Rochelle D Jones1, Christina H Chapman2, Emma B Holliday3, Nafisha Lalani4, Emily Wilson5, James A Bonner6, Benjamin Movsas7, Shalom Kalnicki8, Silvia C Formenti9, Charles R Thomas10, Stephen M Hahn3, Fei-Fei Liu11, Reshma Jagsi12. 1. Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Society of Chairs of Academic Radiation Oncology Programs and American Society of Radiation Oncology, Alexandria, Virginia. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Hospital System, Detroit, Michigan. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York. 10. Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 11. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto and Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 12. Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: rjagsi@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Jessica M Schuster; Hina Saeed; Lindsay L Puckett; Jean M Moran; Krisha Howell; Charles Thomas; Shannon Offerman; Gita Suneja; Reshma Jagsi Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-03-09
Authors: John A Marsiglio; David M Rosenberg; Michael K Rooney; Chelain R Goodman; Erin F Gillespie; Ariel E Hirsch; Emma B Holliday; Randall J Kimple; Charles R Thomas; Daniel W Golden Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 8.013
Authors: Kelly C Paradis; Kerry A Ryan; Spencer Schmid; Jean M Moran; Anna M Laucis; Christina H Chapman; Terri Bott-Kothari; Joann I Prisciandaro; Samantha J Simiele; James M Balter; Martha M Matuszak; Vrinda Narayana; Reshma Jagsi Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-05-28
Authors: Idalid Franco; Oluwadamilola T Oladeru; Anurag Saraf; Kevin X Liu; Michael Milligan; Anthony Zietman; Paul L Nguyen; Ariel E Hirsch; Rachel B Jimenez Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-09-22