletal, 22.8% neuroradiology, 45.1% pediatric, and 19.5% nuclear; p < 0.01). Relative to subspecialty gender composition, women full professors were underrepresented in abdominal, pediatric, and nuclear radiology (p < 0.05) and women in any executive-level leadership were underrepresented in abdominal and nuclear radiology (p < 0.05). However, after adjusting for h-index and YOP, gender did not influence rates of professorship or executive leadership. The strongest single predictors for professorship or executive leadership were h-index and YOP.

CONCLUSION

Women academic radiologists in the United States are underrepresented among senior faculty members despite having similar levels of experience as men. Gender disparities regarding the expected number of women senior faculty members relative to individual subspecialty gender composition were more pronounced in abdominal and nuclear radiology, and less pronounced in breast and neuroradiology. Overall, h-index and YOP were the strongest predictors for full-professorship and executive leadership among faculty.

KEY RESULTS

● Though women comprise 34.7% of all academic radiologists, women are underrepresented among senior faculty members (26.1% of full professors and 30.6% of executive leadership) ● Women in junior faculty positions had higher median years of practice than their male counterparts (10 vs 8 for assistant professors, 21 vs 13 for vice leadership) ● Years of practice and h-index were the strongest predictors for full professorship and executive leadership.

Diversity and inclusion in radiology: a necessity for improving the field

Women and minorities are systematically under-represented in medicine, and this effect is pronounced in the field of radiology, across education, workforce and leadership. The proportion of women and minorities represented in radiology diminishes as their rank or job title elevates. Much of this are likely due to implicit biases, generational attitudes, and workplace cultures that can be discriminatory towards women and minorities. Steps that can be taken include closing the gender pay-gap, providing more opportunities for mentorship, addressing biases, and supporting the upward career mobility of women and minorities. Ultimately, increasing diversity will benefit all stakeholders in medicine, as collaboration among diverse individuals fosters innovation, greater financial efficiency, and better patient outcomes.

Is Empowerment of Female Radiologists Still Needed? Findings of a Systematic Review

Considering that radiology is still a male-dominated specialty in which men make up more than two thirds of the workforce, this systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the current role of women in radiological imaging, focusing on the main aspects such as career progression, leadership, academic practice, and perceived discrimination. Three electronic databases were searched up to 21 October 2020. To identify additional records, weekly automatic email alerts were set up on PubMed until December 2020 and reference lists of key studies and included papers were screened. Two reviewers independently performed the search, study selection, quality appraisal, data extraction, and formal narrative synthesis. In case of disagreement, a third reviewer was involved. Across the 61 included articles, women worked more often part-time and held fewer positions of power in hospitals, on editorial boards, and at the academic level (associate and full professors). Women were less often in relevant positions in scientific articles, had fewer publications, and had a lower H-index. Discrimination and sexual harassment were experienced by up to 40% and 47% of female radiologists, respectively. Our study highlights that women in radiology are still underrepresented and play a marginal role in the field, struggling to reach top and leading positions.

Examining Gender Disparity in Academic Abdominal Radiology in North America

BACKGROUND

Gender disparity exists in nearly every medical specialty, particularly in leadership roles and academia. Radiology is not exempt from this phenomenon, with women making up less than a third of radiology residents in the United States (US). This can have long-lasting effects on the career progression of female radiologists. Our search did not reveal any study on gender composition in academic abdominal radiology.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the academic productivity and career advancement of female academic abdominal radiology faculty in the United States and Canada.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Parameters of academic achievement were measured, including the number of citations and publications, years of research, as well as H-index. Information regarding academic and leadership ranking among academic abdominal radiologists in the United States and Canada was also analyzed.

RESULTS

In academic abdominal radiology, there were fewer females than males (34.9% vs 65.1%; p-value 0.256). Among the female radiologists, the greatest proportion held the rank of assistant professor (40%). Female representation decreased with increasing rank. Females had a lower H-index than males (P-value = 0.0066) and significantly fewer years of research than males (P-value = 0.0243).

