Professional Experiences and Career Trajectories of Mid- to Senior-Career Women Clinician-Scientists: A Qualitative Study.

Importance: Despite increasing evidence and recognition of persistent gender disparities in academic medicine, qualitative data detailing the association of gender-based experiences with career progression remain sparse, particularly at the mid- to senior-career stage. Objective: To investigate the role gender has played in everyday professional experiences of mid- to senior-career women clinician-scientists and their perceptions of gender-related barriers experienced across their careers. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this qualitative study, a total of 60 of 159 invited clinician-scientists who received National Institutes of Health K08 or K23 awards between 2006 and 2009 and responded to a survey in 2021 agreed to participate. Invitees were selected using random, purposive sampling to support sample heterogeneity. Semistructured in-depth interviews were conducted January to May 2022. For this study, interviews from 31 women were analyzed using the framework approach to thematic analysis. Data analyses were performed between August and October 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive themes of participant experiences of gender and gender-based barriers in academic medicine. Results: A total of 31 women clinician-scientists (8 identifying as Asian [25.8%], 14 identifying as White [45.2%], and 9 identifying as members of a minority group underrepresented in medicine [29.0%]; 14 aged 40-49 years [45.2%] and 14 aged 50-59 years [45.2%]) were included. Among them, 17 participants (54.8%) had children who required adult supervision or care, 7 participants (22.6%) had children who did not require supervision or care, and 6 participants (19.4%) did not have children. There were 4 dominant themes identified within participant experiences in academic medicine: the mental burden of gendered expectations at work and home, inequitable treatment of women in bureaucratic processes, subtle and less subtle professional exclusion of women, and value of communities built on shared identities, experiences, and solidarity. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that women perceived the institution of academic medicine as a male-centric system misaligned with the needs of women, with associated feelings of exclusion, disillusionment, and loss of trust in their institutions. Findings suggest that the confluence of domestic obligations and unaccommodating institutional environments may make it difficult for women clinician-scientists to achieve established timelines of career progression and productivity; these findings may have long-term implications for the well-being and retention of women in academic medicine.

The Disproportionate Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Time Allocation of Recipients of NIH Career Development Awards Who Are Women or Caregivers of Dependents.

PURPOSE: To understand time allocation of a national medical faculty cohort 1.5-2 years after the COVID-19 pandemic began, compared to before. METHOD: From August 2021-April 2022, the authors conducted a retrospective survey of 1,430 clinician-researchers who received National Institutes of Health career-development awards between 2006-2009 asking about domestic and professional time allocation pre-pandemic and at the time of surveys (TOS). Of 915 respondents (64%), the 830 who remained in academic positions constituted the analytic sample. Multivariable regression models identified demographic factors associated with each time outcome and change in time between pre-pandemic and TOS, and having experienced ≥8-hour increase of total self-reported weekly professional work hours and domestic labor hours. RESULTS: Median self-reported weekly professional work hours were 55 hours/week pre- pandemic and 60 at TOS. On multivariable analysis, significant predictors of self-reported weekly professional work hours at TOS were having a non-child other dependent (+2.6 hours, P = .03), academic rank (associate -3.1 hours, assistant -9.0 hours; P < .001), and specialty (P < .001). Average self-reported TOS weekly domestic-labor hours were 23.1 among men and 30.2 among women (P < .001). Predictors of total self-reported TOS weekly domestic hours were being a woman (+5.6 hours; P < .001) and having children requiring supervision (+10.2 hours; P < .001). Overall, 9.3% of men (42/450) and 21.6% of women (88/407) experienced a ≥ 8 hour increase in domestic labor (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, women had higher odds of substantial domestic-labor increase (OR = 2.33, 95% CI: 1.47, 3.68), as did those with children requiring supervision (OR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.25, 2.98) or other dependents (OR = 1.83, 95% CI: 1.13, 2.98). CONCLUSIONS: This study illuminates demands on women and faculty with dependents during the COVID-19 pandemic and suggests increased flexibility and resources are of heightened importance.

