RESUMO
PURPOSE: Little is known about the specific needs during training for hematology/oncology providers practicing in community-based settings. We conducted a national survey of hematologists/oncologists employed in community or academic-community hybrid settings to delineate their educational needs. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire was developed and distributed nationally through professional organizations. We primarily assessed whether survey participants received any specific training during fellowship for community-based practice. Participants were also surveyed regarding training experiences that might have affected their preparation. Relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were calculated using modified Poisson regression to identify factors associated with receiving training specifically for community-based settings. RESULTS: Of 125 participants from across 25 states, 63% were male and 58% identified as White. Less than half (41.6%, binomial 95% CI, 32.8 to 50.7) received any training in a community-based setting. Participants identified rotations in community settings (47%), direct mentorship from community-based physicians (40%), and longitudinal clinic in a community setting (36%) as experiences that would have been valuable. Specific curricula of interest included medical operations and administration (63%), health policy (35%), and quality improvement (27%). Respondents in clinical practice for <10 years were more likely to have received any training specifically for a community-based career (RR, 2.13 [95% CI, 1.18 to 3.86]). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates substantial unmet needs as they relate to deliberately training fellows destined for community-based careers. Prospective design of clinical training and curricula emphasizing longitudinal exposures to and key aspects of health care delivery in the community setting are paramount to achieving optimal goal-concordant hematology/oncology training during fellowship.
RESUMO
The capacity and diversity of the oncology leadership workforce has not kept pace with the emerging needs of our increasingly complex cancer centers and the spectrum of challenges our institutions face in reducing the cancer burden in diverse catchment areas. Recognizing the importance of a diverse workforce to reduce cancer inequities, the Association of American Cancer Institutes conducted a survey of its 103 cancer centers to examine diversity in leadership roles from research program leaders to cancer center directors. A total of 82 (80%) centers responded, including 64 National Cancer Institute-designated and 18 emerging centers. Among these 82 respondents, non-Hispanic White individuals comprised 79% of center directors, 82% of deputy directors, 72% of associate directors, and 72% of program leaders. Women are underrepresented in all leadership roles (ranging from 16% for center directors to 45% for associate directors). Although the limited gender, ethnic, and racial diversity of center directors and perhaps deputy directors is less surprising, the demographics of current research program leaders and associate directors exposes a substantial lack of diversity in the traditional cancer center senior leadership pipeline. Sole reliance on the cohort of current center leaders and leadership pipeline is unlikely to produce the diversity in cancer center leadership needed to facilitate the ability of those centers to address the needs of the diverse populations they serve. Informed by these data, this commentary describes some best practices to build a pipeline of emerging leaders who are representative of the diverse populations served by these institutions and who are well positioned to succeed.