CONCLUSION

Male predominance in academic abdominal radiology is similar to many other medical specialties, and encompasses senior faculty rank, leadership roles and research productivity.

Gender Disparity in Chest Radiology in North America

PURPOSE

In the current cultural climate, gender disparity is a topical and contentious issue. In academic medicine, there is an underrepresentation of female faculty in leadership positions with lower research output and fewer grant awards. We study the gender differences in faculty rank, leadership positions, and research output among chest radiologists in North America.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A list of clinical faculty at radiology programs in North America was obtained using the FREIDA database and program websites. Demographic information and data pertaining to academic rank, peer-reviewed publications, and research productivity of each chest radiologist was obtained from Doximity and SCOPUS databases.

RESULTS

Four hundred ten (281 male:129 female) academic chest radiologists were included. Females were underrepresented at senior faculty level accounting for 18.8% (n = 21) of full, 29.2% (n = 21) of associate and 40.7% (n = 61) of assistant professors. 23.1% (n = 14) of department chiefs were women. Women were more likely to occupy a faculty position in chest radiology in Canada than in US (P < 0.05). The median H-index, and numbers of publications and citations were lower for females than male faculty (P < 0.05). Male faculty had more years of experience - median of 19 years, 16.5 years for females (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Gender disparity exists in chest radiology with similar male predominance in terms of senior faculty rank, leadership roles, and research productivity to other medical specialties. The observed deficiency of research and scholarly output among female chest radiologists and the paucity of aspirational female radiologists in senior academic/leadership positions are factors which perpetuate this gender disparity and contribute to persistence of the gender pay gap.

Gender of pain medicine leadership and trainees: a survey study

BACKGROUND

Women are entering medical school in record numbers, but multiple male-dominated medical specialties still exist, including pain medicine. It is not well-understood how gender diversity in academic pain medicine faculty affects fellow matriculation between female and male applicants.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a survey to ascertain whether gender diversity of those in leadership roles in pain medicine programs impacts the gender diversity of fellows in those programs.

METHODS

A questionnaire was delivered to all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited pain medicine fellowships to assess their demographic data in 2018. Program characteristics are summarized using median (25th, 75th) for continuous variables and frequency counts and percentages for categorical variables. Analyses were then performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function and fellowship program included as a random effect. The gender of the fellow was the dependent variable and the program characteristics were the explanatory variables.

RESULTS

Data from 45 of 104 fellowship programs (43% response rate) are included. From univariate analysis, the odds of a fellow being female were higher in programs with a female program director (OR=2.17, 95% CI 1.29 to 3.65, p=0.004) and in programs with a higher percentage of female faculty (OR=1.02, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.04, p=0.027). From multivariable analysis, having a female program director was the only program characteristic found to be significantly associated with female fellows (OR=2.07, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.11, p=0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

Pain medicine fellowship programs with a female program director were significantly more likely to have female fellows.

Influence of Academic Productivity on Gender Disparity in Academic Interventional Radiology

OBJECTIVE. This study aimed to determine the effect of academic productivity measured using surrogate metrics, including h-index, publication number, and citation number, on the advancement of academic interventional radiology (IR) staff. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Publicly available data on faculty members in IR departments across academic institutions in Canada and the United States were collected. Gender, academic ranking, leadership position (if any), publication number, citation number, years of active research, and h-index were collected for each faculty member, and these data were used to create a prediction equation. RESULTS. Four hundred twenty IR faculty members met the inclusion criteria for this study. Overall, women were the minority, representing 10% of all IR faculty. Women in academic IR attained academic ranks at a rate comparable to that of men, with 59% of women attaining the rank of assistant professor and 32% attaining associate professor, compared with 59% of men at the assistant professor and 25% at the associate professor level. A trend toward lower female representation was present at the full professor level (women, 8%; men, 15%) but this difference did not reach statistical significance. Leadership position by gender as a percentage of their overall representation in the field was also similar between women and men (first-in-command women, 15%; first-in-command men, 15%; second-in-command women, 2%; second-in-command men, 2%). No significant difference was found between women and men in terms of academic achievement metrics, including publication number, citation number, h-index, and years of active research. CONCLUSION. Women in academic IR achieve similar publication metrics as men and attain promotion to higher academic rank and leadership positions equal to their overall representation in the field. However, women remain the minority among academic IR faculty across North America.

