Search

Objective: To assess the gender composition of the American Board of Medical Specialties' (ABMS) member boards and evaluate the equitable inclusion of women and a subset of women physicians. Methods: The gender of individuals on 24 boards as of March 1, 2022, was assessed. Two benchmarks-parity (50:50 representation) and equity (compared to the proportion of practicing physicians in each medical specialty)-were utilized to determine if women are equitably represented on medical boards. Results: Four hundred forty individuals hold 449 total positions on the boards examined. Of board the members, 60.7% (267/440) are men, and 92.3% (406/440) are physicians. Physician board members comprised more men (64.0%, 260/406; p  < 0.001), whereas more women comprise the 34 nonphysician board members (79.4%, 27/34; p  < 0.001). Using specialty representation (equity) as the benchmark, of 22 specialties for which physician gender/sex data are available, women physicians are underrepresented on 36.4% (8/22) of boards. When parity (50%) is the comparator, 72.0% (18/25) of boards comprised less than 50% women. Compared to a 2016 analysis, the proportion of women overall (including non-physicians) increased on 68.0% (17/25), decreased on 24.0% (6/25), and remained unchanged on 8.0% (2/25) of boards in 2022. Conclusions: This study reveals mixed results in the equitable inclusion of women on ABMS boards. Our findings suggest that progress should not be assumed and that it may be subject to setbacks when it occurs. There is a need to continue to monitor the equitable inclusion of women on ABMS boards.

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.

Purpose: The landscape of the profession of academic radiation oncology is constantly changing. We sought to determine the demographic makeup of the current academic radiation oncology workforce., Materials and Methods: Internet web site searches of the 51 National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) were conducted in September 2019. The Scopus database was subsequently searched in December 2019 to ascertain the h-index for each radiation oncologist. Geographic location was economically stratified (New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington DC) as previously reported. Race and binary sex were attributed by authors using publicly available information. Univariate analysis involved the chi-square test; a multivariable model considered several factors including rank and sex., Results: Of 993 radiation oncologists at CCCs, 53.6% are junior faculty, 24.8% associate professors, and 21.7% full professors. The average radiation oncologist at a CCC has been a physician for 19.7 (standard deviation = 11.3) years; 4.7% (47/993) are under-represented minorities. 24.6% of men and 15.5% of women were full professors, a statistically significant difference ( P = .001). Of the 51 department chairs, 11.8% are women and 5.6% are under-represented minorities. There are fewer female than male program directors in the most economically stratified locations ( P = .02). The mean h-index for all faculty is 17.6 (standard deviation = 16.9), and significantly differs between junior faculty (8.21), associate professors (18.46), and full professors (40.05; P < .0001). It also differs between men (19.35) and women (14.11). On multivariable analysis, sex, academic rank, and a secondary advanced degree were independently significant correlates of h-index., Conclusion: Among academic radiation oncologists at CCCs, under 5% are under-represented minorities, men are significantly over-represented among senior faculty, and women have significantly lower h-indices than men., Competing Interests: Mu ShanEmployment: LillyStock and Other Ownership Interests: Lilly Emma B. HollidayResearch Funding: Merck Serono Reshma JagsiEmployment: University of MichiganStock and Other Ownership Interests: Equity QuotientResearch Funding: Genentech (Inst)Expert Testimony: Baptist Health/Dressman Benziger Lavalle Law, Kleinbard, LLC, Sherinian and HassoTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AmgenOther Relationship: JAMA OncologyOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/373670/summaryNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

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., (Copyright © 2021 by the Association of American Medical Colleges.)

Purpose: Little data have been reported about the patient experience during curative radiation therapy (RT) for lung cancer in routine clinical practice or how this relates to treatment toxicity as reported by clinicians. The purpose of this study was to compare clinician-reported adverse events (AEs) with patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including both specific symptoms/side effects, as well as overall quality of life (QoL) during and after definitive RT for locally advanced lung cancer (LALC) in a large statewide cohort., Methods and Materials: PROs were prospectively collected from patients treated with definitive RT for LALC at 24 institutions within the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium between 2012 and 2018 using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy trial outcome index. Physicians prospectively recorded AEs using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Patient-reported QoL changes from baseline were assessed during and after RT using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy trial outcome index. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated for AEs and similar PROs, and a multivariable analysis was used to assess associations with QoL., Results: A total 1361 patients were included in the study, and 53% of respondents reported clinically meaningful declines in QoL at the end of RT. The correlation between clinician-reported esophagitis and patient-reported trouble swallowing was moderate (R = .67), but correlations between clinician-reported pneumonitis and patient-reported shortness of breath (R = .13) and cough (R = .09) were weak. Clinician-reported AEs were significantly associated with clinically meaningful declines in patient-reported QoL (R = - .46 for summary AE score). QoL was more strongly associated with fatigue (R = - .41) than lung-specific AEs., Conclusions: AEs are associated with clinically meaningful declines in QoL during and after RT for LALC, but associations between AEs and QoL are only modest. This highlights the importance of PRO data, and future research should assess whether earlier detection of PRO changes could allow for interventions that reduce the frequency of treatment-related clinically meaningful declines in QoL., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Accrual 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., Methods: We 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., Results: Of 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., Conclusions: Physicians 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.

