Mudit Chowdhary1, Jeffrey M Switchenko2, Neilayan Sen3, Arpit M Chhabra4, Leah M Katz5, Naresh K Jegadeesh3, Parul N Barry3, Dian Wang3, Trevor J Royce6, Walter J Curran7, Neha Vapiwala8, Lynn D Wilson9, Ross A Abrams3, Gaurav Marwaha3, Kirtesh R Patel9. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: mchowdharymd@gmail.com. 2. Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Shared Resource, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland. 5. New York-Presbyterian Hudson Valley Hospital, Peekskill, New York. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 9. Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the role of radiation oncology (RO) graduates' application patterns and personal preferences in current labor concerns. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An anonymous, voluntary survey was distributed to 665 domestic RO graduates from 2013 to 2017. Questions assessed graduates' regional (Northeast [NE]; Midwest [MW]; South [SO]; West [WT]) job type and population size preferences. Top regional choice was compared across other categorical and numerical variables using the χ2 test and analysis of variance, respectively. RESULTS: Complete responses were obtained from 299 (45.0% response rate) participants: 82 (27.4%), 74 (24.7%), 85 (28.4%), and 58 (19.4%) graduated from NE, MW, SO, and WT programs. The most to least commonly applied regions were SO (69.2%), MW (55.9%), and then NE/WT (55.2% each). The first and last regional choices were the WT (29.4%) and MW (15.7%), respectively. The most and least common application and top choice preferences were consistent in terms of city size: >500,000 (86.0% and 64.5%, respectively) and <100,001 (26.1% and 7.0%, respectively). The majority of applicants applied to both academic and nonacademic positions (60.9%), with top job type choice being equally split. The majority of respondents independently received a job offer in their preferred region (75.3%), city population size (72.6%) or job type (81.9%). Additionally, 52.5% received a job offer that included all three preferences. Those who underwent residency training (44.3% vs 62.0%-83.6%, P < .001) or medical schooling (50.7% vs 56.3%-75.6%, P < .001) or grew up in the MW (60.8% vs 70.0%-74.7%, P < .001) were least likely to choose this region as their top regional choice compared with other regions. CONCLUSIONS: The MW and jobs in smaller cities are less appealing to RO graduates, even if they receive training in the MW, which may contribute to current job market concerns. Nonetheless, the majority of respondents received a job offer in the region, population size, and job type of their top choice. Assessing prospective candidates' city size and geographic preferences and prioritizing applicants who are compatible with positions may help address potential job market discrepancies.
PURPOSE: To examine the role of radiation oncology (RO) graduates' application patterns and personal preferences in current labor concerns. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An anonymous, voluntary survey was distributed to 665 domestic RO graduates from 2013 to 2017. Questions assessed graduates' regional (Northeast [NE]; Midwest [MW]; South [SO]; West [WT]) job type and population size preferences. Top regional choice was compared across other categorical and numerical variables using the χ2 test and analysis of variance, respectively. RESULTS: Complete responses were obtained from 299 (45.0% response rate) participants: 82 (27.4%), 74 (24.7%), 85 (28.4%), and 58 (19.4%) graduated from NE, MW, SO, and WT programs. The most to least commonly applied regions were SO (69.2%), MW (55.9%), and then NE/WT (55.2% each). The first and last regional choices were the WT (29.4%) and MW (15.7%), respectively. The most and least common application and top choice preferences were consistent in terms of city size: >500,000 (86.0% and 64.5%, respectively) and <100,001 (26.1% and 7.0%, respectively). The majority of applicants applied to both academic and nonacademic positions (60.9%), with top job type choice being equally split. The majority of respondents independently received a job offer in their preferred region (75.3%), city population size (72.6%) or job type (81.9%). Additionally, 52.5% received a job offer that included all three preferences. Those who underwent residency training (44.3% vs 62.0%-83.6%, P < .001) or medical schooling (50.7% vs 56.3%-75.6%, P < .001) or grew up in the MW (60.8% vs 70.0%-74.7%, P < .001) were least likely to choose this region as their top regional choice compared with other regions. CONCLUSIONS: The MW and jobs in smaller cities are less appealing to RO graduates, even if they receive training in the MW, which may contribute to current job market concerns. Nonetheless, the majority of respondents received a job offer in the region, population size, and job type of their top choice. Assessing prospective candidates' city size and geographic preferences and prioritizing applicants who are compatible with positions may help address potential job market discrepancies.
Authors: Nima Nabavizadeh; Lindsay M Burt; Brandon R Mancini; Zachary S Morris; Amanda J Walker; Seth M Miller; Shripal Bhavsar; Pranshu Mohindra; Miranda B Kim; Jordan Kharofa Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sanjay Aneja; Benjamin D Smith; Cary P Gross; Lynn D Wilson; Bruce G Haffty; Kenneth Roberts; James B Yu Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-04-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Lindsay M Burt; Daniel M Trifiletti; Nima Nabavizadeh; Leah M Katz; Zachary S Morris; Trevor J Royce Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Douglas O Staiger; Samuel M Marshall; David C Goodman; David I Auerbach; Peter I Buerhaus Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mudit Chowdhary; Arpit M Chhabra; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Jaymin Jhaveri; Neilayan Sen; Pretesh R Patel; Walter J Curran; Ross A Abrams; Kirtesh R Patel; Gaurav Marwaha Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sean Maroongroge; Benjamin Smith; Elizabeth S Bloom; Matthew S Ning; Chenyang Wang; Prajnan Das; Albert C Koong; Mary Frances McAleer; Kristina D Woodhouse Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038