Search

ImportanceWomen account for only 28% of current US medical school deans. Studying the differences between women and men in their preparation to becoming deans might help to explain this discrepancy.ObjectiveTo identify differences in the leadership development experiences between women and men in their ascent to the medical school deanship.Design, setting, and participantsIn this qualitative study, volunteers from the roster of the Association of American Medical Colleges Council of Deans were solicited and interviewed from June 15 to November 9, 2023. Women deans were recruited first, then men who had been appointed to their deanships at a similar time to their women counterparts were recruited. Deans were interviewed on topics related to number of applications for deanships, prior leadership roles, leadership development, personal factors, and career trajectories. Interviews were coded, and themes were extracted through conventional content analysis.Main outcome and measuresCareer and leadership development experiences were elicited using a semistructured interview guide.ResultsWe interviewed 17 women and 17 men deans, representing 25.8% (34 of 132) of the total population of US medical school deans. Most deans (23 [67.6%]) practiced a medicine-based specialty or subspecialty. No statistically significant differences were found between women and men with regard to years to attain deanship (mean [SD], 2.7 [3.4] vs 3.7 [3.7] years), years as a dean (mean [SD], 5.7 [5.2] vs 6.0 [5.0] years), highest salary during career (mean [SD], $525 769 [$199 936] vs $416 923 [$195 848]), or medical school rankings (mean [SD], 315.5 [394.5] vs 480.5 [448.9]). Their reports indicated substantive gender differences in their paths to becoming a dean. Compared with men, women deans reported having to work harder to advance, while receiving less support and opportunities for leadership positions by their own institutions. Subsequently, women sought leadership development from external programs. Women deans also experienced gender bias when working with search firms.Conclusions and relevanceThis qualitative study of US medical school deans found that compared with men, women needed to be more proactive, had to participate in external leadership development programs, and had to confront biases during the search process. For rising women leaders, this lack of support had consequences, such as burnout and attrition, potentially affecting the makeup of future generations of medical school deans. Institutional initiatives centering on leadership development of women is needed to mitigate the gender biases and barriers faced by aspiring women leaders.

This cross-sectional study analyzes lactation support policies at the top 50 US schools of medicine.

PurposeTo describe the policies, processes, and programs at U.S. medical schools to support faculty caregivers before and in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodIn 2021, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and founding members of the COVID-19 Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS) Collaborative launched and supported the COVID-19 FRCS program to recognize medical schools and their efforts to strengthen policies, processes, and programs supporting biomedical faculty with family caregiving responsibilities in the context of COVID-19-related impacts. The authors conducted a qualitative conceptual content analysis of the deidentified, open-ended responses submitted by institutions in their applications to the COVID-19 FRCS program and summarized the reported strategies using recurring patterns and common approaches.ResultsFifty-four institutions applied to the COVID-19 FRCS program in 2021 and were included in this study. COVID-19-related impacts on biomedical faculty included stymied career progression and academic productivity, exacerbated career-caregiving time conflicts, adverse effects on family and personal well-being and mental health, increased financial hardships, and amplified faculty caregiver stigma. The described policies, processes, and programs to support faculty caregivers fell into 4 domains: support for dependent care, career and workplace flexibility, career development support, and institutional culture change to reduce stigma. COVID-19-related modifications spanned these domains with remote and flexible work manifesting as disruptive changes. Strategies to support women and underrepresented in medicine faculty, who bear a disproportionate burden of caregiving responsibilities, centered on career development support and institutional culture change. The projected durability of the enacted changes varied by institution and across strategies.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic presents a disruptive opportunity to translate lessons learned into positive change to better support faculty caregivers, particularly women and underrepresented in medicine faculty. This study's findings provide a framework to guide sustainable change to support equity, diversity, and vitality in the academic biomedical workforce.