Importance: Despite equal numbers of men and women entering medical school, women are underrepresented in the upper echelons of academic medicine and receive less compensation and research funding. Citation-related publication productivity metrics, such as the h-index, are increasingly used for hiring, salary, grants, retention, promotion, and tenure decisions. Exploring sex differences in these metrics across academic medicine provides deeper insight into why differences are observed in career outcomes., Objective: To systematically examine the available literature on sex differences in h-index of academic faculty physicians across all medical specialties and all levels of academic rank., Data Sources: Medical literature with the term h-index found in PubMed and published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, was used., Study Selection: A PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) selection protocol was used to find observational studies that published h-indexes for faculty physicians that were stratified by sex. Studies were excluded if they were review articles, retracted, or unavailable online. Ultimately, 14 of 786 studies (1.78%) met the inclusion criteria., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data from 9 studies across 16 specialties were examined using weighted random-effects meta-analyses. Five studies were excluded because of overlapping specialties with another study or because they were missing appropriate statistics for the meta-analysis. Four of these studies were included in qualitative synthesis to bring the total to 13 studies., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was the h-index., Results: The meta-analysis included 10 665 North American unique academic physicians across 9 different studies from the years 2009 to 2018. Of the 10 665 physicians, 2655 (24.89%) were women. Summary effect sizes for mean h-indexes of men and women and mean h-index difference between men and women were determined for all faculty physicians and at each academic rank. Overall, female faculty had lower h-indexes than male faculty (mean difference, -4.09; 95% CI, -5.44 to -2.73; P < .001). When adjusting for academic rank, female faculty still had lower h-indexes than male faculty at the ranks of assistant professor (mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.72; P < .001), associate professor (mean difference, -2.09; 95% CI, -3.40 to -0.78; P = .002), and professor (mean difference, -3.41; 95% CI, -6.24 to -0.58; P = .02)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, women had lower h-indexes than men across most specialties and at all academic ranks, but it is unclear why these differences exist. These findings suggest that future investigation should be conducted regarding the causes of lower h-indexes in women and that interventions should be developed to provide a more equitable environment for all physicians regardless of sex.

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: Physician-scientists are a vital segment of the healthcare workforce, but they may face significant challenges balancing and integrating clinical responsibilities, scientific research, and domestic responsibilities. This study investigates factors associated with burnout among highly successful early career physician-researchers in Japan., Method: Among 1790 physician awardees of Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists by the Japanese Ministry in 2014-2015, 490 participated in this cross-sectional survey in 2016 (usable response rate 23.8%). The primary outcome was psychological burnout, measured by the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (i.e., personal burnout, work-related burnout, and patient-related burnout). "Workplace resources" in our study refers to the presence of career education in the workplace, promotion of gender equity, well-being consultation services on "career and work," "research," "harassment," and/or "mental health," as well as the presence of a role model in the workplace who has perceived good work-life balance., Results: Among 408 physician-researchers (75% male, mean age 37 yrs), personal burnout scores were slightly higher in women than in men (mean score, 41.9 points vs. 36.7 points, difference, 5.2, 95% confidence interval, 0.5-9.9, p = 0.029), but work-related and patient-related burnout scores did not differ significantly between genders. Over half of women (64%) and men (58%) had a mentor (p = 0.374). In multivariable general linear regression models, personal burnout scores were higher for women (β = 4.98, p = 0.045), and lower among those who had a mentor (β = - 5.82, p = 0.010) and whose workplaces had well-being consultation services (β = - 0.79, p = 0.022). Work-related burnout scores were lower among those with larger amounts of grant funding (β = - 4.70, p = 0.013), a mentor (β = - 6.12, p = 0.002), well-being consultation services (β = - 0.78, p = 0.008) and a role model with a perceived good work-life balance (β = - 4.00, p = 0.038). Patient-related burnout scores were higher among physician-scientists aged older than 37 years (β = 6.25, p = 0.002) and those who had board certification (β = 9.01, p = 0.017), while these scores were lower among those had larger amounts of funding (β = - 5.01, p = 0.006) or a mentor (β = - 5.35, p = 0.006)., Conclusions: Workplace resources and mentorship appear to be associated with lower levels of psychological burnout for both men and women early career physician-scientists.

Purpose: Burnout in the medical workforce leads to early retirement, absenteeism, career changes, financial losses for medical institutions, and adverse outcomes for patients. Recent literature has explored burnout in different specialties of medicine. This article examines burnout among medical oncology trainees and identifies factors associated with burnout and professional dissatisfaction, including socioeconomic factors., Methods: US medical oncology programs were sent a survey that included the Maslach Burnout Index-Human Services Survey as well as demographic, socioeconomic, and program-specific questions tailored to medical oncology fellowship. Primary binary end points included burnout, satisfaction with being a physician, and satisfaction with being a medical oncologist. Binomial logistic models determined associations between various characteristics and end points., Results: Overall, 261 US fellows completed the survey. Seventy percent of international medical graduates reported no educational debt, whereas only 36% of US graduates reported no educational debt. Eighty-two percent of survey respondents reported their mother had at least a bachelor's degree, and 87% of respondents reported their father had at least a bachelor's degree. At least 27% of respondents had symptoms of burnout. Factors inversely associated with burnout on multivariable analysis included having a mother who graduated college (odds ratio [OR], 0.27), reporting an adequate perceived balance between work and personal life (OR, 0.22), feeling that faculty care about educational success (OR, 0.16), and being in the final year of training (OR, 0.45). Having debt ≥ $150,000 (OR, 2.14) was directly associated with burnout., Conclusion: Symptoms of burnout are common among medical oncology fellows and are associated with educational debt and socioeconomic factors.

