Diversity of the oncology physician workforce: Projections from 2020 to 2060.

Diversity Within US Gastroenterology Physician Practices: The Pipeline, Cultural Competencies, and Gastroenterology Societies Approaches

Using Graduate Medical Education Institutional Data to Enhance Diverse Recruitment Strategies.

* Abbreviation: URiM — : underrepresented in medicine Medicine in the United States has been hampered by a lack of diversity for centuries. Over the past few decades, greater attention and efforts have been focused on tackling this problem. A diverse workforce is important for many reasons, including a commitment toward a representative workforce in the name of social justice, improved patient care in the form of increased access and patient satisfaction,1 and service to communities for whom we provide care.2 Programs aimed at increasing diversity exist at every level of medical training, from premedical programs to the subspecialty match. Programs throughout are important because structural and individual racism impede minority success at every level, but the earliest interventions are the most likely to succeed. Efforts aimed at increasing diversity will not succeed by simply targeting subspecialty trainees alone. In essence, at the subspecialty level, this is a zero-sum game. The gains made by any one program are exactly balanced by the losses borne by others. A significant impact on increasing the pool of underrepresented in medicine (URiM) candidates for fellowship positions requires that efforts begin early and continue throughout the entire educational journey. The Association of American Medical Colleges defines URiM as “racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population.” This … Address correspondence to Angela C. Weyand, MD, Division of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Medical School, University of Michigan, 1150 W Medical Center Dr, Medical Sciences Research Building III, Room 8220E, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail: acweyand{at}med.umich.edu

Promoting the Pipeline of Diverse Individuals Within Gastroenterology: Reflections From AGA FORWARD Program Scholars

Underrepresented in medicine resident physician distribution by race, gender, and specialty trends from 2013-2019.

It remains unclear how the historical exclusion of women and racial and ethnic minority groups from medical training, and therefore the oncologic subspecialties, has contributed to rates of faculty diversity among oncology departments over time. Oncologic faculty diversity is an important initiative to help improve care and address health disparities for an increasingly diverse US population with cancer. To report trends in academic faculty representation by sex and by race and ethnicity for radiation oncology (RO) and medical oncology (MO) departments and to describe comparisons with the general US population, medical students, RO and MO trainees, clinical department chairs, and faculty in other departments. This cross-sectional analysis used data from the Association of American Medical Colleges to analyze trends by sex and by race and ethnicity among full-time US faculty in RO and MO departments from 1970 through 2019. Data were analyzed between October 2020 and April 2021. Proportions of women and individuals from underrepresented in medicine (URM) racial and ethnic groups (Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous individuals) were calculated among RO and MO academic departments; trends were analyzed over 5 decades. These proportions were compared with cohorts already described. In addition, proportions of women and URM individuals were calculated by faculty rank among RO and MO departments. In 1970, there were 119 total faculty in RO (10 women [8.4%] and 2 URM [1.7%]) and 87 total faculty in MO (11 women [12.6%] and 7 URM [8.0%]). In 2019, there were 2115 total faculty in RO (615 women [29.1%] and 108 URM [5.1%]) and 819 total faculty in MO (312 women [38.1%] and 47 URM [5.7%]). Total faculty numbers increased over time in both RO and MO. Faculty representation of URM women proportionally increased by 0.1% per decade in both RO (95% CI, 0.005%-0.110%; P <. 001 for trend) and MO (95% CI, -0.03% to 0.16%; P = .06 for trend) compared with non-URM women faculty, which increased by 0.4% (95% CI, 0.25%-0.80%) per decade in RO and 0.7% (95% CI, 0.47%-0.87%) per decade in MO (P < .001 for trend for both). Faculty representation of URM men did not significantly change for RO (0.03% per decade [95% CI, -0.008% to 0.065%]; P = .09 for trend) or MO (0.003% per decade [95% CI, -0.13% to 0.14%]; P = .94 for trend). Representation of both women and URM individuals among both specialties was lower than their representation in the US population in both 2009 and 2019. Across all cohorts studied, RO faculty had the lowest URM representation in 2019 at 5.1%. At every rank in 2019, the number of total URM faculty represented among both MO and RO remained low (MO: instructor, 2 of 44 [5%]; assistant professor, 18 of 274 [7%]; associate professor, 13 of 177 [7%]; full professor, 13 of 276 [5%]; and RO: instructor, 9 of 147 [6%]; assistant professor, 57 of 927 [6%]; associate professor, 20 of 510 [4%]; full professor, 18 of 452 [4%]). This cross-sectional study suggests that RO and MO academic faculty have increased the representation of women over time, while URM representation has lagged. The URM trends over time need further investigation to inform strategies to improve URM representation in RO and MO.

Reflections From Underrepresented in Medicine Applicants on the 2020 Virtual Interview Season.

Geographic practice preferences of graduating medical students pursuing careers in dermatology

Reporting of USMLE Step 1 as Pass/Fail: A Benefit for Residency Programs and Those Underrepresented in Medicine?