Workplace Harassment, Cyber Incivility, and Climate in Academic Medicine.

Importance: The culture of academic medicine may foster mistreatment that disproportionately affects individuals who have been marginalized within a given society (minoritized groups) and compromises workforce vitality. Existing research has been limited by a lack of comprehensive, validated measures, low response rates, and narrow samples as well as comparisons limited to the binary gender categories of male or female assigned at birth (cisgender). Objective: To evaluate academic medical culture, faculty mental health, and their relationship. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 830 faculty members in the US received National Institutes of Health career development awards from 2006-2009, remained in academia, and responded to a 2021 survey that had a response rate of 64%. Experiences were compared by gender, race and ethnicity (using the categories of Asian, underrepresented in medicine [defined as race and ethnicity other than Asian or non-Hispanic White], and White), and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ+) status. Multivariable models were used to explore associations between experiences of culture (climate, sexual harassment, and cyber incivility) with mental health. Exposures: Minoritized identity based on gender, race and ethnicity, and LGBTQ+ status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three aspects of culture were measured as the primary outcomes: organizational climate, sexual harassment, and cyber incivility using previously developed instruments. The 5-item Mental Health Inventory (scored from 0 to 100 points with higher values indicating better mental health) was used to evaluate the secondary outcome of mental health. Results: Of the 830 faculty members, there were 422 men, 385 women, 2 in nonbinary gender category, and 21 who did not identify gender; there were 169 Asian respondents, 66 respondents underrepresented in medicine, 572 White respondents, and 23 respondents who did not report their race and ethnicity; and there were 774 respondents who identified as cisgender and heterosexual, 31 as having LGBTQ+ status, and 25 who did not identify status. Women rated general climate (5-point scale) more negatively than men (mean, 3.68 [95% CI, 3.59-3.77] vs 3.96 [95% CI, 3.88-4.04], respectively, P < .001). Diversity climate ratings differed significantly by gender (mean, 3.72 [95% CI, 3.64-3.80] for women vs 4.16 [95% CI, 4.09-4.23] for men, P < .001) and by race and ethnicity (mean, 4.0 [95% CI, 3.88-4.12] for Asian respondents, 3.71 [95% CI, 3.50-3.92] for respondents underrepresented in medicine, and 3.96 [95% CI, 3.90-4.02] for White respondents, P = .04). Women were more likely than men to report experiencing gender harassment (sexist remarks and crude behaviors) (71.9% [95% CI, 67.1%-76.4%] vs 44.9% [95% CI, 40.1%-49.8%], respectively, P < .001). Respondents with LGBTQ+ status were more likely to report experiencing sexual harassment than cisgender and heterosexual respondents when using social media professionally (13.3% [95% CI, 1.7%-40.5%] vs 2.5% [95% CI, 1.2%-4.6%], respectively, P = .01). Each of the 3 aspects of culture and gender were significantly associated with the secondary outcome of mental health in the multivariable analysis. Conclusions and Relevance: High rates of sexual harassment, cyber incivility, and negative organizational climate exist in academic medicine, disproportionately affecting minoritized groups and affecting mental health. Ongoing efforts to transform culture are necessary.

Health Data Sharing Perspectives of Patients Receiving Care in CancerLinQ-Participating Oncology Practices.

