Search

Purpose: Understanding the pathways and gateways to leadership and challenges faced by individuals in such roles can inform efforts to promote diversity and equity. We sought to describe the professional experiences and personal characteristics of academic radiation oncology (RO) chairs and to evaluate whether differences exist by gender., Methods and Materials: Anonymous surveys were distributed to 95 chairs of RO departments during the 2016 annual meeting of the Society of Chairs of Academic Radiation Oncology Programs. The surveys included 28 closed-ended questions and the Leadership Practices Inventory. Results were analyzed by gender using χ 2 tests, rank-sum, and t tests (significance P < .05)., Results: A total of 72 chairs responded (61 male, 10 female, 1 declined to identify gender) for a response rate of 76%. There were no significant gender differences in age, academic rank, publications, or prior leadership positions held at the time of the first chair appointment, but female respondents held significantly greater total direct funding from extramural grants than their male counterparts (median, $1.89 million [interquartile range, $0.5-$5 million] vs $0.25 million [interquartile range, $0-$1.0 million]; P = .006). Women were more likely to have spouses employed outside the home at time of their first chair appointment than men were, with a trend toward women experiencing greater difficulty relocating. Men and women identified budgeting and resource allocation as their greatest professional challenges. There were no gender differences in the Leadership Practices Inventory-identified leadership domains or professional goals., Conclusions: Female RO chairs are as equally qualified as men in terms of productivity or leadership skills, but they face distinct challenges in the context of a gender-structured society. The observation of higher grant funding among women at the time of chair appointment suggests a possible need for interventions such as unconscious bias training to ensure that selection processes do not unnecessarily hold women to a higher standard., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Given the importance of access to key resources to ensure future academic success, we seek to describe what is currently provided to junior faculty in radiation oncology., Methods and Materials: We present descriptive analyses from a survey of academic radiation oncologists in the United States and Canada who were within 5 years of board certification. We used a pretested questionnaire evaluating time, space, staff, start-up funding, and compensation., Results: We surveyed 347 faculty, with a response rate of 64% (n = 221). Respondents reported working an average of 56 hours per week. Most respondents (59.2%) reported that that their research time was "poorly" or "not at all" protected. Most perceived adequate access to space (75.7%) and equipment (73.6%). A substantial proportion perceived inadequate or no access to support from grant administrators (47.9%) or statisticians (55.5%). A third (33.6%) reported having a research assistant, and 22.2% received start-up research funding., Conclusions: These findings suggest perceived needs for protected time, grants administration, and statistical support among junior faculty in radiation oncology., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: A lack of diversity has been observed in radiation oncology (RO), with women and certain racial/ethnic groups underrepresented as trainees, faculty, and practicing physicians. We sought to gain a nuanced understanding of how to best promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) based on the insights of RO department chairs, with particular attention given to the experiences of the few women and underrepresented minorities (URMs) in these influential positions., Methods and Materials: From March to June 2016, we conducted telephone interviews with 24 RO department chairs (of 27 invited). Purposive sampling was used to invite all chairs who were women (n = 13) or URMs (n = 3) and 11 male chairs who were not URMs. Multiple analysts coded the verbatim transcripts., Results: Five themes were identified: (1) commitment to DEI promotes quality health care and innovation; (2) gaps remain despite some progress with promoting diversity in RO; (3) women and URM faculty continue to experience challenges in various career domains; (4) solutions to DEI issues would be facilitated by acknowledging realities of gender and race; and (5) expansion of the career pipeline is needed., Conclusions: The chairs' insights had policy-relevant implications. Bias training should broach tokenism, blindness, and intersectionality. Efforts to recruit and support diverse talent should be deliberate and proactive. Bridge programs could engage students before their application to medical school., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)