Purpose: To 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., Method: This 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., Results: Participants' 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., Conclusions: Programs 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.

Background: Physicians are encouraged through formalized systems to discuss their own errors with peers for the purposes of quality improvement. However, no clear professional norms exist regarding peer review when physicians discover errors that occurred at other institutions before referral. Our objective was to determine specialist physicians' attitudes and practices regarding providing feedback to referring physicians when prereferral errors are discovered., Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews of specialists from two National Cancer Institute-designated Cancer Centers. Thematic analysis of transcripts was performed to determine physicians' attitudes toward the delivery of negative feedback regarding prereferral errors, whether and how they communicate these errors to referring physicians, and perceived barriers to doing so., Results: We purposively sampled specialists by discipline, gender, and experience level, who described greater than 50% reliance on external referrals (n = 30). Specialists believed regular, explicit feedback was ideal, but the majority of participants reported practices that did not meet this standard. While there were some structural barriers to providing feedback (lack of time or contact information), the majority of barriers were internal psychological concerns (general discomfort with providing negative feedback, fear of conflict, or defensive reactions) or fears about implications for future referrals or medicolegal risk., Conclusions: Policies and interventions that structure the approach to this sometimes difficult, yet critically important, opportunity for reducing medical errors warrant investigation as potential mechanisms by which to improve consistency and quality of care while maintaining positive professional relationships., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Our objective was to determine specialist physicians' attitudes and practices regarding disclosure of pre-referral errors., Summary Background Data: Physicians are encouraged to disclose their own errors to patients. However, no clear professional norms exist regarding disclosure when physicians discover errors in diagnosis or treatment that occurred at other institutions before referral., Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews of cancer specialists from 2 National Cancer Institute-designated Cancer Centers. We purposively sampled specialists by discipline, sex, and experience-level who self-described a >50% reliance on external referrals (n = 30). Thematic analysis of verbatim interview transcripts was performed to determine physician attitudes regarding disclosure of pre-referral medical errors; whether and how physicians disclose these errors; and barriers to providing full disclosure., Results: Participants described their experiences identifying different types of pre-referral errors including errors of diagnosis, staging and treatment resulting in adverse events ranging from decreased quality of life to premature death. The majority of specialists expressed the belief that disclosure provided no benefit to patients, and might unnecessarily add to their anxiety about their diagnoses or prognoses. Specialists had varying practices of disclosure including none, non-verbal, partial, event-dependent, and full disclosure. They identified a number of barriers to disclosure, including medicolegal implications and damage to referral relationships, the profession's reputation, and to patient-physician relationships., Conclusions: Specialist physicians identify pre-referral errors but struggle with whether and how to provide disclosure, even when clinical circumstances force disclosure. Education- or communication-based interventions that overcome barriers to disclosing pre-referral errors warrant development.

Purpose: Physician participation in philanthropy is important to marshal resources that allow hospitals to pursue their missions, but little is known about how physicians participate and their attitudes toward participation., Methods: To characterize philanthropic roles physicians play and their attitudes about participation and its ethical acceptability, medical oncologists affiliated with the 40 National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers were randomly sampled and surveyed to evaluate experiences and attitudes regarding participation in philanthropy at their institutions. Responses were tabulated; significant associations by physicians' characteristics were explored., Results: A total of 405 (52%) physicians responded; 62% were men, and 72% were white. Most (71%) had been exposed to their institution's fundraising/development staff; 48% of those were taught how to identify patients who would be good donors; 26% received information about ethical guidelines for soliciting donations from their patients; 21% were taught how their institution ensures Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliance. A third (32%) of respondents had been asked to directly solicit a donation from their patients for their institution, of whom half declined to do so. Those who had solicited from their patients had been in practice significantly longer (mean, 19 v 13 years; P < .001). A substantial minority (37%) felt comfortable talking to their patients about donation (men more than women, 43% v 26%; P = .008); however, 74% agreed it could interfere with the physician-patient relationship, and 52% believe conflict of interest exists., Conclusion: Institutions are asking physicians to directly solicit their patients for donations with variability in physicians' perceptions of the impact on relationships with patients and responses toward those requests., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: Resources, including space, equipment, funding, personnel, and protected time, are essential in academic medical careers. Negotiation often plays a key role in the distribution of these resources., Objective: This study explored gender differences in resources, negotiation behaviors, and negotiation outcomes in a sample of career development awardees., Design: Postal survey of a cohort of 1,708 clinician-researchers with responses from 1,275 (75 % response rate)., Participants: Researchers who received NIH K08 or K23 awards between 2006 and 2009., Main Measures: We analyzed gender differences in resources, negotiation behaviors, and negotiation outcomes, using regression models adjusted for race, K award type, K award year, degree, academic rank, specialty, and institutional funding., Key Results: Over one-fifth of respondents reported inadequate access to research space and one-third had asked for increased space or equipment. Perceived adequacy of these physical resources did not differ significantly by gender, but a higher proportion of women reported inadequate access to grants administrators (34.8 %) and statistical support (49.9 %) than men (26.9 %; p = 0.002 and 43.4 %; p = 0.025, respectively). Women were more likely to have asked for reduction in clinical hours (24.1 % vs. 19.3 %; p = 0.02) and to have raised concerns about unfair treatment (50.2 % vs. 38.2 %; p < 0.001). Overall, 42.9 % of women and 35.9 % of men asked for a raise in the two years preceding the survey (p = 0.09), and among those who had asked for increased resources, the likelihood that the request was granted did not differ significantly by gender., Conclusion: Many career development award recipients report resource needs and negotiate for increased resources. Gender differences in perceived access to research support personnel exist even in this select cohort of K awardees. Institutions should provide appropriate training in negotiation and ensure adequate and equitable distribution of resources to promote academic success.