ObjectiveThis article aims to determine the prevalence of caregiving among faculty at a large academic health sciences institution, to examine the effect of gender and other demographic and professional covariates on caregiving status, and to explore caregiver-generated policy recommendations.MethodA cross-sectional, mixed-methods survey was collected from June through August 2018. Participants were faculty within one of the institution's health professional schools (dentistry, medicine, nursing, or pharmacy) receiving at least 50% salary from the institution. In addition to demographic information, we collected academic series and rank, and assessed association between covariates on caregiving status using logistic regression. We analyzed open-ended responses using thematic analysis to identify themes in caregiver barriers and policy suggestions.ResultsAmong 657 eligible respondents, 11.4% were informal caregivers. Women were more likely to be caregivers than men (aOR 2.53, 95% CI: 1.40, 4.78), as were older faculty. Caregivers identified unsupportive climate or unrealistic work expectations, concern about career advancement, insufficient information about policies, and concern about colleague burden as barriers to support. Suggestions for workplace support included improved leave policies, increased flexibility, caregiver resource support, improved clarity and dissemination of policy information, and financial support.ConclusionsWomen faculty are more likely to be informal caregivers, exacerbating disparities within academic medicine for promotion and retention among women faculty. Institutions might include caregiving status in annual burnout surveys to guide the development of structural support and policies for extension of family leave beyond childbearing (or catastrophic leave), flexibility in work hours, and subsidized eldercare services.

Purpose: This study examined the gender composition of career development award applicants and grant review panels during the pandemic compared with that beforehand. Methods: Data were collected from 14 Health Research Alliance (HRA) organizations, which fund biomedical research and training. HRA members provided the gender of grant applicants and grant reviewers during the pandemic (April 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021) and prepandemic (April 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020). The signed-rank test compared medians and the chi square test compared the overall gender distribution. Results: The total number of applicants was similar during the pandemic (N = 3,724) and prepandemic (N = 3,882) periods, as was the percentage of women applicants (45.2% pandemic vs. 44.9% prepandemic, p = 0.78). The total number of men and women grant reviewers declined during the pandemic (N = 856) compared with that pre-pandemic (N = 1,689); this decrease was driven by a change for the largest funder. Also driven by changes for this one funder, the percentage of total grant reviewers who were women increased significantly during the pandemic (45.9%) compared with that during prepandemic (38.8%; p = 0.001), but the median percentage of women grant reviewers across organizations remained similar during the pandemic (43.6%) and prepandemic periods (38.2%; p = 0.53). Conclusions: In a sample of research organizations, the gender composition of grant applicants and grant review panels remained similar, except for the review panel composition for one large funder. Given evidence from other studies that have revealed gender differences in other career and life experiences of scientists during the pandemic, ongoing evaluation of womens representation in grant submission and review mechanisms is essential.

Many organizations persist in working with others that engage in known, remediable structural discrimination. We name this practice interorganizational structural discrimination (ISD) and argue it is a pivotal contributor to inequities in science and medicine. We urge organizations to leverage their relationships and demand progress from collaborators.

Background: Burnout affects >50% of physicians, especially women. This study aimed to examine how negative workplace interactions can predict burnout, and whether positive social interactions can mitigate risk. Materials and Methods: In a study of 1627 physician mothers who responded to a survey by the Physician Moms Group, an online Facebook group, we first examined the association between workplace sexual harassment and burnout. In an embedded experiment, we then measured the causal impact of priming perceived social support and connectedness on the three dimensions of employee burnout. Results: Two-thirds of respondents reported having experienced sexual harassment in the past year. Sexual harassment by patients was associated with 0.27 points higher emotional exhaustion, one dimension of burnout (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12-0.41), equivalent to the predicted impact of an additional 22 weekly work hours on emotional exhaustion. Sexual harassment by patients was also associated with 0.40 points higher patient depersonalization, another dimension of burnout (95% CI 0.27-0.53). Sexual harassment by colleagues was associated with 0.16 points higher emotional exhaustion (95% CI 0.02-0.30), but not other dimensions of burnout. We found no significant relationship between experiences of sexual harassment and levels of personal accomplishment (the third dimension of burnout) among this sample. Priming physician mothers to reflect on their connectedness with other physician mothers significantly increased their sense of personal accomplishment. The priming intervention did not yield a significant effect on emotional exhaustion or depersonalization. Conclusions: Negative and positive social interactions each affect different dimensions of burnout. Sexual harassment-a pervasive type of negative social interaction-strongly predicts emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. Reflecting on social connectedness-a type of positive social interaction-can improve one's sense of personal accomplishment with an effect similar in magnitude to more intensive in-person interventions, suggesting that social connectedness through online groups merits further consideration as a tool to mitigate burnout.

