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.

Gender Composition in Biomedical Research Grant Submissions and Grant Review Panels Before Versus During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Purpose: This study examined the gender composition of career development award applicants and grant review panels during the pandemic compared with that beforehand. Methods: Data were collected from 14 Health Research Alliance (HRA) organizations, which fund biomedical research and training. HRA members provided the gender of grant applicants and grant reviewers during the pandemic (April 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021) and prepandemic (April 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020). The signed-rank test compared medians and the chi square test compared the overall gender distribution. Results: The total number of applicants was similar during the pandemic (N = 3,724) and prepandemic (N = 3,882) periods, as was the percentage of women applicants (45.2% pandemic vs. 44.9% prepandemic, p = 0.78). The total number of men and women grant reviewers declined during the pandemic (N = 856) compared with that pre-pandemic (N = 1,689); this decrease was driven by a change for the largest funder. Also driven by changes for this one funder, the percentage of total grant reviewers who were women increased significantly during the pandemic (45.9%) compared with that during prepandemic (38.8%; p = 0.001), but the median percentage of women grant reviewers across organizations remained similar during the pandemic (43.6%) and prepandemic periods (38.2%; p = 0.53). Conclusions: In a sample of research organizations, the gender composition of grant applicants and grant review panels remained similar, except for the review panel composition for one large funder. Given evidence from other studies that have revealed gender differences in other career and life experiences of scientists during the pandemic, ongoing evaluation of women's representation in grant submission and review mechanisms is essential.

Public Attitudes Regarding Hospitals and Physicians Encouraging Donations From Grateful Patients.

Importance: Philanthropy is an increasingly important source of support for health care institutions. There is little empirical evidence to inform ethical guidelines. Objective: To assess public attitudes regarding specific practices used by health care institutions to encourage philanthropic donations from grateful patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a probability-based sample representative of the US population, a survey solicited opinions from a primary cohort representing the general population and 3 supplemental cohorts (with high income, cancer, and with heart disease, respectively). Exposures: Web-based questionnaire. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive analyses (with percentages weighted to make the sample demographically representative of the US population) evaluated respondents' attitudes regarding the acceptability of strategies hospitals may use to identify, solicit, and thank donors; perceptions of the effect of physicians discussing donations with their patients; and opinions regarding gift use and stewardship. Results: Of 831 individuals targeted for the general population sample, 513 (62%) completed surveys, of whom 246 (48.0%) were women and 345 (67.3%) non-Hispanic white. In the weighted sample, 47.0% (95% CI, 42.3%-51.7%) responded that physicians giving patient names to hospital fundraising staff after asking patients' permission was definitely or probably acceptable; 8.5% (95% CI, 5.7%-11.2%) endorsed referring without asking permission. Of the participants, 79.5% (95% CI, 75.6%-83.4%) reported it acceptable for physicians to talk to patients about donating if patients have brought it up; 14.2% (95% CI, 10.9%-17.6%) reported it acceptable when patients have not brought it up; 9.9% (95% CI, 7.1%-12.8%) accepted hospital development staff performing wealth screening using publicly available data to identify patients capable of large donations. Of the participants, 83.2% (95% CI, 79.5%-86.9%) agreed that physicians talking with their patients about donating may interfere with the patient-physician relationship. For a hypothetical patient who donated $1 million, 50.1% (95% CI, 45.4%-54.7%) indicated it would be acceptable for the hospital to show thanks by providing nicer hospital rooms, 26.0% (95% CI, 21.9%-30.1%) by providing expedited appointments, and 19.8% (95% CI, 16.1%-23.5%) by providing physicians' cell phone numbers. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of participants drawn from the general US population, a substantial proportion did not endorse legally allowable approaches for identifying, engaging, and thanking patient-donors.