Background: Female physician-researchers do not achieve career success at the same rate as men. Differences in nonprofessional responsibilities may partially explain this gap., Objective: To investigate the division of domestic labor by gender in a motivated group of early-career physician-researchers., Design: Nationwide postal survey between 2010 and 2011., Setting: United States., Participants: Physician recipients of National Institutes of Health K08 or K23 awards between 2006 and 2009 with active academic affiliation at the time of the survey., Measurements: Time spent on parenting and domestic tasks was determined through self-report. Among married or partnered respondents with children, a linear regression model of time spent on domestic activities was constructed considering age, gender, race, specialty, MD or MD/PhD status, age of youngest child, number of children, work hours, K award type, and spousal employment., Results: A 74% response rate was achieved, and 1049 respondents were academic physicians. Women were more likely than men to have spouses or domestic partners who were employed full-time (85.6% [95% CI, 82.7% to 89.2%] vs. 44.9% [CI, 40.8% to 49.8%]). Among married or partnered respondents with children, after adjustment for work hours, spousal employment, and other factors, women spent 8.5 more hours per week on domestic activities. In the subgroup with spouses or domestic partners who were employed full-time, women were more likely to take time off during disruptions of usual child care arrangements than men (42.6% [CI, 36.6% to 49.0%] vs. 12.4% [CI, 5.4% to 19.5%])., Limitations: Analyses relied on self-reported data. The study design did not enable investigation of the relationship between domestic activities and professional success., Conclusion: In this sample of career-oriented professionals, gender differences in domestic activities existed among those with children. Most men's spouses or domestic partners were not employed full-time, which contrasted sharply with the experiences of women., Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Physician attitudes toward and lack of familiarity with guidelines have been identified as potential barriers to adherence in general, but little is known about their attitudes toward and use of cancer management guidelines specifically. This study surveyed 1500 surgeons and medical oncologists drawn from the AMA Masterfile in 2012. This report describes and compares the attitudes of medical oncologists and surgeons who treat patients with breast cancer regarding guidelines in general and the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) in particular, and their familiarity, use, and compliance with these guidelines. Of 896 respondents, responses were analyzed from the 766 who had seen at least one new patient with breast cancer in the past year. Mean participant age was 52 years; 25% worked in a teaching setting. Attitudes toward guidelines were generally favorable. Medical oncologists were more likely than surgeons to be aware that NCCN issues guidelines for cancer management (100% vs 74%; P<.001) and more likely to state that these guidelines generally influence their decisions (96% vs 70%; P<.001). Among those aware of NCCN Guidelines, 96% reported that they often agreed with NCCN recommendations, and 75% reported that almost all of their breast cancer treatment recommendations were consistent with these guidelines. Still, most providers (77%) also reported that they refer one-fourth or fewer of their patients with breast cancer to the NCCN Guidelines for Patients. Attitudes toward physician-directed cancer management guidelines are generally positive, and they are frequently used. However, existing guidelines seem to have greater visibility to the medical oncology audience than to surgeons, and patient versions are infrequently recommended.

To describe which providers provide breast cancer survivorship care, we conducted a longitudinal survey of nonmetastatic breast cancer patients identified by the SEER registries of Los Angeles and Detroit. Multinomial logistic regression examined the adjusted odds of surgeon compared with a medical oncologist follow-up or primary care provider compared with medical oncologist follow-up, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, insurance, tumor stage, receipt of chemotherapy, endocrine therapy use, and visit to a medical oncologist at the time of diagnosis. Results were weighted to account for sample selection and nonresponse. 844 women had invasive disease and received chemotherapy or endocrine therapy. 65.2 % reported medical oncologists as their main care provider at 4 years, followed by PCP/other physicians (24.3 %) and surgeons (10.5 %). Black women were more likely to receive their follow-up care from surgeons (OR 2.47, 95 % CI 1.16-5.27) or PCP/other physicians (OR 2.62, 95 % CI 1.47-4.65) than medical oncologists. Latinas were more likely to report PCP/other physician follow-up than medical oncologists (OR 2.33, 95 % CI 1.15-4.73). Compared with privately insured women, Medicaid recipients were more likely to report PCP/other physician follow-up (OR 2.52, 95 % CI 1.24-5.15). Women taking endocrine therapy 4 years after diagnosis were less likely to report surgeons or PCP/other physicians as their primary provider of breast cancer follow-up care. Different survivorship care patterns emerge on race/ethnicity and insurance status. Interventions are needed to inform patients and providers on the recommended sources of breast cancer follow-up.