BackgroundYoung adults and other working-age adults with cancer are at risk for cancer-related financial toxicity (FT), including material hardships, depletion of coping resources, and psychological burden. This study compares FT domains in young adults (18-39 years old) (YAs), other working-age adults (40-64 years old), and older adults (≥65 years old) receiving cancer care.MethodsA total of 311 adults were surveyed using the multi-domain Economic Strain and Resilience in Cancer instrument measuring FT (0-10 score indicating least to greatest FT; score ≥5 severe FT). Participants were receiving ambulatory care from March-September 2019. Associations of age with overall FT and material hardship, coping resource depletion, and psychological burden FT domains were tested using Kruskal-Wallis and χ2 tests and multivariable generalized linear models with gamma distribution.ResultsYAs (median age, 31.5 years) comprised 9.6% of the sample; other working-age adults comprised 56.9%. Overall, material, coping, and psychological FT scores were worse in younger age adults versus older adults (P

To explore persisting gender disparities across leadership roles in medicine, we examined factors associated with holding endowed chairs in US oncology divisions. In 2019, we identified 95 academic oncology divisions, using the Oncology Division Chiefs and Department Chairs listing in the American Society of Clinical Oncology myConnection forum. We collected public information on gender, degree, total National Institutes of Health funding as principal investigator, H-indices, publication and citation numbers, and graduation year and constructed a multivariable logistic regression model. All statistical tests were 2-sided. We identified 1087 oncology full professors. Of these, 287 (26.4%) held endowed chairs: 60 of 269 women (22.3%) vs 227 of 818 men (27.8%) (P = .08). On multivariable analysis, greater research productivity and National Institutes of Health funding were associated with having an endowed chair (P

As the nation seeks to recruit and retain physician-scientists, gaps remain in understanding and addressing mitigatable challenges to the success of faculty from underrepresented minority (URM) backgrounds. The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists program, implemented in 2015 at 10 academic medical centers in the United States, seeks to retain physician-scientists at risk of leaving science because of periods of extraordinary family caregiving needs, hardships that URM faculty-especially those who identify as female-are more likely to experience. At the annual Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists program directors conference in 2018, program directors-21% of whom identify as URM individuals and 13% as male-addressed issues that affect URM physician-scientists in particular. Key issues that threaten the retention of URM physician-scientists were identified through focused literature reviews; institutional environmental scans; and structured small- and large-group discussions with program directors, staff, and participants. These issues include bias and discrimination, personal wealth differential, the minority tax (i.e., service burdens placed on URM faculty who represent URM perspectives on committees and at conferences), lack of mentorship training, intersectionality and isolation, concerns about confirming stereotypes, and institutional-level factors. The authors present recommendations for how to create an environment in which URM physician-scientists can expect equitable opportunities to thrive, as institutions demonstrate proactive allyship and remove structural barriers to success. Recommendations include providing universal training to reduce interpersonal bias and discrimination, addressing the consequences of the personal wealth gap through financial counseling and benefits, measuring the service faculty members provide to the institution as advocates for URM faculty issues and compensating them appropriately, supporting URM faculty who wish to engage in national leadership programs, and sustaining institutional policies that address structural and interpersonal barriers to inclusive excellence.