Visiting Professorship in Academic Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: Visiting professorship is an enjoyable activity that is also influential in academic promotional processes as evidence of the invitee's national reputation. Little is known, however, about the factors considered when selecting visiting professors (VPs) or whether this practice reflects objective criteria. We sought to characterize the process and diversity of participants in visiting professorships within academic radiation oncology (RO) to determine whether opportunities are equitably distributed. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Surveys were distributed to program directors (PDs) of every 2018 RO residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. PDs were asked to identify all VPs over the past 2 years and to describe their departments' decision-making processes. Publicly available demographic and academic characteristics were obtained for each VP, and results were compared by VP gender and hosting program (HP) 2019 Doximity rank using the χ2 test for categorical data and t test for continuous data. RESULTS: The PD response rate was 60 of 93 (65%); 6 surveys were ≥50% incomplete and were excluded. Over a 2-year timeframe, 51 of 54 departments hosted 233 VPs, of whom 29% were women. The mean number of hosted VPs (5; range, 1-19) and gender distribution (35% women; range, 0-100%) did not significantly differ by HP rank (P = .17 and 0.65, respectively), nor did the selection criteria by which VPs were primarily chosen (subject matter expertise, teaching reputation, and resident interest). Women received significantly lower honoraria amounts than men (P = .035) despite no significant differences by gender in academic rank (P = .71), VP department rank (0.19), or M-index (0.83). CONCLUSION: Although sample size is limited, this study suggests that academic RO programs have a relatively equitable approach to selecting VPs that emphasizes trainee education and reflects the gender diversity of RO faculty more generally. Care should be taken to ensure that these similarly qualified women are offered the same monetary amount of honoraria as their male colleagues.

Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Exploring Plastic Surgeon Practice Patterns and Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Within the multidisciplinary management of breast cancer, variations exist in the reconstructive options offered and care provided. The authors evaluated plastic surgeon perspectives on important issues related to breast cancer management and reconstruction and provide some insight into factors that influence these perspectives. METHODS: Women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer (stages 0 to II) between July of 2013 and September of 2014 were identified through the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries. These women were surveyed and identified their treating plastic surgeons. Surveys were sent to the identified plastic surgeons to collect data on specific reconstruction practices. RESULTS: Responses from 134 plastic surgeons (74.4 percent response rate) were received. Immediate reconstruction (79.7 percent) was the most common approach to timing, and expander/implant reconstruction (72.6 percent) was the most common technique reported. Nearly one-third of respondents (32.1 percent) reported that reimbursement influenced the proportion of autologous reconstructions performed. Most (82.8 percent) reported that discussions about contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were initiated by patients. Most surgeons (81.3 to 84.3 percent) felt that good symmetry is achieved with unilateral autologous reconstruction with contralateral symmetry procedures in patients with small or large breasts; a less pronounced majority (62.7 percent) favored unilateral implant reconstructions in patients with large breasts. In patients requiring postmastectomy radiation therapy, one-fourth of the surgeons (27.6 percent) reported that they seldom recommend delayed reconstruction, and 64.9 percent reported recommending immediate expander/implant reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Reconstructive practices in a modern cohort of plastic surgeons suggest that immediate and implant reconstructions are performed preferentially. Respondents perceived a number of factors, including surgeon training, time spent in the operating room, and insurance reimbursement, to negatively influence the performance of autologous reconstruction.

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.