The value of cancer care has emerged at the center of a national discourse on fiscal responsibility and resource allocation. The cost of cancer care is rising at a higher pace than any other area of health care. As we struggle to address this unsustainable rise in cancer expenditures, oncology providers are forced to examine our practice patterns and our contributions to the overall health care cost burden. This article provides an oncologist-centered examination of our duties to individual patients and how they may seem at odds with our duties to society. It also discusses how oncology providers can do their part to contain health care costs while honoring their professional obligation to do their best for each patient.

Background: Leaders in academic medicine are often selected from the ranks of physician-researchers, whose demanding careers involve multiple professional commitments that must also be balanced with demands at home., Objective: To gain a more nuanced understanding of work-life balance issues from the perspective of a large and diverse group of faculty clinician-researchers and their mentors., Design: A qualitative study with semi-structured, in-depth interviews conducted from 2010 to 2011, using inductive analysis and purposive sampling., Participants: One hundred former recipients of U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) K08 or K23 career development awards and 28 of their mentors., Approach: Three researchers with graduate training in qualitative methods conducted the interviews and thematically coded verbatim transcripts., Key Results: Five themes emerged related to work-life balance: (1) the challenge and importance of work-life balance for contemporary physician-researchers, (2) how gender roles and spousal dynamics make these issues more challenging for women, (3) the role of mentoring in this area, (4) the impact of institutional policies and practices intended to improve work-life balance, and (5) perceptions of stereotype and stigma associated with utilization of these programs., Conclusions: In academic medicine, in contrast to other fields in which a lack of affordable childcare may be the principal challenge, barriers to work-life balance appear to be deeply rooted within professional culture. A combination of mentorship, interventions that target institutional and professional culture, and efforts to destigmatize reliance on flexibility (with regard to timing and location of work) are most likely to promote the satisfaction and success of the new generation of clinician-researchers who desire work-life balance.

Purpose: Studies have suggested that male physicians earn more than their female counterparts. The authors examined whether this disparity exists in a recently hired cohort., Method: In 2010-2011, the authors surveyed recent recipients of National Institutes of Health (NIH) mentored career development (i.e., K08 or K23) awards, receiving responses from 1,275 (75% response rate). For the 1,012 physicians with academic positions in clinical specialties who reported salary, they constructed linear regression models of salary considering gender, age, race, marital status, parental status, additional doctoral degree, academic rank, years on faculty, specialty, institution type, region, institution NIH funding rank, K award type, K award funding institute, K award year, work hours, and research time. They evaluated the explanatory value of spousal employment status using Peters-Belson regression., Results: Mean salary was $141,325 (95% confidence interval [CI] 135,607-147,043) for women and $172,164 (95% CI 167,357-176,971) for men. Male gender remained an independent, significant predictor of salary (+$10,921, P < .001) even after adjusting for specialty, academic rank, work hours, research time, and other factors. Peters-Belson analysis indicated that 17% of the overall disparity in the full sample was unexplained by the measured covariates. In the married subset, after accounting for spousal employment status, 10% remained unexplained., Conclusions: The authors observed, in this recent cohort of elite, early-career physician-researchers, a gender difference in salary that was not fully explained by specialty, academic rank, work hours, or even spousal employment. Creating more equitable procedures for establishing salary is important.

Objective assessment of academic productivity is useful for residency programs. This study aims to analyze the number of publications and Hirsch index (h index) among radiation oncology residents. Names of residents during the 2010 academic year (n = 607) were collected from the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology 2010 Directory. Number of publications and h index from Jan. 1996 to Feb. 2012 were collected from a bibliographic database (SCOPUS, Elsevier, BV, Amsterdam, NL). Analysis of h index included stratification by gender, residency size, and postresidency private practice or academic employment. Six hundred seven residents, 67% men and 33% women, had an overall mean h index of 2.5 ± 3.2. Graduates in academia exhibited a higher mean h index (3.9 ± 0.30) compared to private practice (2.0 ± 0.25; p < 0.01). Gender, residency size, and post-graduate position remained correlates of h index (all p ≤ 0.01). Women had lower mean h index and number of publications than men (2.1 ± 2.3 vs 2.7 ± 3.5, 4.5 ± 5.3 vs 6.2 ± 8.0, respectively; both p < 0.05). However, when stratified by current position (resident, private practice, or academic), there were no significant differences in h index by gender. The mean ± SD h indices for institutions comprising the top 10% ranged 4.17 ± 3.2-5.25 ± 5.4 while the bottom 10% ranged 0.0 ± 0.0-0.75 ± 1.4. The h index is a useful metric to assess residents' early dedication to scholarly endeavors. Female radiation oncology residents had fewer total publications and slightly lower h indices, warranting accessible research avenues and environments for future female physician-scientists. The application of the h index provides a reference for medical students, residents, residency program directors, and many others to gauge academic performance and establish appropriate benchmarks.