Gender Diversity in Academic Radiology Departments: Barriers and Best Practices to Optimizing Inclusion and Developing Women Leaders

Gender diversity remains a challenge for radiology. As we aspire to embrace Diversity 3.0 and the goal of making diversity core to our organizations' mission, there must be increasing awareness of the barriers to achieving inclusion and to best practices for making diversity integral to achieving excellence. This article reviews the literature on gender diversity in radiology and in academic radiology leadership and discusses lessons learned from non-health-care industry and from academic radiology departments that have been successful in developing and supporting female employees.

35 Years of Experience From the American Association for Women Radiologists: Increasing the Visibility of Women in Radiology

Women radiologists remain in minority, unchanged for the past several decades. In 1981, the American Association for Women Radiologists (AAWR) was founded to address the problems that women radiologists were experiencing in being subordinate to male radiologists in the workplace and at the national level in organizations with respect to political power and financial compensation, as well as additional issues unique to women in radiology. The AAWR defined goals to meet the needs of women in radiology: improve the visibility of women radiologists, advance the professional and academic standing of women in radiology, and identify and address issues faced by women in radiology. AAWR efforts have included providing opportunities for career development and award recognition, hosting educational programs at national meetings, and publishing numerous manuscripts on issues faced by women in radiology. The AAWR recognizes that although there has been significant progress in the standing of women in radiology over the past 35 years, there is much room for improvement. The AAWR will continue to advocate for the needs of women in radiology.

Gender Differences in Academic Rank of Radiologists in U.S. Medical Schools

Purpose To determine whether there were gender differences in full professorship after accounting for factors known to influence academic advancement. Materials and Methods Institutional review board approval was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study, with waiver of informed consent. In this cross-sectional study, the authors used a comprehensive 2014 physician database (5089 academic radiologists, inclusive of all U.S. academic radiologists in 2014; 11.3% of all U.S. radiologists) containing information on physician age, years since residency, National Institutes of Health funding, scientific publications (first or last author and total), clinical trial investigation, and clinical volume measured according to 2013 Medicare reimbursement. Primary outcome of gender differences in full professorship was estimated by using a multilevel logistic regression model adjusting for these factors. Results Among 5089 academic radiologists, 3638 (71.5%) were men. The average age for male and female radiologists was 52 and 49 years, respectively. Overall, 239 women (16.5%) and 948 (26.1%) men were full professors (P < .001). Women had fewer total and first or last author publications than men (total, 12.2 vs 17.6; first or last, 6.8 vs 10.7; P < .001 for both comparisons). Women were less likely than men to have National Institutes of Health funding (2.0% vs 3.6%; P = .004) and generated less annual Medicare revenue ($63 346 vs $75 854; P = .001). After multivariate adjustment, rates of full professorship among female and male radiologists were not significantly different (absolute adjusted difference for female vs male radiologists, -1.5%; 95% confidence interval: -3.8%, 0.9%). Conclusion Among radiologists with U.S. medical school faculty appointments in 2014, men and women were similarly likely to be full professor after several factors known to influence promotion were taken into account. However, unadjusted differences in promotion and research productivity were present, which suggests that female radiologists may lack equal research opportunities. ^© RSNA, 2016.

Gender Bias in Diagnostic Radiology Resident Selection, Does it Exist?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether there is a bias in the residency selection process that influences the proportion of females entering diagnostic radiology residencies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 4117 applications to one diagnostic radiology residency program from 2008 to 2014 were analyzed. Invitations to interview were evaluated by each year, specifically looking at gender. Ranking of applicants, especially those placed in top 25% of the rank, was also assessed. Additional data analyzed included United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 board examination score (a proxy for academic performance), interview scores, and final position on rank list.