Patterns and Correlates of Knowledge, Communication, and Receipt of Breast Reconstruction in a Modern Population-Based Cohort of Patients with Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Disparities persist in the receipt of breast reconstruction after mastectomy, and little is known about the nature of communication received by patients and potential variations that may exist. METHODS: Women with early-stage breast cancer (stages 0 to II) diagnosed between July of 2013 and September of 2014 were identified through the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries and surveyed to collect additional data on demographics, treatment, and decision-making experiences. Treating general/oncologic surgeons were also surveyed. Primary outcomes measures included self-reported communication-related measures on receipt of information on breast reconstruction and on the receipt of breast reconstruction. RESULTS: The authors analyzed 936 women who underwent mastectomy for unilateral breast cancer. Four hundred eighty-four (51.7 percent) underwent mastectomy with reconstruction. Women who were older and for whom English was not their primary spoken language had lower odds of being informed by a doctor about breast reconstruction. Ultimately, women who were older, were Asian, had invasive disease, had bronchitis/emphysema, and had lower income were less likely to undergo breast reconstruction. Breast reconstruction was performed more often in patients undergoing bilateral mastectomies (OR, 3.27; 95 percent CI, 2.26 to 4.75). Women cared for by surgeons with higher volumes of breast cancer patients (≥51 patients per year) were more likely to undergo breast reconstruction (OR, 2.43; 95 percent CI, 1.40 to 4.20). CONCLUSION: To eliminate existing disparities, increased efforts should be made in consultations for surgical management of breast cancer to provide information to all patients regarding the option of breast reconstruction, the possibility of immediate reconstruction, and insurance coverage of all stages of reconstruction.

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.

Contemporary Statewide Practice Pattern Assessment of the Palliative Treatment of Bone Metastasis.

PURPOSE: Palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases is often viewed as a single entity, despite national guidelines providing input principally only for painful uncomplicated bone metastases. Data surrounding the treatment of bone metastases are often gleaned from questionnaires of what providers would theoretically do in practice or from population-based data lacking critical granular information. We investigated the real-world treatment of bone metastases with radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty diverse institutions across the state of Michigan had data extracted for their 10 most recent cases of radiation therapy delivered for the treatment of bone metastases at their institution between January and February 2017. Uni- and multivariable binary logistic regression was used to assess the use of single fraction (8 Gy × 1) radiation therapy. RESULTS: A total of 196 cases were eligible for inclusion. Twenty-eight different fractionation schedules were identified. The most common schedule was 3 Gy × 10 fractions (n = 100; 51.0%), 4 Gy × 5 fractions (n = 32; 16.3%), and 8 Gy × 1 (n = 15; 7.7%). The significant predictors for the use of single fraction radiation therapy were the presence of oligometastatic disease (P = .008), previous overlapping radiation therapy (P = .050), and academic practice type (P = .039). Twenty-nine cases (14.8%) received >10 fractions (median 15, range 11-20). Intensity modulated radiation therapy was used in 14 cases (7.1%), stereotactic body radiation therapy in 11 (5.6%), and image guidance with cone beam computed tomography in 11 (5.6%). Of the cases of simple painful bone metastases (no previous surgery, spinal cord compression, fracture, soft tissue extension, or overlapping previous radiation therapy; n = 70), only 12.9% were treated with 8 Gy × 1. CONCLUSIONS: Bone metastases represent a heterogeneous disease, and radiation therapy for bone metastases is similarly diverse. Future work is needed to understand the barriers to single fraction use, and clinical trials are necessary to establish appropriate guidelines for the breadth of this complex disease.

The association between patient attitudes and values and the strength of consideration for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in a population-based sample of breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how the individual decision styles and values of breast cancer patients at the time of treatment decision making are associated with the consideration of different treatment options and specifically with the consideration of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). METHODS: Newly diagnosed patients with early-stage breast cancer who were treated in 2013-2014 were identified through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Los Angeles and Georgia and were surveyed approximately 7 months after surgery (n = 2578; response rate, 71%). The primary outcome was the consideration of CPM (strong vs less strong). The association between patients' values and decision styles and strong consideration was assessed with multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Approximately one-quarter of women (25%) reported strong/very strong consideration of CPM, and another 29% considered it moderately/weakly. Decision styles, including a rational-intuitive approach to decision making, varied. The factors most valued by women at the time of treatment decision making were as follows: avoiding worry about recurrence (82%) and reducing the need for more surgery (73%). In a multivariate analysis, patients who preferred to make their own decisions, those who valued avoiding worry about recurrence, and those who valued avoiding radiation significantly more often strongly considered CPM (P < .05), whereas those who reported being more logical and those who valued keeping their breast did so less often. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients considered CPM, and the consideration was associated with both decision styles and values. The variability in decision styles and values observed in this study suggests that formally evaluating these characteristics at or before the initial treatment encounter could provide an opportunity for improving patient clinician discussions. Cancer 2017;123:4547-4555. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Decisions in a Population-Based Sample of Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