Context: It is unclear whether male and female physician researchers who perform similar work are currently paid equally., Objectives: To determine whether salaries differ by gender in a relatively homogeneous cohort of physician researchers and, if so, to determine if these differences are explained by differences in specialization, productivity, or other factors., Design and Setting: A US nationwide postal survey was sent in 2009-2010 to assess the salary and other characteristics of a relatively homogeneous population of physicians. From all 1853 recipients of National Institutes of Health (NIH) K08 and K23 awards in 2000-2003, we contacted the 1729 who were alive and for whom we could identify a mailing address., Participants: The survey achieved a 71% response rate. Eligibility for the present analysis was limited to the 800 physicians who continued to practice at US academic institutions and reported their current annual salary., Main Outcome Measures: A linear regression model of self-reported current annual salary was constructed considering the following characteristics: gender, age, race, marital status, parental status, additional graduate degree, academic rank, leadership position, specialty, institution type, region, institution NIH funding rank, change of institution since K award, K award type, K award funding institute, years since K award, grant funding, publications, work hours, and time spent in research., Results: The mean salary within our cohort was $167,669 (95% CI, $158,417-$176,922) for women and $200,433 (95% CI, $194,249-$206,617) for men. Male gender was associated with higher salary (+$13,399; P = .001) even after adjustment in the final model for specialty, academic rank, leadership positions, publications, and research time. Peters-Belson analysis (use of coefficients derived from regression model for men applied to women) indicated that the expected mean salary for women, if they retained their other measured characteristics but their gender was male, would be $12,194 higher than observed., Conclusion: Gender differences in salary exist in this select, homogeneous cohort of mid-career academic physicians, even after adjustment for differences in specialty, institutional characteristics, academic productivity, academic rank, work hours, and other factors.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to document adequacy of training, career plans after residency, use of the in-service examination, and motivation for choice of radiation oncology as a specialty., Methods and Materials: In 2004, the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology (ARRO) conducted a nationwide survey of all radiation oncology residents in the United States., Results: The survey was returned by 297 residents (response rate, 54%). Of the respondents, 29% were female and 71% male. The most popular career choice was joining an established private practice (38%), followed by a permanent academic career (29%). Residents for whom a permanent academic career was not their first choice were asked whether improvements in certain areas would have led them to be more likely to pursue an academic career. The most commonly chosen factors that would have had a strong or moderate influence included higher salary (81%), choice of geographic location (76%), faculty encouragement (68%), and less time commitment (68%). Of respondents in the first 3 years of training, 78% believed that they had received adequate training to proceed to the next level of training. Of those in their fourth year of training, 75% believed that they had received adequate training to enter practice., Conclusions: Multiple factors affect the educational environment of physicians in training. Data describing concerns unique to resident physicians in radiation oncology are limited. The current survey was designed to explore a variety of issues confronting radiation oncology residents. Training programs and the Residency Review Committee should consider these results when developing new policies to improve the educational experiences of residents in radiation oncology.