PURPOSE: CancerLinQ seeks to use data sharing technology to improve quality of care, improve health outcomes, and advance evidence-based research. Understanding the experiences and concerns of patients is vital to ensure its trustworthiness and success. METHODS: In a survey of 1,200 patients receiving care in four CancerLinQ-participating practices, we evaluated awareness and attitudes regarding participation in data sharing. RESULTS: Of 684 surveys received (response rate 57%), 678 confirmed cancer diagnosis and constituted the analytic sample; 54% were female, and 70% were 60 years and older; 84% were White. Half (52%) were aware of the existence of nationwide databases focused on patients with cancer before the survey. A minority (27%) indicated that their doctors or staff had informed them about such databases, 61% of whom indicated that doctors or staff had explained how to opt out of data sharing. Members of racial/ethnic minority groups were less likely to be comfortable with research (88% v 95%; P = .002) or quality improvement uses (91% v 95%; P = .03) of shared data. Most respondents desired to know how their health information was used (70%), especially those of minority race/ethnicity (78% v 67% of non-Hispanic White respondents; P = .01). Under half (45%) felt that electronic health information was sufficiently protected by current law, and most (74%) favored an official body for data governance and oversight with representation of patients (72%) and physicians (94%). Minority race/ethnicity was associated with increased concern about data sharing (odds ratio [OR], 2.92; P < .001). Women were less concerned about data sharing than men (OR, 0.61; P = .001), and higher trust in oncologist was negatively associated with concern (OR, 0.75; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Engaging patients and respecting their perspectives is essential as systems like CancerLinQ evolve.

Mentoring Underrepresented Minority Physician-Scientists to Success.

As the nation seeks to recruit and retain physician-scientists, gaps remain in understanding and addressing mitigatable challenges to the success of faculty from underrepresented minority (URM) backgrounds. The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists program, implemented in 2015 at 10 academic medical centers in the United States, seeks to retain physician-scientists at risk of leaving science because of periods of extraordinary family caregiving needs, hardships that URM faculty-especially those who identify as female-are more likely to experience. At the annual Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists program directors conference in 2018, program directors-21% of whom identify as URM individuals and 13% as male-addressed issues that affect URM physician-scientists in particular. Key issues that threaten the retention of URM physician-scientists were identified through focused literature reviews; institutional environmental scans; and structured small- and large-group discussions with program directors, staff, and participants. These issues include bias and discrimination, personal wealth differential, the minority tax (i.e., service burdens placed on URM faculty who represent URM perspectives on committees and at conferences), lack of mentorship training, intersectionality and isolation, concerns about confirming stereotypes, and institutional-level factors. The authors present recommendations for how to create an environment in which URM physician-scientists can expect equitable opportunities to thrive, as institutions demonstrate proactive allyship and remove structural barriers to success. Recommendations include providing universal training to reduce interpersonal bias and discrimination, addressing the consequences of the personal wealth gap through financial counseling and benefits, measuring the service faculty members provide to the institution as advocates for URM faculty issues and compensating them appropriately, supporting URM faculty who wish to engage in national leadership programs, and sustaining institutional policies that address structural and interpersonal barriers to inclusive excellence.

Patient Experiences, Trust, and Preferences for Health Data Sharing.

PURPOSE: Scholars have examined patients' attitudes toward secondary use of routinely collected clinical data for research and quality improvement. Evidence suggests that trust in health care organizations and physicians is critical. Less is known about experiences that shape trust and how they influence data sharing preferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To explore learning health care system (LHS) ethics, democratic deliberations were hosted from June 2017 to May 2018. A total of 217 patients with cancer participated in facilitated group discussion. Transcripts were coded independently. Finalized codes were organized into themes using interpretive description and thematic analysis. Two previous analyses reported on patient preferences for consent and data use; this final analysis focuses on the influence of personal lived experiences of the health care system, including interactions with providers and insurers, on trust and preferences for data sharing. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis identified four domains of patients' lived experiences raised in the context of the policy discussions: (1) the quality of care received, (2) the impact of health care costs, (3) the transparency and communication displayed by a provider or an insurer to the patient, and (4) the extent to which care coordination was hindered or facilitated by the interchange between a provider and an insurer. Patients discussed their trust in health care decision makers and their opinions about LHS data sharing. CONCLUSION: Additional resources, infrastructure, regulations, and practice innovations are needed to improve patients' experiences with and trust in the health care system. Those who seek to build LHSs may also need to consider improvement in other aspects of care delivery.