Although the number of Hispanic/Latina women earning medical degrees has increased in recent years, the article by Anaya and colleagues in this issue highlights their stark underrepresentation in the U.S. physician workforce. In this Invited Commentary, the authors provide context on proposed drivers of underrepresentation, including bias, discrimination, harassment, and other structural barriers, which are amplified for women with multiple minoritized identities. They summarize the 2020 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recommendations for supporting women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) fields, including committed leadership, dedicated financial and human resources, data-driven accountability, and use of an intersectional approach to address the challenges faced by individuals who encounter multiple forms of bias and discrimination. The authors also provide additional recommendations and highlight innovative new National Institutes of Health funding opportunities to promote diversity in the scientific workforce. They argue that more research is needed to identify and best implement institutional practices that increase representation and retention of Latina women and other women with minoritized identities in STEMM fields.

This quality improvement study assesses the policies of top US medical centers for addressing sexual harassment of physicians by patients.

Background: Insufficient support for balancing career and family responsibilities hinders retention of physician-scientists. Programs to improve retention of this important group of faculty are crucial. Understanding the experiences of program implementers is key to refining and improving program offerings. Methods: We conducted an interpretive, descriptive, and qualitative study as part of an ongoing evaluation of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation's Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS) awards. We conducted telephone interviews with 12 program directors representing all 10 US medical schools who received the Doris Duke funding in 2016. Results: Of the 12 participants, 10 were women (83.3%). Participating program directors perceived the FRCS award as capable of producing paradigmatic changes regarding how responsibilities at home and work in academic medicine are viewed and integrated by early-career faculty members. The main qualitative themes that captured directors' experiences implementing the program were as follows: (1) championing a new paradigm of support, (2) lessons learned while implementing the new paradigm, (3) results of the new paradigm, and (4) sustaining the paradigm. Conclusions: These findings may help to inform development of similar programs to retain and support the career progress of physician-scientists with extraprofessional caregiving responsibilities. The interviews illuminate ways in which the Doris Duke FRCS award has driven institutional culture change by normalizing discussion and prompted reassessment of extraprofessional challenges and how best to aid early-career faculty members in overcoming these challenges.

PurposeAccrual to clinical trials that challenge well-established treatment paradigms represents a unique challenge. Physician opinions on investigation of a novel approach to breast cancer treatment, in which patients with complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy are offered omission of lumpectomy, are unknown. NRG-CC006 sought to describe physician attitudes toward a novel approach to breast cancer treatment.MethodsWe recruited 18 participants in the fields of surgery, medical oncology, and radiation oncology to participate in the semi-structured telephone interviews. Main outcomes are qualitative themes associated with omission of surgery.ResultsOf 18 interview participants, specialty and gender were evenly represented across surgery, medical oncology, and radiation oncology. Qualitative themes included general attitudes toward treatment de-escalation, stakeholder considerations, and trial/protocol considerations. The vast majority of participants expressed interest in investigation of omission of surgery, with all participants endorsing need for further investigation into treatment de-escalation. Stakeholder considerations in opening such a trial emphasized need for multidisciplinary involvement and, particularly, the unique role of surgeons as gatekeepers in breast cancer treatment. Finally, participants endorsed a need for further foundational studies to develop ways to predict complete pathologic response to chemotherapy without surgical intervention.ConclusionsPhysicians expressed interest in investigating a novel approach to breast cancer treatment that would omit surgery in complete responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Multidisciplinary input, and specifically surgeon engagement, will be key to the success of future investigations. Ongoing work to develop approaches to predict pathologic complete response accurately is needed to achieve the promise of this idea. ClinTrials #: BR005: NCT03188393 June 13, 2017.

Objectives: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has presented extreme challenges for health care workers. This study sought to characterize challenges faced by physician mothers, compare differences in challenges by home and work characteristics, and elicit specific needs and potential solutions. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods online survey of the Physician Moms Group (PMG) and PMG COVID19 Subgroup on Facebook from April 18th to 29th, 2020. We collected structured data on personal and professional characteristics and qualitative data on home and work concerns. We analyzed qualitative data thematically and used bivariate analyses to evaluate variation in themes by frontline status and children's ages. Results: We included 1,806 participants in analysis and identified 10 key themes. The most frequently identified need/solution was for Community and Government Support (n = 545, 47.1%). When comparing frontline and nonfrontline physicians, those on the frontline more frequently raised concerns about Personal Health and Safety (67.8% vs. 48.4%, p