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

PURPOSE Scholars have examined patients’ attitudes toward secondary use of routinely collected clinical data for research and quality improvement. Evidence suggests that trust in health care organizations and physicians is critical. Less is known about experiences that shape trust and how they influence data sharing preferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS To explore learning health care system (LHS) ethics, democratic deliberations were hosted from June 2017 to May 2018. A total of 217 patients with cancer participated in facilitated group discussion. Transcripts were coded independently. Finalized codes were organized into themes using interpretive description and thematic analysis. Two previous analyses reported on patient preferences for consent and data use; this final analysis focuses on the influence of personal lived experiences of the health care system, including interactions with providers and insurers, on trust and preferences for data sharing. RESULTS Qualitative analysis identified four domains of patients’ lived experiences raised in the context of the policy discussions: (1) the quality of care received, (2) the impact of health care costs, (3) the transparency and communication displayed by a provider or an insurer to the patient, and (4) the extent to which care coordination was hindered or facilitated by the interchange between a provider and an insurer. Patients discussed their trust in health care decision makers and their opinions about LHS data sharing. CONCLUSION Additional resources, infrastructure, regulations, and practice innovations are needed to improve patients’ experiences with and trust in the health care system. Those who seek to build LHSs may also need to consider improvement in other aspects of care delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Philanthropy is an increasingly important source of support for health care institutions. There is little empirical evidence to inform ethical guidelines.Objective: To assess public attitudes regarding specific practices used by health care institutions to encourage philanthropic donations from grateful patients.Design, Setting, and Participants: Using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a probability-based sample representative of the US population, a survey solicited opinions from a primary cohort representing the general population and 3 supplemental cohorts (with high income, cancer, and with heart disease, respectively).Exposures: Web-based questionnaire.Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive analyses (with percentages weighted to make the sample demographically representative of the US population) evaluated respondents' attitudes regarding the acceptability of strategies hospitals may use to identify, solicit, and thank donors; perceptions of the effect of physicians discussing donations with their patients; and opinions regarding gift use and stewardship.Results: Of 831 individuals targeted for the general population sample, 513 (62%) completed surveys, of whom 246 (48.0%) were women and 345 (67.3%) non-Hispanic white. In the weighted sample, 47.0% (95% CI, 42.3%-51.7%) responded that physicians giving patient names to hospital fundraising staff after asking patients' permission was definitely or probably acceptable; 8.5% (95% CI, 5.7%-11.2%) endorsed referring without asking permission. Of the participants, 79.5% (95% CI, 75.6%-83.4%) reported it acceptable for physicians to talk to patients about donating if patients have brought it up; 14.2% (95% CI, 10.9%-17.6%) reported it acceptable when patients have not brought it up; 9.9% (95% CI, 7.1%-12.8%) accepted hospital development staff performing wealth screening using publicly available data to identify patients capable of large donations. Of the participants, 83.2% (95% CI, 79.5%-86.9%) agreed that physicians talking with their patients about donating may interfere with the patient-physician relationship. For a hypothetical patient who donated $1 million, 50.1% (95% CI, 45.4%-54.7%) indicated it would be acceptable for the hospital to show thanks by providing nicer hospital rooms, 26.0% (95% CI, 21.9%-30.1%) by providing expedited appointments, and 19.8% (95% CI, 16.1%-23.5%) by providing physicians' cell phone numbers.Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of participants drawn from the general US population, a substantial proportion did not endorse legally allowable approaches for identifying, engaging, and thanking patient-donors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Treatment decisions for patients with early‐stage breast cancer often involve discussions with multiple oncology providers. However, the extent to which primary care providers (PCPs) are involved in initial treatment decisions remains unknown. Methods: A stratified random sample of PCPs identified by newly diagnosed patients with early‐stage breast cancer from the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries were surveyed (n = 517; a 61% response rate). PCPs were asked how frequently they discussed surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy options with patients; how comfortable they were with these discussions; whether they had the necessary knowledge to participate in decision making; and what their confidence was in their ability to help (on 5‐item Likert‐type scales). Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify PCP‐reported attitudes associated with more PCP participation in each treatment decision. Results: In this sample, 34% of PCPs reported that they discussed surgery, 23% discussed radiation, and 22% discussed chemotherapy options with their patients. Of those who reported more involvement in surgical decisions, 22% reported that they were not comfortable having a discussion, and 17% did not feel that they had the necessary knowledge to participate in treatment decision making. PCPs who positively appraised their ability to participate were more likely to participate in all 3 decisions (odds ratio [OR] for surgery, 6.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.16‐8.68; OR for radiation, 8.37; 95% CI, 5.16‐13.58; OR for chemotherapy, 6.56; 95% CI, 4.23‐10.17). Conclusions: A third of PCPs reported participating in breast cancer treatment decisions, yet gaps in their knowledge about decision making and in their confidence in their ability to help exist. Efforts to increase PCPs' knowledge about breast cancer treatment options may be warranted. The extent to which primary care providers are involved in their patients' multimodal breast cancer treatment decisions across surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy options is assessed in this study. Although a third of primary care providers report participating in these decisions, a notable proportion report gaps in their knowledge of treatment options and a lack of confidence in their ability to help with decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Leaders in academic medicine are often selected from the ranks of physician-researchers, whose demanding careers involve multiple professional commitments that must also be balanced with demands at home. OBJECTIVE: To gain a more nuanced understanding of work–life balance issues from the perspective of a large and diverse group of faculty clinician-researchers and their mentors. DESIGN: A qualitative study with semi-structured, in-depth interviews conducted from 2010 to 2011, using inductive analysis and purposive sampling. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred former recipients of U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) K08 or K23 career development awards and 28 of their mentors. APPROACH: Three researchers with graduate training in qualitative methods conducted the interviews and thematically coded verbatim transcripts. KEY RESULTS: Five themes emerged related to work–life balance: (1) the challenge and importance of work–life balance for contemporary physician-researchers, (2) how gender roles and spousal dynamics make these issues more challenging for women, (3) the role of mentoring in this area, (4) the impact of institutional policies and practices intended to improve work–life balance, and (5) perceptions of stereotype and stigma associated with utilization of these programs. CONCLUSIONS: In academic medicine, in contrast to other fields in which a lack of affordable childcare may be the principal challenge, barriers to work–life balance appear to be deeply rooted within professional culture. A combination of mentorship, interventions that target institutional and professional culture, and efforts to destigmatize reliance on flexibility (with regard to timing and location of work) are most likely to promote the satisfaction and success of the new generation of clinician-researchers who desire work–life balance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on the impact of the implementation of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's resident work hour limits on resident experiences and perception concerning patient safety. A survey was conducted on trainees in accredited programs at teaching hospitals regarding their work hours, patient load, experiences with adverse events, and others. Results suggest the possibility of reducing residents' hours without increasing their patient load wherein it may reduce the extent of their fatigue that affects patient safety.

Background Resident physicians are frontline providers with a unique vantage point from which to comment on patient safety–related events. Methods We surveyed trainees at 2 teaching hospitals about experiences with adverse events (AEs), mistakes, and near misses, as well as the potential causes. Results Responses were obtained from 821 (57%) of 1440 eligible trainees. Analysis was restricted to 689 clinical trainees. More than half (55%) reported ever caring for a patient who had an AE. The most common types of AEs were procedural and medication related. More than two thirds of AEs were considered significant. Of the most recent AEs, 24% were attributed to mistakes. The most common reasons for mistakes, as perceived by residents, were excessive work hours (19%), inadequate supervision (20%), and problems with handoffs (15%). In the last week, 114 respondents (18%) reported having a patient with an AE; of these, 42 (37%) reported AEs involving a mistake for which they considered themselves responsible. In addition, 141 (23%) reported near-miss incidents in the last week for which they considered themselves responsible. In multivariate analyses, significant predictors of AEs in the last week were inpatient rotation, duty hours in the last week, and procedural specialty. Predictors of near-miss errors in the last week were inpatient rotation, days of fatigue in the last month, and postgraduate year 1 status. Conclusions These findings support the perception that AEs are commonly encountered by physicians and often associated with errors. Causes of errors in teaching hospitals appear to be multifactorial, and a variety of measures are necessary to improve safety. Eliciting residents’ perspectives is important because residents may perceive events, actions, and causal relationships that medical record reviewers or observers cannot. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regulations of junior doctors’ work hours were first enacted in the United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) over a decade ago, with the goals of improving patient care and doctors’ well-being while maintaining a high quality of medical training. This study examines experiences and attitudes regarding the implementation of these regulations among physicians and surgeons at two teaching hospitals, one in South-East England, and the other in New England, US. This paper presents the findings of a survey questionnaire and a series of in-depth interviews administered to a sample of junior doctors and the consultants responsible for their supervision. The study finds that the different policy mechanisms employed in the two countries have had different degrees of success in reducing the work hours of junior doctors. The results also indicate, however, that even in settings in which hours have been reduced significantly, the regulations have only had limited effects on the quality of medical care, junior doctors’ well-being, and the quality of medical education. A number of barriers to the success of the regulations in achieving their objectives are identified, and the relative merits of political action and professional self-regulation are discussed. This research suggests that recently enacted policies requiring further reductions in junior doctors’ hours in both the US and UK may face similar barriers when implemented. Understanding the lessons that emerge from implementation of the original regulations is essential if future reforms are to succeed and a high-quality system of health care is to be sustained. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article discusses how financial stewardship helps in promoting public health and well-being in the U.S. Topics discussed include the duties of physicians as financial stewards when making health care decisions, access to affordable care as health care costs continue to increase, and less pressure on hospitals and other health care institutions to reduce significant care services.