Insights from an Intervention to Support Early Career Faculty with Extraprofessional Caregiving Responsibilities.

Background: Insufficient support for balancing career and family responsibilities hinders retention of physician-scientists. Programs to improve retention of this important group of faculty are crucial. Understanding the experiences of program implementers is key to refining and improving program offerings. Methods: We conducted an interpretive, descriptive, and qualitative study as part of an ongoing evaluation of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation's Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS) awards. We conducted telephone interviews with 12 program directors representing all 10 US medical schools who received the Doris Duke funding in 2016. Results: Of the 12 participants, 10 were women (83.3%). Participating program directors perceived the FRCS award as capable of producing paradigmatic changes regarding how responsibilities at home and work in academic medicine are viewed and integrated by early-career faculty members. The main qualitative themes that captured directors' experiences implementing the program were as follows: (1) championing a new paradigm of support, (2) lessons learned while implementing the new paradigm, (3) results of the new paradigm, and (4) sustaining the paradigm. Conclusions: These findings may help to inform development of similar programs to retain and support the career progress of physician-scientists with extraprofessional caregiving responsibilities. The interviews illuminate ways in which the Doris Duke FRCS award has driven institutional culture change by normalizing discussion and prompted reassessment of extraprofessional challenges and how best to aid early-career faculty members in overcoming these challenges.

Governance of a Learning Health Care System for Oncology: Patient Recommendations.

PURPOSE: The learning health care system (LHS) was designed to enable real-time learning and research by harnessing data generated during patients' clinical encounters. This novel approach begets ethical questions regarding the oversight of users and uses of patient data. Understanding patients' perspectives is vitally important. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted democratic deliberation sessions focused on CancerLinQ, a real-world LHS. Experts presented educational content, and then small group discussions were held to elicit viewpoints. The deliberations centered around whether policies should permit or deny certain users and uses of secondary data. De-identified transcripts of the discussions were examined by using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Analysis identified two thematic clusters: expectations and concerns, which seemed to inform LHS governance recommendations. Participants expected to benefit from the LHS through the advancement of medical knowledge, which they hoped would improve treatments and the quality of their care. They were concerned that profit-driven users might manipulate the data in ways that could burden or exploit patients, hinder medical decisions, or compromise patient-provider communication. It was recommended that restricted access, user fees, and penalties should be imposed to prevent users, especially for-profit entities, from misusing data. Another suggestion was that patients should be notified of potential ethical issues and included on diverse, unbiased governing boards. CONCLUSION: If patients are to trust and support LHS endeavors, their concerns about for-profit users must be addressed. The ethical implementation of such systems should consist of patient representation on governing boards, transparency, and strict oversight of for-profit users.

Patient Preferences Regarding Informed Consent Models for Participation in a Learning Health Care System for Oncology.

PURPOSE: The expansion of learning health care systems (LHSs) promises to bolster research and quality improvement endeavors. Stewards of patient data have a duty to respect the preferences of the patients from whom, and for whom, these data are being collected and consolidated. METHODS: We conducted democratic deliberations with a diverse sample of 217 patients treated at 4 sites to assess views about LHSs, using the example of CancerLinQ, a real-world LHS, to stimulate discussion. In small group discussions, participants deliberated about different policies for how to provide information and to seek consent regarding the inclusion of patient data. These discussions were recorded, transcribed, and de-identified for thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of participants, 67% were female, 61% were non-Hispanic Whites, and the mean age was 60 years. Patients' opinions about sharing their data illuminated 2 spectra: trust/distrust and individualism/collectivism. Positions on these spectra influenced the weight placed on 3 priorities: promoting societal altruism, ensuring respect for persons, and protecting themselves. In turn, consideration of these priorities seemed to inform preferences regarding patient choices and system transparency. Most advocated for a policy whereby patients would receive notification and have the opportunity to opt out of including their medical records in the LHS. Participants reasoned that such a policy would balance personal protections and societal welfare. CONCLUSION: System transparency and patient choice are vital if patients are to feel respected and to trust LHS endeavors. Those responsible for LHS implementation should ensure that all patients receive an explanation of their options, together with standardized, understandable, comprehensive materials.