Objectives: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has presented extreme challenges for health care workers. This study sought to characterize challenges faced by physician mothers, compare differences in challenges by home and work characteristics, and elicit specific needs and potential solutions. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods online survey of the Physician Moms Group (PMG) and PMG COVID19 Subgroup on Facebook from April 18th to 29th, 2020. We collected structured data on personal and professional characteristics and qualitative data on home and work concerns. We analyzed qualitative data thematically and used bivariate analyses to evaluate variation in themes by frontline status and children's ages. Results: We included 1,806 participants in analysis and identified 10 key themes. The most frequently identified need/solution was for Community and Government Support (n = 545, 47.1%). When comparing frontline and nonfrontline physicians, those on the frontline more frequently raised concerns about Personal Health and Safety (67.8% vs. 48.4%, p

Background: Insufficient support for balancing career and family responsibilities hinders retention of physician-scientists. Programs to improve retention of this important group of faculty are crucial. Understanding the experiences of program implementers is key to refining and improving program offerings. Methods: We conducted an interpretive, descriptive, and qualitative study as part of an ongoing evaluation of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation's Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS) awards. We conducted telephone interviews with 12 program directors representing all 10 US medical schools who received the Doris Duke funding in 2016. Results: Of the 12 participants, 10 were women (83.3%). Participating program directors perceived the FRCS award as capable of producing paradigmatic changes regarding how responsibilities at home and work in academic medicine are viewed and integrated by early-career faculty members. The main qualitative themes that captured directors' experiences implementing the program were as follows: (1) championing a new paradigm of support, (2) lessons learned while implementing the new paradigm, (3) results of the new paradigm, and (4) sustaining the paradigm. Conclusions: These findings may help to inform development of similar programs to retain and support the career progress of physician-scientists with extraprofessional caregiving responsibilities. The interviews illuminate ways in which the Doris Duke FRCS award has driven institutional culture change by normalizing discussion and prompted reassessment of extraprofessional challenges and how best to aid early-career faculty members in overcoming these challenges.

Background: Research is needed to improve understanding of work-life integration issues in academic medicine and to guide the implementation of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundations Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS), a national initiative offering financial support to physician-scientists facing caregiving challenges. Materials and Methods: In 2018, as part of a prospective program evaluation, the authors conducted a qualitative study to examine FRCS program participants initial impressions, solicit descriptions of their career and caregiving experiences, and inquire how such factors might influence their professional advancement. The authors invited all 33 awardees who had been granted FRCS funding in the first year of the program to participate in the study, of whom 28 agreed to complete an interview. Analysts evaluated de-identified transcripts and explicated the data using a thematic analysis approach. Results: While participants described aspects of a culture that harbor stigma against caregivers and impede satisfactory work-life integration, they also perceived an optimistic cultural shift taking place as a result of programs like the FRCS. Their comments indicated that the FRCS has the potential to influence culture if institutional leadership simultaneously fosters a community that validates individuals both as caregivers and as scientists. Conclusions: Insights garnered from this qualitative study suggest that there is a pressing need for institutional leaders to implement programs that can foster awareness and normalization of caregiving challenges. In addition to providing funding and other tangible resources, interventions should strive to reinforce a broader culture that affirms the presence of work-life integration challenges and openly embraces solutions.

Background: Research is needed to improve understanding of work-life integration issues in academic medicine and to guide the implementation of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation's Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS), a national initiative offering financial support to physician-scientists facing caregiving challenges. Materials and Methods: In 2018, as part of a prospective program evaluation, the authors conducted a qualitative study to examine FRCS program participants' initial impressions, solicit descriptions of their career and caregiving experiences, and inquire how such factors might influence their professional advancement. The authors invited all 33 awardees who had been granted FRCS funding in the first year of the program to participate in the study, of whom 28 agreed to complete an interview. Analysts evaluated de-identified transcripts and explicated the data using a thematic analysis approach. Results: While participants described aspects of a culture that harbor stigma against caregivers and impede satisfactory work-life integration, they also perceived an optimistic cultural shift taking place as a result of programs like the FRCS. Their comments indicated that the FRCS has the potential to influence culture if institutional leadership simultaneously fosters a community that validates individuals both as caregivers and as scientists. Conclusions: Insights garnered from this qualitative study suggest that there is a pressing need for institutional leaders to implement programs that can foster awareness and normalization of caregiving challenges. In addition to providing funding and other tangible resources, interventions should strive to reinforce a broader culture that affirms the presence of work-life integration challenges and openly embraces solutions.