Importance: Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) use is increasing among women with unilateral breast cancer, but little is known about treatment decision making or physician interactions in diverse patient populations. Objective: To evaluate patient motivations, knowledge, and decisions, as well as the impact of surgeon recommendations, in a large, diverse sample of patients who underwent recent treatment for breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A survey was sent to 3631 women with newly diagnosed, unilateral stage 0, I, or II breast cancer between July 2013 and September 2014. Women were identified through the population-based Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registries of Los Angeles County and Georgia. Data on surgical decisions, motivations for those decisions, and knowledge were included in the analysis. Logistic and multinomial logistic regression of the data were conducted to identify factors associated with (1) CPM vs all other treatments combined, (2) CPM vs unilateral mastectomy (UM), and (3) CPM vs breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Associations between CPM receipt and surgeon recommendations were also evaluated. All statistical models and summary estimates were weighted to be representative of the target population. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receipt of CPM was the primary dependent variable for analysis and was measured by a woman's self-report of her treatment. Results: Of the 3631 women selected to receive the survey, 2578 (71.0%) responded and 2402 of these respondents who did not have bilateral disease and for whom surgery type was known constituted the final analytic sample. The mean (SD) age was 61.8 (12) years at the time of the survey. Overall, 1301 (43.9%) patients considered CPM (601 [24.8%] considered it very strongly or strongly); only 395 (38.1%) of them knew that CPM does not improve survival for all women with breast cancer. Ultimately, 1466 women (61.6%) received BCS, 508 (21.2%) underwent UM, and 428 (17.3%) received CPM. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with CPM included younger age (per 5-year increase: odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77), white race (black vs white: OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.74), higher educational level (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.20-2.40), family history (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.22-2.17), and private insurance (Medicaid vs private insurance: OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28-0.79). Among 1569 patients (65.5%) without high genetic risk or an identified mutation, 598 (39.3%) reported a surgeon recommendation against CPM, of whom only 12 (1.9%) underwent CPM, but among the 746 (46.8%) of these women who received no recommendation for or against CPM from a surgeon, 148 (19.0%) underwent CPM. Conclusions and Relevance: Many patients consider CPM, but knowledge about the procedure is low and discussions with surgeons appear to be incomplete. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy use is substantial among patients without clinical indications but is low when patients report that their surgeon recommended against it. More effective physician-patient communication about CPM is needed to reduce potential overtreatment.

Oncologists' Experiences and Attitudes About Their Role in Philanthropy and Soliciting Donations From Grateful Patients.

PURPOSE: Physician participation in philanthropy is important to marshal resources that allow hospitals to pursue their missions, but little is known about how physicians participate and their attitudes toward participation. METHODS: To characterize philanthropic roles physicians play and their attitudes about participation and its ethical acceptability, medical oncologists affiliated with the 40 National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers were randomly sampled and surveyed to evaluate experiences and attitudes regarding participation in philanthropy at their institutions. Responses were tabulated; significant associations by physicians' characteristics were explored. RESULTS: A total of 405 (52%) physicians responded; 62% were men, and 72% were white. Most (71%) had been exposed to their institution's fundraising/development staff; 48% of those were taught how to identify patients who would be good donors; 26% received information about ethical guidelines for soliciting donations from their patients; 21% were taught how their institution ensures Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliance. A third (32%) of respondents had been asked to directly solicit a donation from their patients for their institution, of whom half declined to do so. Those who had solicited from their patients had been in practice significantly longer (mean, 19 v 13 years; P < .001). A substantial minority (37%) felt comfortable talking to their patients about donation (men more than women, 43% v 26%; P = .008); however, 74% agreed it could interfere with the physician-patient relationship, and 52% believe conflict of interest exists. CONCLUSION: Institutions are asking physicians to directly solicit their patients for donations with variability in physicians' perceptions of the impact on relationships with patients and responses toward those requests.