From Stigma to Validation: A Qualitative Assessment of a Novel National Program to Improve Retention of Physician-Scientists with Caregiving Responsibilities.

Background: Research is needed to improve understanding of work-life integration issues in academic medicine and to guide the implementation of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation's Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS), a national initiative offering financial support to physician-scientists facing caregiving challenges. Materials and Methods: In 2018, as part of a prospective program evaluation, the authors conducted a qualitative study to examine FRCS program participants' initial impressions, solicit descriptions of their career and caregiving experiences, and inquire how such factors might influence their professional advancement. The authors invited all 33 awardees who had been granted FRCS funding in the first year of the program to participate in the study, of whom 28 agreed to complete an interview. Analysts evaluated de-identified transcripts and explicated the data using a thematic analysis approach. Results: While participants described aspects of a culture that harbor stigma against caregivers and impede satisfactory work-life integration, they also perceived an optimistic cultural shift taking place as a result of programs like the FRCS. Their comments indicated that the FRCS has the potential to influence culture if institutional leadership simultaneously fosters a community that validates individuals both as caregivers and as scientists. Conclusions: Insights garnered from this qualitative study suggest that there is a pressing need for institutional leaders to implement programs that can foster awareness and normalization of caregiving challenges. In addition to providing funding and other tangible resources, interventions should strive to reinforce a broader culture that affirms the presence of work-life integration challenges and openly embraces solutions.

Women's Representation Among Members and Leaders of National Medical Specialty Societies.

PURPOSE: National medical specialty societies speak for their respective fields in policy debates, influence research, affect trainees' specialization decisions, provide career development opportunities, and confer awards and recognitions. This study provides a comprehensive overview of the gender demographics of society members and leaders. METHOD: In 2016, the Group on Women in Medicine and Science (of the Association of American Medical Colleges) sought to characterize the gender of members and leaders of specialty societies from 2000 to 2015. This report provides descriptive data, including how many of the responding societies (representing each of 30 major medical specialties) had substantial (> 10%) increases in women's representation among leadership between the first and second halves of the study period. RESULTS: The average proportion of full members who were female in responding societies was 25.4% in 2005 and 29.3% in 2015. The proportion of women among those serving as the highest-ranking elected leader between 2000 and 2015 in each specialty ranged from 0% to 37.5% (mean, 15.8%). The mean proportion of women on governing boards ranged from 0% to 37.3% (mean of means, 18.8%) in 2000-2007 and from 0% to 47.6% (mean of means, 25.2%) in 2008-2015. In 9 specialties, the mean percentage of women serving on governing boards increased by over 10% from the first to the second half of the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Although many women are full members of specialty societies, women still constitute a minority of leaders. This report establishes a baseline from which to evaluate the effect of societies' efforts to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Perceptions of Pressures to Alter or Misrepresent Time Allocation Among Clinician-Researchers With NIH Career Development Awards.

PURPOSE: National Institutes of Health career development (K) awards mandate specific allocations of effort to research and training. The authors sought to understand pressures perceived by award recipients to change or misrepresent effort, and whether these perceptions differed by gender. METHOD: In 2010-2011 and 2014, the authors surveyed K08 and K23 award recipients. Questions evaluated perceived pressure to change or misrepresent time allocation. Multivariable logistic regression modeling of pressure to misrepresent effort evaluated associations with individual and basic job characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 1,719 faculty in the initial target population, 493 women and 573 men (1,066, 62%) responded at both time points. Most respondents reported feeling pressure to increase time spent on professional activities other than their K award-related research or career development or to decrease time on their K award-related research. The likelihood of perceiving pressure differed significantly by gender: 68% of women vs 55% of men (P < .001). A minority reported perceiving pressure to misrepresent professional time (women, 29%, vs men, 27%, P = .52). Multivariable analysis revealed that pressure to misrepresent professional time was less likely among respondents at institutions with the most extramural funding (P = .02). A significant pairwise interaction between gender and K award type suggested that female K08 awardees had higher odds than male peers of perceiving pressure to misrepresent time. CONCLUSIONS: Most K award recipients reported feeling pressure to do more non-K award-related activities. More than a quarter reported feeling pressure to misrepresent effort. Additional research is needed to evaluate the proportion of academic medical faculty who actually misrepresent professional effort.

