Literature DB >> 34564772

Data-Driven Respectful Discourse in the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Camille L Stewart1, Susanne G Warner2, James De Andrade3, Andrew Nguyen2, Martin Heslin4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that professional forms of address in speaker introductions were inconsistently used at the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) 2018 and 2019 annual meetings, suggesting unconscious bias in speaker introductions. We sought to better understand how speakers would like to be introduced, and if guidelines could improve consistency in speaker introductions.
METHODS: SSO 2021 abstract submitters received a survey regarding demographics and preferred form of address at the meeting. Respectful discourse guidelines were developed and distributed to meeting moderators. Speaker introductions were reviewed for the 2021 SSO annual meeting and were compared with the 2018 and 2019 meetings.
RESULTS: The survey response rate was 183/347 (53%) abstract submitters, most of whom (143/183, 78%) indicated preference for a professional form of address (Doctor/Professor) during speaker introductions, which was significantly greater than those who were introduced with a professional form of address during the 2018 and 2019 meetings (351/499, 70%; Chi-square = 4.08, p = 0.043). There was no difference in speaker introduction preference based on gender or race/ethnic identification. Respectful discourse guidelines were developed and distributed to meeting moderators. During the 2021 SSO annual meeting, professional forms of address were used for 104 (84%) speakers, significantly greater than during the 2018 and 2019 meetings (Chi-square = 9.23, p = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: More survey respondents preferred speaker introductions with a professional form of address than were used in prior meetings. This preference was similar across all demographic groups evaluated. Professional addresses during speaker introductions increased significantly after the distribution of guidelines encouraging consistency to decrease unconscious bias and promote an inclusive environment.
© 2021. Society of Surgical Oncology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34564772     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-10808-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  4 in total

1.  Mail versus internet surveys: determinants of method of response preferences among health professionals.

Authors:  Christine Lusk; George L Delclos; Keith Burau; Derek D Drawhorn; Lu Ann Aday
Journal:  Eval Health Prof       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.651

2.  Female Representation and Implicit Gender Bias at the 2017 American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons' Annual Scientific and Tripartite Meeting.

Authors:  Jennifer S Davids; Heather G Lyu; Chau M Hoang; Vijaya T Daniel; Rebecca E Scully; Ting Y Xu; Uma R Phatak; Aneel Damle; Nelya Melnitchouk
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 4.585

Review 3.  Increasing response rates from physicians in oncology research: a structured literature review and data from a recent physician survey.

Authors:  Y Martins; R I Lederman; C L Lowenstein; S Joffe; B A Neville; B T Hastings; G A Abel
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-02-28       Impact factor: 7.640

4.  Assessing gender bias in qualitative evaluations of surgical residents.

Authors:  Katherine M Gerull; Maren Loe; Kristen Seiler; Jared McAllister; Arghavan Salles
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2018-09-29       Impact factor: 2.565

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.