Gender differences in resources and negotiation among highly motivated physician-scientists.

BACKGROUND: Resources, including space, equipment, funding, personnel, and protected time, are essential in academic medical careers. Negotiation often plays a key role in the distribution of these resources. OBJECTIVE: This study explored gender differences in resources, negotiation behaviors, and negotiation outcomes in a sample of career development awardees. DESIGN: Postal survey of a cohort of 1,708 clinician-researchers with responses from 1,275 (75 % response rate). PARTICIPANTS: Researchers who received NIH K08 or K23 awards between 2006 and 2009. MAIN MEASURES: We analyzed gender differences in resources, negotiation behaviors, and negotiation outcomes, using regression models adjusted for race, K award type, K award year, degree, academic rank, specialty, and institutional funding. KEY RESULTS: Over one-fifth of respondents reported inadequate access to research space and one-third had asked for increased space or equipment. Perceived adequacy of these physical resources did not differ significantly by gender, but a higher proportion of women reported inadequate access to grants administrators (34.8 %) and statistical support (49.9 %) than men (26.9 %; p = 0.002 and 43.4 %; p = 0.025, respectively). Women were more likely to have asked for reduction in clinical hours (24.1 % vs. 19.3 %; p = 0.02) and to have raised concerns about unfair treatment (50.2 % vs. 38.2 %; p < 0.001). Overall, 42.9 % of women and 35.9 % of men asked for a raise in the two years preceding the survey (p = 0.09), and among those who had asked for increased resources, the likelihood that the request was granted did not differ significantly by gender. CONCLUSION: Many career development award recipients report resource needs and negotiate for increased resources. Gender differences in perceived access to research support personnel exist even in this select cohort of K awardees. Institutions should provide appropriate training in negotiation and ensure adequate and equitable distribution of resources to promote academic success.

Long-term financial burden of breast cancer: experiences of a diverse cohort of survivors identified through population-based registries.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the financial experiences of a racially and ethnically diverse cohort of long-term breast cancer survivors (17% African American, 40% Latina) identified through population-based registries. METHODS: Longitudinal study of women diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer in 2005 to 2007 and reported to the SEER registries of metropolitan Los Angeles and Detroit. We surveyed 3,133 women approximately 9 months after diagnosis and 4 years later. Multivariable models evaluated correlates of self-reported decline in financial status attributed to breast cancer and of experiencing at least one type of privation (economically motivated treatment nonadherence and broader hardships related to medical expenses). RESULTS: Among 1,502 patients responding to both surveys, median out-of-pocket expenses were ≤ $2,000; 17% of respondents reported spending > $5,000; 12% reported having medical debt 4 years postdiagnosis. Debt varied significantly by race: 9% of whites, 15% of blacks, 17% of English-speaking Latinas, and 10% of Spanish-speaking Latinas reported debt (P = .03). Overall, 25% of women experienced financial decline at least partly attributed to breast cancer; Spanish-speaking Latinas had significantly increased odds of this decline relative to whites (odds ratio [OR], 2.76; P = .006). At least one privation was experienced by 18% of the sample; blacks (OR, 2.6; P < .001) and English-speaking Latinas (OR, 2.2; P = .02) were significantly more likely to have experienced privation than whites. CONCLUSION: Racial and ethnic minority patients appear most vulnerable to privations and financial decline attributable to breast cancer, even after adjustment for income, education, and employment. These findings should motivate efforts to control costs and ensure communication between patients and providers regarding financial distress, particularly for vulnerable subgroups.