Effect of Public Deliberation on Patient Attitudes Regarding Consent and Data Use in a Learning Health Care System for Oncology.

PURPOSE: We sought to generate informed and considered opinions regarding acceptable secondary uses of deidentified health information and consent models for oncology learning health care systems. METHODS: Day-long democratic deliberation sessions included 217 patients with cancer at four geographically and sociodemographically diverse sites. Patients completed three surveys (at baseline, immediately after deliberation, and 1-month follow-up). RESULTS: Participants were 67.3% female, 21.7% black, and 6.0% Hispanic. The most notable changes in perceptions after deliberation related to use of deidentified medical-record data by insurance companies. After discussion, 72.3% of participants felt comfortable if the purpose was to make sure patients receive recommended care (v 79.5% at baseline; P = .03); 24.9% felt comfortable if the purpose was to determine eligibility for coverage or reimbursement (v 50.9% at baseline; P < .001). The most notable change about secondary research use related to believing it was important that doctors ask patients at least once whether researchers can use deidentified medical-records data for future research. The proportion endorsing high importance decreased from baseline (82.2%) to 68.7% immediately after discussion (P < .001), and remained decreased at 73.1% (P = .01) at follow-up. At follow-up, non-Hispanic whites were more likely to consider it highly important to be able to conduct medical research with deidentified electronic health records (96.8% v 87.7%; P = .01) and less likely to consider it highly important for doctors to get a patient's permission each time deidentified medical record information is used for research (23.2% v 51.6%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This research confirms that most patients wish to be asked before deidentified medical records are used for research. Policies designed to realize the potential benefits of learning health care systems can, and should be, grounded in informed and considered public opinion.

The Most Valuable Resource Is Time: Insights From a Novel National Program to Improve Retention of Physician-Scientists With Caregiving Responsibilities.

PURPOSE: To enhance understanding of challenges related to work-life integration in academic medicine and to inform the ongoing implementation of an existing program and the development of other interventions to promote success of physician-scientists. METHOD: This study is part of a prospective analysis of the effects of the Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS), a national program launched by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation at 10 U.S. institutions, which provides financial support to physician-scientists facing caregiving challenges. In early 2018, 28 of 33 program awardees participated in semistructured interviews. Questions were about challenges faced by physician-scientists as caregivers and their early perceptions of the FRCS. Multiple analysts reviewed deidentified transcripts, iteratively revised the coding scheme, and interpreted the data using qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants' rich descriptions illuminated 5 interconnected themes: (1) Time is a critical and limited resource, (2) timing is key, (3) limited time resources and timing conflicts may have a particularly adverse effect on women's careers, (4) flexible funds enable reclamation and repurposing of time resources, and (5) FRCS leaders should be cognizant of time and timing conflicts when developing program-related offerings. CONCLUSIONS: Programs such as the FRCS are instrumental in supporting individuals to delegate time-consuming tasks and to control how they spend their valuable time. Qualitative analysis suggests that access to and command of valuable time resources are crucial to career advancement, research productivity, and work-life flexibility, especially during critical time points along the physician-scientist trajectory.

Gender, Professional Experiences, and Personal Characteristics of Academic Radiation Oncology Chairs: Data to Inform the Pipeline for the 21st Century.

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 χ2 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.

Salary and Resources Provided to Junior Faculty in Radiation Oncology.

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.