Background: Research is needed to improve understanding of work-life integration issues in academic medicine and to guide the implementation of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation's Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS), a national initiative offering financial support to physician-scientists facing caregiving challenges. Materials and Methods: In 2018, as part of a prospective program evaluation, the authors conducted a qualitative study to examine FRCS program participants' initial impressions, solicit descriptions of their career and caregiving experiences, and inquire how such factors might influence their professional advancement. The authors invited all 33 awardees who had been granted FRCS funding in the first year of the program to participate in the study, of whom 28 agreed to complete an interview. Analysts evaluated de-identified transcripts and explicated the data using a thematic analysis approach. Results: While participants described aspects of a culture that harbor stigma against caregivers and impede satisfactory work-life integration, they also perceived an optimistic cultural shift taking place as a result of programs like the FRCS. Their comments indicated that the FRCS has the potential to influence culture if institutional leadership simultaneously fosters a community that validates individuals both as caregivers and as scientists. Conclusions: Insights garnered from this qualitative study suggest that there is a pressing need for institutional leaders to implement programs that can foster awareness and normalization of caregiving challenges. In addition to providing funding and other tangible resources, interventions should strive to reinforce a broader culture that affirms the presence of work-life integration challenges and openly embraces solutions.

This cross-sectional study examines the gender distribution of endowed chairs in departments of medicine and the association of gender with holding an endowed chair.

This study investigates whether sex pay differences exist among clinical department chairs from 29 state medical schools in 12 states.

This quality improvement study reviews the human resources policies for childbearing and family leave for administrative staff at 12 leading US medical schools.

PURPOSE: National Institutes of Health career development (K) awards mandate specific allocations of effort to research and training. The authors sought to understand pressures perceived by award recipients to change or misrepresent effort, and whether these perceptions differed by gender. METHOD: In 2010-2011 and 2014, the authors surveyed K08 and K23 award recipients. Questions evaluated perceived pressure to change or misrepresent time allocation. Multivariable logistic regression modeling of pressure to misrepresent effort evaluated associations with individual and basic job characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 1,719 faculty in the initial target population, 493 women and 573 men (1,066, 62%) responded at both time points. Most respondents reported feeling pressure to increase time spent on professional activities other than their K award-related research or career development or to decrease time on their K award-related research. The likelihood of perceiving pressure differed significantly by gender: 68% of women vs 55% of men (P < .001). A minority reported perceiving pressure to misrepresent professional time (women, 29%, vs men, 27%, P = .52). Multivariable analysis revealed that pressure to misrepresent professional time was less likely among respondents at institutions with the most extramural funding (P = .02). A significant pairwise interaction between gender and K award type suggested that female K08 awardees had higher odds than male peers of perceiving pressure to misrepresent time. CONCLUSIONS: Most K award recipients reported feeling pressure to do more non-K award-related activities. More than a quarter reported feeling pressure to misrepresent effort. Additional research is needed to evaluate the proportion of academic medical faculty who actually misrepresent professional effort.