RESULTS

Female applicants averaged 24% of the total applicant pool during the years studied, yet made up a disproportionately high percentage of applicants invited to interview (30%) and those ranked in top 25% (38%). It was found that female applicants had slightly higher mean interview scores and lower Step 1 scores than male applicants.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that program directors in one program want to increase gender diversity by making strides to keep the female candidate pool and the proportion of female residents in the program at least stable. The pipeline of female medical students pursuing a career in radiology appears to be a limiting factor rather than a bias against women in the resident selection process. Identifying such trends is important as it provides a better understanding of the etiology for an overall lack of gender diversity within the field. Furthermore, it may lead to closing the gender gap in radiology.

Surveying Fourth-Year Medical Students Regarding the Choice of Diagnostic Radiology as a Specialty

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to survey fourth-year medical students, both those choosing and those not choosing diagnostic radiology as their specialty, regarding factors influencing their choice of specialty and their perceptions of radiology.

METHODS

A voluntary anonymous online survey hyperlink was sent to 141 US medical schools for distribution to fourth-year students. Topics included demographics, radiology education, specialty choice and influencing factors, and opinions of radiology.

RESULTS

A representative sampling (7%) of 2015 fourth-year medical students (n = 1,219; 51% men, 49% women) participated: 7% were applying in radiology and 93% were not. For respondents applying in radiology, the most important factor was intellectual challenge. For respondents applying in nonradiology specialties, degree of patient contact was the most important factor in the decision not to choose radiology; job market was not listed as a top-three factor. Women were less likely than men to apply in radiology (P < .001), with radiology selected by 11.8% of men (56 of 476) and only 2.8% of women (13 of 459). Respondents self-identifying as Asian had a significantly higher (P = .015) likelihood of selecting radiology (19 of 156 [12.2%]) than all other races combined (44 of 723 [6.1%]). Respondents at medical schools with required dedicated medical imaging rotations were more likely to choose radiology as a specialty, but most schools still do not require the clerkship (82%).

CONCLUSIONS

The reasons fourth-year medical students choose, or do not choose, diagnostic radiology as a specialty are multifactorial, but noncontrollable factors, such as the job market, proved less compelling than controllable factors, such as taking a radiology rotation.

A systems life cycle approach to managing the radiology profession: an Australian perspective

OBJECTIVE

Although the medical system has expanded considerably over the past two decades in almost all countries, so too has the demand for health care. The radiology specialisation may be an early system indicator, being especially sensitive to changes in supply and demand in both rural and urban environments. The question is whether the new policies of increasing the number of radiologists can be a proper long-term solution for the imbalance of workforce supply and demand or not.

METHODS

Using system dynamics modelling, we present our integrated descriptive models for the supply and demand of Australian radiologists to find the actual gap. Followed by this, we pose a prescriptive model for the supply in order to lessen the identified imbalance between supply and demand. Our system dynamics models compare the demand and supply of Australian radiologists over 40 years between 2010 and 2050.

RESULTS

The descriptive model shows that even if the radiology training program grows at a higher rate than the medical training growth rate and its own historical growth, the system will never be able to meet demand. The prescriptive model also indicates that although changing some influential factors (e.g the intake rate) reduces the level of imbalance, the system will still stay unstable during the study period.

CONCLUSION

We posit that Australia may need to design a new system of radiology provision to meet future demands for high-quality medical radiation services. We also suggest some strategies, such as greater development of radiographers' role, are critical for enabling sustainable change over time. What is known about the topic? Long-term workforce planning for medical services at the national level has been very challenging for policy makers of the 21st century. The current demographic imbalance in the supply and demand of the Australian radiologist workforce makes it difficult to plan the effects of extra inflow of radiology students over time.

