Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Diversity Among Academic Surgical Leaders in the US.

Importance: Surgical department chairs remain conspicuously nondiverse despite the recognized importance of diverse physician workforces. However, the extent of diversity among non-chair leadership remains underexplored. Objective: To evaluate racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of surgical department chairs, vice chairs (VCs), and division chiefs (DCs) in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this cross-sectional study, publicly accessible medical school and affiliated hospital websites in the US and Puerto Rico were searched from January 15 to July 15, 2022, to collect demographic and leadership data about surgical faculty. Two independent reviewers abstracted demographic data, with up to 2 additional reviewers assisting with coding resolution as necessary. In all, 2165 faculty were included in the analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportions of racial, ethnic, and gender diversity among chairs, VCs, and DCs in general surgery and 5 surgical specialties (neurosurgery, obstetrics and gynecology, ophthalmology, orthopedics, and otolaryngology). Results: A total of 2165 faculty (1815 males [83.8%] and 350 females [16.2%]; 109 [5.0%] African American or Black individuals; 347 [16.0%] Asian individuals; 83 [3.8%] Hispanic, Latino, or individuals of Spanish origin; and 1624 [75.0%] White individuals as well as 2 individuals [0.1%] of other race or ethnicity) at 154 surgical departments affiliated with 146 medical schools in the US and Puerto Rico were included in the analysis. There were more males than females in leadership positions at all levels-chairs (85.9% vs 14.1%), VCs (68.4% vs 31.6%), and DCs (87.1% vs 12.9%)-and only 192 leaders (8.9%) were from racial or ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine (URiM). Females occupied more VC than chair or DC positions both overall (31.6% vs 14.1% and 12.9%, respectively) and within racial and ethnic groups (African American or Black females, 4.0% VC vs 1.5% chair and 0.6% DC positions; P < .001). URiM individuals were most commonly VCs of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI, 51.6%) or faculty development (17.9%). Vice chairs of faculty development were split equally between males and females, while 64.5% of VCs for DEI were female. All other VCs were predominantly male. Among DC roles, URiM representation was greatest in transplant surgery (13.8%) and lowest in oral and maxillofacial surgery (5.0%). Except for breast and endocrine surgery (63.6% female), females comprised less than 20% of DC roles. Nearly half of DCs (6 of 13 [46.2%]) and VCs (4 of 9 [44.4%]) had no female URiM leaders, and notably, no American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals were identified in any surgical leadership positions. Conclusions and Relevance: While it is unclear whether promotion from VC to chair or from DC to chair is more likely, these findings of similar gender distribution between chairs and DCs suggest the latter and may partially explain persistent nondiversity among surgical chairs. Female and URiM surgical leaders are disproportionately clustered in roles (eg, VCs of DEI or faculty development) that may not translate into future promotion to department chairs.

In their own words: a qualitative study of coping mechanisms employed by patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

PURPOSE: Positive coping mediates improved outcomes from integrated palliative care in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We qualitatively explored patients' coping mechanisms to better understand this relationship. METHODS: We enrolled patients with high-risk AML admitted to Duke Hospital's inpatient hematologic malignancy service for intensive chemotherapy. This study is a secondary analysis of previously collected longitudinal qualitative data, with interviews conducted between February 2014 and August 2015. Interviews were coded in NVivo to identify examples of approach-oriented and avoidant coping. RESULTS: Patients demonstrated approach-oriented coping in many forms including acceptance, positive reframing, active coping, religious coping, and social coping. Acceptance included accepting their prognosis, the uncertainty of AML, and lifestyle changes due to the disease. Patients exhibited positive reframing by speculating about how their situation could be worse, deriving meaning from their experience, and expressing newfound appreciation for activities previously taken for granted. Social coping involved patients receiving support from their community or care team; however, some expressed guilt for being a "burden" on family. Avoidant coping included denial, behavioral disengagement, and self-blame. Some denied their prognosis, but denial was more commonly demonstrated via patients cognitively distancing themselves from their disease. Much of the behavioral disengagement described by patients was attributed to their symptoms (i.e., lethargy) which prevented patients from maintaining relationships or participating in activities previously enjoyed. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate the diverse and nuanced applications of coping mechanisms amid a recent AML diagnosis. Future research should examine coping in the context of novel low-intensity AML therapies.

"More than conquerors": a qualitative analysis of war metaphors for patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Meaning-making is fundamental to the cancer experience and communication within cancer care is saturated with metaphors. The objective of this study was to better understand the impact and function of war metaphors among patients with cancer. METHODS: Patients at the Duke Cancer Center were purposively sampled for inclusion based on type and stage of their cancer. Each patient underwent a semi-structured interview to explore their use of metaphors in their lived experience with cancer. Qualitative interviews broadly explored two key areas of interest: (1) frequency and use of metaphors to describe cancer diagnosis, treatment, or survivorship; (2) function and impact of the war metaphor on the patient experience of cancer. RESULTS: Fifteen participants with either breast, lung, or colorectal cancer were interviewed. Most patients used metaphor themes of journey, war, and mystery to describe their cancer. All patients with non-metastatic disease used war metaphors and described how these metaphors facilitated meaning-making by promoting positivity and situating cancer within a larger life story. The few patients who did not use war metaphors had metastatic disease, and they explained that war metaphors were unhelpful due to feeling a lack of control over their metastatic disease and outcomes. CONCLUSION: The war metaphor should remain an integral part of cancer care. Disregarding war metaphors robs patients of an important framework for meaning-making-one that may promote strength, continuity, and resilience in navigating cancer.