PurposeNational Institutes of Health career development (K) awards mandate specific allocations of effort to research and training. The authors sought to understand pressures perceived by award recipients to change or misrepresent effort, and whether these perceptions differed by gender.MethodIn 2010-2011 and 2014, the authors surveyed K08 and K23 award recipients. Questions evaluated perceived pressure to change or misrepresent time allocation. Multivariable logistic regression modeling of pressure to misrepresent effort evaluated associations with individual and basic job characteristics.ResultsOf the 1,719 faculty in the initial target population, 493 women and 573 men (1,066, 62%) responded at both time points. Most respondents reported feeling pressure to increase time spent on professional activities other than their K award-related research or career development or to decrease time on their K award-related research. The likelihood of perceiving pressure differed significantly by gender: 68% of women vs 55% of men (P < .001). A minority reported perceiving pressure to misrepresent professional time (women, 29%, vs men, 27%, P = .52). Multivariable analysis revealed that pressure to misrepresent professional time was less likely among respondents at institutions with the most extramural funding (P = .02). A significant pairwise interaction between gender and K award type suggested that female K08 awardees had higher odds than male peers of perceiving pressure to misrepresent time.ConclusionsMost K award recipients reported feeling pressure to do more non-K award-related activities. More than a quarter reported feeling pressure to misrepresent effort. Additional research is needed to evaluate the proportion of academic medical faculty who actually misrepresent professional effort.

PurposeNational Institutes of Health career development (K) awards mandate specific allocations of effort to research and training. The authors sought to understand pressures perceived by award recipients to change or misrepresent effort, and whether these perceptions differed by gender.MethodIn 2010-2011 and 2014, the authors surveyed K08 and K23 award recipients. Questions evaluated perceived pressure to change or misrepresent time allocation. Multivariable logistic regression modeling of pressure to misrepresent effort evaluated associations with individual and basic job characteristics.ResultsOf the 1,719 faculty in the initial target population, 493 women and 573 men (1,066, 62%) responded at both time points. Most respondents reported feeling pressure to increase time spent on professional activities other than their K award-related research or career development or to decrease time on their K award-related research. The likelihood of perceiving pressure differed significantly by gender: 68% of women vs 55% of men (P < .001). A minority reported perceiving pressure to misrepresent professional time (women, 29%, vs men, 27%, P = .52). Multivariable analysis revealed that pressure to misrepresent professional time was less likely among respondents at institutions with the most extramural funding (P = .02). A significant pairwise interaction between gender and K award type suggested that female K08 awardees had higher odds than male peers of perceiving pressure to misrepresent time.ConclusionsMost K award recipients reported feeling pressure to do more non-K award-related activities. More than a quarter reported feeling pressure to misrepresent effort. Additional research is needed to evaluate the proportion of academic medical faculty who actually misrepresent professional effort.

This survey study explores whether leading US medical schools have policies about dependent care travel costs.

PurposeTo enhance understanding of challenges related to work-life integration in academic medicine and to inform the ongoing implementation of an existing program and the development of other interventions to promote success of physician-scientists.MethodThis study is part of a prospective analysis of the effects of the Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS), a national program launched by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation at 10 U.S. institutions, which provides financial support to physician-scientists facing caregiving challenges. In early 2018, 28 of 33 program awardees participated in semistructured interviews. Questions were about challenges faced by physician-scientists as caregivers and their early perceptions of the FRCS. Multiple analysts reviewed deidentified transcripts, iteratively revised the coding scheme, and interpreted the data using qualitative thematic analysis.ResultsParticipants' rich descriptions illuminated 5 interconnected themes: (1) Time is a critical and limited resource, (2) timing is key, (3) limited time resources and timing conflicts may have a particularly adverse effect on women's careers, (4) flexible funds enable reclamation and repurposing of time resources, and (5) FRCS leaders should be cognizant of time and timing conflicts when developing program-related offerings.ConclusionsPrograms such as the FRCS are instrumental in supporting individuals to delegate time-consuming tasks and to control how they spend their valuable time. Qualitative analysis suggests that access to and command of valuable time resources are crucial to career advancement, research productivity, and work-life flexibility, especially during critical time points along the physician-scientist trajectory.