Improving diversity, inclusion, and representation in radiology and radiation oncology part 1: why these matter

The ACR Commission for Women and General Diversity is committed to identifying barriers to a diverse physician workforce in radiology and radiation oncology (RRO), and to offering policy recommendations to overcome these barriers. In Part 1 of a 2-part position article from the commission, diversity as a concept and its dimensions of personality, character, ethnicity, biology, biography, and organization are introduced. Terms commonly used to describe diverse individuals and groups are reviewed. The history of diversity and inclusion in US society and health care are addressed. The post-Civil Rights Era evolution of diversity in medicine is delineated: Diversity 1.0, with basic awareness, nondiscrimination, and recruitment; Diversity 2.0, with appreciation of the value of diversity but inclusion as peripheral or in opposition to other goals; and Diversity 3.0, which integrates diversity and inclusion into core missions of organizations and their leadership, and leverages its potential for innovation and contribution. The current states of diversity and inclusion in RRO are reviewed in regard to gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity. The lack of representation and unchanged demographics in these fields relative to other medical specialties are explored. The business case for diversity is discussed, with examples of successful models and potential application to the health care industry in general and to RRO. The moral, ethical, and public health imperative for diversity is also highlighted.

Pregnancy and the working interventional radiologist

The prevalence of women radiologists has risen in the past decade, but this rise is not reflected in interventional radiology. Women are grossly underrepresented, and this may be partly due to fear of radiation exposure, particularly during pregnancy. The simple fact is radiation exposure is minimal and the concern regarding the health of the developing fetus is unjustly aggrandized. Fully understanding the risks may help women to choose interventional radiology and practicing women interventionalists to stay productive during their child-bearing years. To date, little has been published to guide women who may become pregnant during their training and career.

The advantages, disadvantages, and policies for part-time radiologists: report of the ACR Commission on Human Resources

The employment of part-time radiologists (PTRs) has both advantages and disadvantages in various practice settings. The authors examine the pros and cons of PTRs and review the literature regarding PTRs both within and outside the specialty of radiology. The complexity of this issue is manifested in our inability to reach consensus on many policy issues for PTRs. Nevertheless, this article should be helpful in offering an objective, nonbiased background to initiating a discussion on employing PTRs in various radiology practices.

Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography

PURPOSE

To describe recruitment, enrollment, and participation in a study of US radiologists invited to participate in a randomized controlled trial of two continuing medical education (CME) interventions designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography.

METHODS

We collected recruitment, consent, and intervention-completion information as part of a large study involving radiologists in California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Vermont. Consenting radiologists were randomized to receive either a 1-day live, expert-led educational session; to receive a self-paced DVD with similar content; or to a control group (delayed intervention). The impact of the interventions was assessed using a preintervention-postintervention test set design. All activities were institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant.

RESULTS

Of 403 eligible radiologists, 151 of 403 (37.5%) consented to participate in the trial and 119 of 151 (78.8%) completed the preintervention test set, leaving 119 available for randomization to one of the two intervention groups or to controls. Female radiologists were more likely than male radiologists to consent to and complete the study (P = .03). Consenting radiologists who completed all study activities were more likely to have been interpreting mammography for 10 years or less compared to radiologists who consented and did not complete all study activities or did not consent at all. The live intervention group was more likely to report their intent to change their clinical practice as a result of the intervention compared to those who received the DVD (50% versus 17.6%, P = .02). The majority of participants in both interventions groups felt the interventions were a useful way to receive CME mammography credits.

CONCLUSIONS

Community radiologists found interactive interventions designed to improve interpretative mammography performance acceptable and useful for clinical practice. This suggests CME credits for radiologists should, in part, be for examining practice skills.

Charting a professional course: a review of mentorship in medicine

Developing physicians require firm knowledge of the clinical science and technical procedures within their specialties, a knowledge base founded in residency and supplemented throughout training. However, the day-to-day practice of medicine demands the skillful balance of various leadership, administrative, educational, and research roles, and expertise that cannot be obtained from a textbook. This professional curriculum is increasingly being sought through mentorship, a relationship between a junior physician and an experienced advisor or mentor. The authors review the current literature for mentorship in medicine, including characteristics of successful mentors and their mentees, and the emerging role of formal institution-wide mentorship programs.