Purpose: Conflict of interest (COI) disclosure is essential to research integrity. The average reading comprehension in English is 3.8 words per second (wps). This study examines presenters at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) national meeting over a recent 3-year period to determine whether disclosure is presented accurately and in a manner that allows the audience to comprehend the content. Methods: We examined videos of presentations as well as slides from 2014 to 2016 from the ASTRO virtual meeting, noting whether a COI slide was presented, the duration the slide was visible, and the number of disclosures. Disclosures were cross-referenced for discrepancies with the publicly reported Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. Using a cutoff of 4 wps, we noted how many presentations were presented at speeds of ≤ 4 wps and > 4 wps. Results: The final data set consisted of 401 presentations delivered by 364 presenters. Using a threshold of 4 wps, 34.0% of presenters had COI slides shown too fast for the average audience to comprehend. Moreover, 16.3% of US physicians incorrectly underreported industry funding received. Of these presentations with discrepancies, 32.6% did not have a COI slide, 39.5% failed to disclose any COI, 27.9% partially disclosed COIs, and 11.6% contained multiple discrepancies. The number of wps were correlated with having a discrepancy on multivariable regression (P =.046; odds ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.19). Conclusion: A substantial minority of presentations at ASTRO lack meaningful disclosure, and a surprising number incorrectly reported COIs. Additional guidance may be needed to promote more meaningful and accurate disclosure of COIs at major national meetings in oncology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction A rapid learning system (RLS) of health care harnesses data generated from routine patient care to create a virtuous cycle of data collection and analysis for quality improvement and research. The success of such systems depends on understanding patient perspectives regarding the ethical issues that arise from the ongoing implementation of this transformative concept. Methods An interview guide was designed to evaluate patient perspectives to inform the ethical implementation of an oncology RLS. A purposively selected, diverse sample of 32 patients with cancer was recruited from two institutions to participate in semistructured, in-depth interviews for formal qualitative analysis. Results The extent to which respondents expressed discomfort with more permissive system features (less formal notification/consent, broader uses/users, inclusion of sensitive data) reflected their trust, which in turn seemed to vary by sociodemographic features. It was also influenced by their familiarity with technology and their attitudes and beliefs regarding privacy and the use of electronic medical records more generally. Distrust of insurers and the pharmaceutical industry led subjects to desire greater oversight and restriction of these potential users of the system. Subjects were most comfortable when doctors were the primary users, engaged patients directly in the notification and consent discussion, and oversaw the system. Conclusion Those actively developing RLSs should recognize the critical importance of trust and the key role that doctors will need to play in order for such systems to be successful and to ensure that their implementation is ethically palatable to the patients whose data are being included. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Our purpose was to assess comparative female representation trends for trainees and full-time faculty in the academic radiation oncology and hematology oncology workforce of the United States over 3 decades.Methods and Materials: Simple linear regression models with year as the independent variable were used to determine changes in female percentage representation per year and associated 95% confidence intervals for trainees and full-time faculty in each specialty.Results: Peak representation was 48.4% (801/1654) in 2013 for hematology oncology trainees, 39.0% (585/1499) in 2014 for hematology oncology full-time faculty, 34.8% (202/581) in 2007 for radiation oncology trainees, and 27.7% (439/1584) in 2015 for radiation oncology full-time faculty. Representation significantly increased for trainees and full-time faculty in both specialties at approximately 1% per year for hematology oncology trainees and full-time faculty and 0.3% per year for radiation oncology trainees and full-time faculty. Compared with radiation oncology, the rates were 3.84 and 2.94 times greater for hematology oncology trainees and full-time faculty, respectively.Conclusion: Despite increased female trainee and full-time faculty representation over time in the academic oncology physician workforce, radiation oncology is lagging behind hematology oncology, with trainees declining in recent years in radiation oncology; this suggests a de facto ceiling in female representation. Whether such issues as delayed or insufficient exposure, inadequate mentorship, or specialty competitiveness disparately affect female representation in radiation oncology compared to hematology oncology are underexplored and require continued investigation to ensure that the future oncologic physician workforce reflects the diversity of the population it serves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]