PurposeTo enhance understanding of challenges related to work-life integration in academic medicine and to inform the ongoing implementation of an existing program and the development of other interventions to promote success of physician-scientists.MethodThis study is part of a prospective analysis of the effects of the Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS), a national program launched by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation at 10 U.S. institutions, which provides financial support to physician-scientists facing caregiving challenges. In early 2018, 28 of 33 program awardees participated in semistructured interviews. Questions were about challenges faced by physician-scientists as caregivers and their early perceptions of the FRCS. Multiple analysts reviewed deidentified transcripts, iteratively revised the coding scheme, and interpreted the data using qualitative thematic analysis.ResultsParticipants' rich descriptions illuminated 5 interconnected themes: (1) Time is a critical and limited resource, (2) timing is key, (3) limited time resources and timing conflicts may have a particularly adverse effect on women's careers, (4) flexible funds enable reclamation and repurposing of time resources, and (5) FRCS leaders should be cognizant of time and timing conflicts when developing program-related offerings.ConclusionsPrograms such as the FRCS are instrumental in supporting individuals to delegate time-consuming tasks and to control how they spend their valuable time. Qualitative analysis suggests that access to and command of valuable time resources are crucial to career advancement, research productivity, and work-life flexibility, especially during critical time points along the physician-scientist trajectory.

This survey study evaluates behavioral health risks and burnout among physician mothers who have caregiving responsibilities for persons in addition to their patients and children.

This study describes childbearing and family leave at 15 graduate medical education (GME)–sponsoring institutions affiliated with 12 US medical schools on top 10 lists for funding or ranking.

While more women are in leadership positions in academic medicine now than ever before in U.S. history, evidence from recent surveys of women and graduating medical students demonstrates that sexual harassment continues in academic health centers. Academic medicine's ability to change its culture is hampered by victims' fear of reporting episodes of harassment, which is largely due to fear of retaliation. In this Perspective, the authors describe efforts in scientific societies to address the issue of sexual harassment and to begin to establish safe environments at national meetings. The authors contend that each institution must work to make it safe for individuals to come forward, to provide training for victims and for bystanders, and to abolish "locker room" talk that is demeaning to women.

While more women are in leadership positions in academic medicine now than ever before in U.S. history, evidence from recent surveys of women and graduating medical students demonstrates that sexual harassment continues in academic health centers. Academic medicine's ability to change its culture is hampered by victims' fear of reporting episodes of harassment, which is largely due to fear of retaliation. In this Perspective, the authors describe efforts in scientific societies to address the issue of sexual harassment and to begin to establish safe environments at national meetings. The authors contend that each institution must work to make it safe for individuals to come forward, to provide training for victims and for bystanders, and to abolish "locker room" talk that is demeaning to women.

PurposeLeaders in the oncology community are sounding a clarion call to promote "value" in cancer care decisions. Value in cancer care considers the clinical effectiveness, along with the costs, when selecting a treatment. To discuss possible solutions to the current obstacles to achieving value in the use of advanced technologies in oncology, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held a workshop, "Appropriate Use of Advanced Technologies for Radiation Therapy and Surgery in Oncology" in July 2015. The present report summarizes the discussions related to radiation oncology.Methods and materialsThe workshop convened stakeholders, including oncologists, researchers, payers, policymakers, and patients. Speakers presented on key themes, including the rationale for a value discussion on advanced technology use in radiation oncology, the generation of scientific evidence for value of advanced radiation technologies, the effect of both scientific evidence and "marketplace" (or economic) factors on the adoption of technologies, and newer approaches to improving value in the practice of radiation oncology. The presentations were followed by a panel discussion with dialogue among the stakeholders.ResultsChallenges to generating evidence for the value of advanced technologies include obtaining contemporary, prospective, randomized, and representative comparative effectiveness data. Proposed solutions include the use of prospective registry data; integrating radiation oncology treatment, outcomes, and quality benchmark data; and encouraging insurance coverage with evidence development. Challenges to improving value in practice include the slow adoption of higher value and the de-adoption of lower value treatments. The proposed solutions focused on engaging stakeholders in iterative, collaborative, and evidence-based efforts to define value and promote change in radiation oncology practice. Recent examples of ongoing or successful responses to the discussed challenges were provided.ConclusionsDiscussions of "value" have increased as a priority in the radiation oncology community. Practitioners in the radiation oncology community can play a critical role in promoting a value-oriented framework to approach radiation oncology treatment.