Dataset Information

Women Oncologists' Perceptions and Factors Associated With Decisions to Pursue Academic vs Nonacademic Careers in Oncology.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Women outnumber men in US medical school enrollment, but they represent less than 40% of academic oncology faculty.

Objective

To identify the key factors associated with female oncologists' decision to pursue academic or nonacademic oncology practice and to characterize their perceptions about their current career.

Design, setting, and participants

This cross-sectional survey study was distributed through email and social media to female physicians in academic and nonacademic oncology practice in the United States. The survey was open for 3 months, from August 1 to October 31, 2020.

Main outcomes and measures

No single primary study outcome was established because of the cross-sectional nature of the survey. Data were collected anonymously and analyzed using t tests for continuous variables and χ2 tests for categorical variables.

Results

Among the 667 female respondents, 422 (63.2%) identified as academic oncologists and 245 (36.8%) identified as nonacademic oncologists. Approximately 25% of respondents reported that their spouse or partner (156 [23.5%]) and/or family (176 [26.4%]) extremely or moderately affected their decision to pursue academic practice. Academic oncologists perceived the biggest sacrifice of pursuing academics to be time with loved ones (181 [42.9%]). Nonacademic oncologists perceived the biggest sacrifice of pursuing academics to be pressure for academic promotion (102 [41.6%]). Respondents had different perceptions of how their gender affected their ability to obtain a chosen job, with 116 academic oncologists (27.6%) and 101 nonacademic oncologists (41.2%) reporting a positive or somewhat positive impact (P = .001). More than half of the women surveyed (54.6% academic oncologists [230]; 50.6% nonacademic oncologists [123]; P = .61) believed they were less likely to be promoted compared with male colleagues. Academic and nonacademic oncologists reported rarely or never having a sense of belonging in their work environment (33 [7.9%] and 5 [2.0%]; P < .001). Most respondents reported that they would choose the same career path again (301 academic oncologists [71.3%]; 168 nonacademic oncologists [68.6%]); however, 92 academic oncologists (21.9%) reported they were likely to pursue a career outside of academic oncology in the next 5 years.

Conclusions and relevance

This survey study found that a spouse or partner and/or family were factors in the career choice of both academic and nonacademic oncologists and that female gender was largely perceived to adversely affect job promotion. Given that more than 20% of female academic oncologists were considering leaving academia, gender inequality is at high risk of continuing if the culture is not addressed.

SUBMITTER: Merfeld EC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8719237 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Academic physicians, such as those affiliated with National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers, may have different practice patterns regarding the use of high-cost cancer drugs than nonacademic physicians.Materials and methods: For this cohort study, we linked cancer registry, administrative, and demographic data for patients with newly diagnosed cancer in North Carolina from 2004 to 2011. We selected cancer types with multiple U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved, National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended treatment options and large differences in reimbursement between higher-priced and lower-priced options (stage IV colorectal, stage IV lung, and stage II-IV head-and-neck cancers). We assessed whether provider's practice setting-NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center ("NCI") versus other location ("non-NCI")-was associated with use of higher-cost treatment options. We used inverse probability of exposure weighting to control for patient characteristics.Results: Of 800 eligible patients, 79.6% were treated in non-NCI settings. Patients treated in non-NCI settings were more likely to receive high-cost treatment than patients treated in NCI settings (36.0% vs. 23.2%), with an unadjusted prevalence difference of 12.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1%-20.0%). After controlling for potential confounding factors, non-NCI patients remained more likely to receive high-cost treatment, although the strength of association was attenuated (adjusted prevalence difference, 9.6%; 95% CI -0.1%-18.7%). Exploratory analyses suggested potential heterogeneity across cancer type and insurance status.Conclusion: Use of higher-cost cancer treatments may be more common in non-NCI than NCI settings. This may reflect differential implementation of clinical evidence, local practice variation, or possibly a response to the reimbursement incentives presented by chemotherapy billing.Implications for practice: Oncology care delivery and practice patterns may vary between care settings. By comparing otherwise similar patients treated in National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers with those treated elsewhere, this study suggests that patients may be more likely to receive treatment with certain expensive cancer drugs if treated in the non-NCI setting. These practice differences may result in differences in patient costs and outcomes as a result of where they receive treatment.

Project description:BackgroundStructured reporting and standardized criteria are increasingly recognized as means of improving both radiological and clinical practice by allowing for better content and clarity. Our aim was to examine oncologists' opinions and expectations concerning the radiologist's report to identify general needs in daily practice and ways to improve interdisciplinary communication.MethodsA 19-question survey was sent to 230 oncologists from three different countries (France, Romania, Switzerland) identified on the online web pages of different hospitals and private clinics. The survey was sent by electronic mail with an online survey program (Google Forms®). All recipients were informed of the purpose of the study. The data were collected by the online survey program and analysed through filtering the results and cross-tabulation.ResultsA total of 52 responses were received (response rate of 22.6%). The majority of the respondents (46/52, 88%) preferred the structured report, which follows a predefined template. Most of the respondents (40/52, 77%) used RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST in tumour assessment. Nearly half of the oncologists (21/52, 40%) measured 1-3 cases per week. On a 10-point Likert scale, 34/52 (65%) oncologists rated their overall level of satisfaction with radiologists' service between 7 and 10. In contrast, 12/52 (19%) oncologists rated the radiologists' service between 1 and 4. Moreover, 42/52 (80%) oncologists acknowledged that reports created by a radiologist with a subspecialty in oncologic imaging were superior to those created by a general radiologist.ConclusionStructured reports in oncologic patients and the use of RECIST criteria are preferred by oncologists in their daily clinical practice, which signals the need for radiologists also to implement such reports to facilitate communication. Furthermore, most of the oncologists we interviewed recognized the added value provided by radiologists specializing in oncologic imaging. Because this subspecialty is present in only a few countries, generally in large clinics, further training might become a challenge; nevertheless, intensive efforts should be made to enhance expertise in cancer imaging.

Project description:PurposeWe aimed to assess perceptions of, and training regarding, the publishing process among US radiation oncology (RO) residents, focusing on awareness and understanding of criteria for selecting appropriate and legitimate peer-reviewed journals for academic publishing. The growing challenge of predatory publication in the broader scientific realm and its relevancy to resident training is also briefly discussed.Methods and materialsA survey was opened to residents of all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited RO programs in the United States, focusing on 3 categories: (1) demographics; (2) submission, peer review, and publication of academic research; and (3) subjective ranking of factors for choosing an appropriate publisher/journal. Results were stratified by level of training and number of publications.ResultsOverall, 150 of 690 residents (19.8%) responded, with a 98% (147 of 150) completion rate. Twenty of 150 residents (13.3%) reported formal training in manuscript preparation and choosing academic journals. Only 3.4% of residents reported departmental guidelines regarding publication in "predatory" journals; 57.7% were unsure. The 3 most important factors influencing publisher and journal choice were impact factor (ranked first for 59.0%), whether a journal is found in a major index (ranked first for 18.0%), and association with a reputable organization (ranked first for 17.0%). Importance of impact factor increased with number of publications (50% with 0 publications, 48.3% with 1-5, 63.9% with 5-10, 76.2% with 10-15, and 70.6% with >15). Cost considerations influenced journal choice at least once for 79 (52.7%) residents.ConclusionsImpact factor was the most important consideration for residents when choosing an appropriate publisher, with increased emphasis with increasing number of publications. A minority had formal training in choosing appropriate academic journals and knowing how to identify so-called predatory journals or were aware if their department has proscriptions regarding publication in such journals. Additional emphasis on formal training for RO residents in manuscript preparation and choosing academic journals is warranted.