The call to action to increase racial and ethnic diversity in dermatology: A retrospective, cross-sectional study to monitor progress

Increasing the level of diversity among ophthalmologists may help reduce disparities in eye care. To assess the current and future status of diversity among ophthalmologists in the workforce by sex, race, and ethnicity in the context of the available number of medical students in the United States. Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Medical Association, and US Census were used to evaluate the differences and trends in diversity among ophthalmologists, all full-time faculty except ophthalmology, ophthalmology faculty, ophthalmology residents, medical school students, and the US population between 2005 and 2015. For 2014, associations of sex, race, and ethnicity with physician practice locations were assessed. Proportions of ophthalmologists stratified by sex, race, and ethnicity between 2005 and 2015. Women and minority groups traditionally underrepresented in medicine (URM)-black, Hispanic, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander-were underrepresented as practicing ophthalmologists (22.7% and 6%, respectively), ophthalmology faculty (35.1% and 5.7%, respectively), and ophthalmology residents (44.3% and 7.7%, respectively), compared with the US population (50.8% and 30.7%, respectively). During the past decade, there had been a modest increase in the proportion of female practicing ophthalmologists who graduated from US medical schools in 1980 or later (from 23.8% to 27.1%; P < .001); however, no increase in URM ophthalmologists was identified (from 7.2% to 7.2%; P = .90). Residents showed a similar pattern, with an increase in the proportion of female residents (from 35.6% to 44.3%; P = .001) and a slight decrease in the proportion of URM residents (from 8.7% to 7.7%; P = .04). The proportion of URM groups among ophthalmology faculty also slightly decreased during the study period (from 6.2% to 5.7%; P = .01). However, a higher proportion of URM ophthalmologists practiced in medically underserved areas (P < .001). Women and URM groups remain underrepresented in the ophthalmologist workforce despite an available pool of medical students. Given the prevalent racial and ethnic disparities in eye care and an increasingly diverse society, future research and training efforts that increase the level of diversity among medical students and residents seems warranted.

11047 Background: Physician workforce diversity can be a driver of institutional excellence, improving innovation and reducing health disparities. The current diversity of the hematology/oncology (HO) workforce does not reflect that of the US population. The role of mentorship in increasing HO fellows’ interest in pursuing careers in HO has been described previously. However, the mentorship experiences of fellows and early career faculty from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine (UIM) in HO has not been fully characterized. Therefore, we compared the mentorship experiences of UIM and non-UIM trainees and early career faculty in HO subspecialties. Methods: We conducted cross-sectional online survey of HO subspecialists including current fellows and faculty within 5 years of end of training. The anonymous survey was distributed via email and social media channels in April 2020. Fisher’s exact test and multivariable logistic regression models were used to conduct comparisons between study groups. Results: Of the 306 respondents, 64 (21%) were UIM and 161 (53%) identified as male. UIM participants were less likely to have a primary mentor (66%) than non-UIM participants (80%, p = 0.015). Among those who had a primary mentor, UIMs were more likely to meet infrequently (greater than every 3 months, p = 0.007). Furthermore, UIMs were more likely to report having mentors outside their own institution (47% vs 40% non-UIM, p = 0.002) and making compromises to gain access to mentorship (36% vs 23% non-UIM, p = &lt; 0.001). In addition, UIM participants were less likely to have an advisor (38% vs 54% non-UIM, p = 0.017), a coach (13% vs 20% non-UIM, p = 0.054), or a sponsor (19% vs 26% non-UIM, p = 0.046). UIMs were also less likely to apply for grants (34% vs 42% non-UIM, p = 0.035) and awards (28% vs 43%, non-UIM p = 0.019). In multivariable models, UIM individuals were more likely to make compromises to gain access to mentors (OR = 1.96, p = 0.047) and this remained significant for females (OR = 2.17, p = 0.005). Lastly, US born individuals had higher odds of having a primary mentor than non-US-born individuals (OR = 2.43, p = 0.004). Conclusions: In the largest study to date characterizing the mentorship experience of HO trainees and junior faculty, we found that UIM individuals were significantly less likely to find effective mentorship and were less likely to apply for awards and grant support. Understanding the challenges of UIM trainees can help shape training environments in academic medicine to ensure these are grounded in diversity and inclusion. Given the importance of workforce diversity, training programs in HO must consider structured programs and other innovations to improve mentoring experiences of UIM trainees and junior faculty.

Race and Ethnicity of Pediatric Trainees and the Board-Certified Pediatric Workforce

11010 Background: Academic faculty are critical in training future generations of oncologists to care for our increasingly diverse cancer patient population. It is unclear if the growing imperative to address disparities in racial/ethnic and gender representation in the medical field has resulted in corresponding progress in the composition of academic radiation and medical oncology (RO, MO) departments. Herein we report trends in faculty diversity, overall and by academic rank, among US radiation and medical oncologists over the past 5 decades. Methods: Data were acquired from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Roster between 1970-2019 for academic RO and MO departments to determine sex and race/ethnicity trends over five decades. Underrepresented in Medicine (URM) was defined as individuals identifying as Black, Hispanic, and Native American. Linear regression models were used to estimate slopes and associated p-values. Results: Total faculty complements grew over time in both RO and MO departments. The number of URM female faculty increased by 0.85/year in RO and 0.79/year in MO (P-trend&lt;0.001), compared to non-URM female faculty, which increased by 11.3/year in RO and 7.9 in MO (P-trend&lt;0.001). URM male faculty increased by 1.4/year in RO and 1.1/year in MO (P-trend&lt;0.001), compared to non-URM male faculty, which increased by 25.5/year for RO and 12.2/year for MO (P-trend&lt;0.001). Males represented the majority of URM and non-URM faculty for both RO and MO. The proportion of females grew more than the proportion of URM faculty over the study period for both RO and MO. There were also significant differences in diversity by faculty rank. Although MO outperformed RO in terms of the proportion of female faculty members with more advanced rank, female faculty members had a lower academic rank than their male counterparts in both specialties. At every rank, there was a low number of URM faculty represented among both MO and RO (Table). Conclusions: Gender and racial/ethnic diversity of academic RO and MO faculty has increased over time but has not kept pace with the diversity of the US population served, particularly with respect to URM status. The proportion of female faculty in both specialties demonstrates more promising growth, and may inform measures to achieve similar progress in recruiting and retaining URM faculty in both MO and RO.[Table: see text]

What are the Trends in Racial Diversity Among Orthopaedic Applicants, Residents, and Faculty?