11000 Background: The diversification of the healthcare workforce has been identified as a strategy to address health disparities and increase patient-physician trust. A prior review of diversity among oncology fellows up to 2010, showed an increase in female representation over 17 years, but no change in underrepresented minorities (URM). We aim to assess the changes in hematology and oncology (HO) fellowship diversity over the last decade and how this compares to our workforce. Methods: Publicly available registries were used to assess differences among female and URM HO fellows, HO fellowship applicants, internal medicine (IM) academic faculty, IM residents, medical school graduates (MSG), and the US population in 2019. These were compared to the 2016 HO practicing physicians. Changes in URM and female HO fellow representation from 2009 to 2019 were assessed. Data was analyzed using binomial tests and simple linear regression models. Results: Female representation among HO fellows (43.8%) was increased when compared with HO practicing physicians (+11.8%, p < 0.0001) and IM faculty (+3.2%, p = 0.0079); no difference from IM residents or HO applicants. Female HO fellows were underrepresented when compared with MSG (-4.0%, p = 0.0014) and US population (P < 0.0001). Hispanic HO fellows (6.1%) had increased representation when compared to IM faculty (+2.7%, p < 0.0001), but were underrepresented when compared to IM residents (-2.2%, p = 0.0012) and US population (p < 0.0001). The proportion of Hispanic HO fellows was no different when compared to HO practicing physicians, HO applicants, and MSG. African American (AA) fellows (3.8%) were underrepresented when compared to IM residents (-2.0%, p = 0.0005), HO applicants (-1.7%, p = 0.0465), MSG (-2.4%, p = 0.0001), and US population (p < 0.0001). AA fellows were increased when compared to HO practicing physicians (+1.5%, p = 0.0002), but no different than IM faculty. Asian HO fellows were increased when compared to IM residents, MSG, and US population. Over the last 10 years there has been no significant change in the proportion of AA or female HO fellow representation, with a decreasing trend in Hispanics (-0.14% per year, p = 0.04).Conclusions: The current state of diversity in HO workforce still requires attention. Despite ongoing efforts, females, AA, and Hispanics continue to be underrepresented. The decreasing trend in Hispanic representation and clear differences in diversity between HO fellowships and IM residencies calls for action among fellowship programs and national societies to increase URM engagement and recruitment.
Introduction: While the COVID-19 pandemic has affected many aspects of clinical care, research, and medical training, its impact on hematology-oncology trainees and professional development has not been described. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) sought to assess the impact of COVID-19 on fellows enrolled in hematology-oncology programs. Methods: In spring 2020, ASH and ASCO developed and administered a survey by e-mail to active hematology-oncology fellow members. Response formats used both a semi-Likert scale and open-ended text. Questions focused on fellow experiences and how changes in their programs have impacted their personal and professional lives across several domains. Multiple-choice responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and NVivo software was used for qualitative analysis of open-ended questions. Results: Respondent demographics are described in Table 1. Of 2,306 trainees, 620 (27%) responded to the survey. Most respondents continued patient care responsibilities during the pandemic (80%). Almost half of all trainees (47%) reported that they felt less productive than usual. Stress and/or anxiety about the current situation was the most cited factor affecting productivity in the overall cohort (Figure 1). One-third (33%) of respondents had volunteered or were assigned to clinical/non-clinical COVID-19-related efforts. Of the 90 visa holders in our cohort, 30% (N=27) reported experiencing issues with their visa/immigration status. Eight percent of respondents stated their career plans had changed due to COVID-19. Of those who said their plans had changed, 30 respondents were considering careers in academia pre-pandemic and 11 were considering private practice. However, only 14 respondents were considering academia post-pandemic while 19 were interested in private practice. Overall, most respondents had concerns about at least one of the following: salary reductions, availability of networking events, family well-being, mental health and obtaining a job (Figure 2). The prevalence of burnout increased from 22% (N=105) before the pandemic to 33% (N=161) during (p<.001). Of the respondents who did not report burnout before COVID-19, 22% noted new-onset burnout during the pandemic. New-onset burnout prevalence varied based on the type of work respondents performed: no COVID-related work (17%), COVID-related non-clinical work (26%), and COVID-related clinical work (34%) (p<0.01). The open-ended responses yielded several consistent themes. Clinical and educational constraints were enumerated: lost learning opportunities due to low patient volumes, unavailability of colleagues to discuss cases, and overall low perceived quality of virtual learning. Trainees also reported reduced motivation to complete work within a stipulated time frame due to lack of robust discussions in the virtual environment and technological challenges in navigating educational resources. Trainee research was also severely impacted as laboratories closed, experimental animal colonies were lost, and many research activities ceased. Respondents also expressed concern that cuts in research training initiatives and budgets would jeopardize faculty positions for graduating fellows and that funding for travel and conferences was suspended. Fellows' recommendations for ASH and ASCO included improved online education, virtual research training and networking opportunities, practical guidance on caring for immune-compromised patients during the pandemic, increased funding resources for trainees, mental health resources, and advocating on behalf of trainee visa holders. Conclusions: Hematology-oncology trainees reported their training experiences have been deeply impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. A majority of trainees are concerned about the negative impact on career opportunities, research funding, financial well-being, and mental health. Burnout increased during COVID-19, especially in trainees who were assigned to specific COVID-related efforts. Training programs and professional societies can support trainees by increasing trainee research funding, online networking and learning opportunities, mental health resources and, support for international trainees. Disclosures Velazquez Manana: Corbus Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership; Midatech: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership. Wun:Glycomimetics, Inc.: Consultancy.
11041 Background: The internet and social media have become a common source of medical information. Previous analyses have found that YouTube videos disseminate biased cancer related information of low to moderate quality. We analyzed online information disseminated by NCI-designated Cancer Centers (CC) through their YouTube pages. Methods: We searched CC websites and online search engines to identify CC-specific YouTube pages. Our sample included each CC’s top 20 most-viewed videos uploaded during 2019, which were < 5 minutes long, and available in English or Spanish. We examined video content themes and speaker demographics. For patient education videos, we evaluated content understandability and quality of information using validated measures [i.e., Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and DISCERN]. Data was summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 31 of 64 clinical NCI-designated CC had dedicated YouTube pages. Only 6 (19%) CC had videos in languages other than English. A total of 402 videos were examined for content themes and demographic characteristics. 43% focused on patient education (n = 175), 36% research (n = 139), 24% survivorship (n = 95), and 13% clinical trials (n = 52). 32% (n = 119) of speakers were doctors and 18% (n = 65) patients. Perceived speakers’ ethnicity was 57% White (n = 229), followed by Asian (15%, n = 60), Black or African American (8%, n = 32), and Latinx (4%, n = 16). Perceived gender of speakers was 49% women (n = 197) and 51% men (n = 203). Most videos were understandable (91%, n = 159), but only 21% (n = 36) provided high quality information. Videos discussing treatments lacked discussion of risks, alternate options, and effects on quality of life. Conclusions: Most patient education videos uploaded to NCI-designated CC YouTube pages have low to moderate quality information and limited ethnic diversity of speakers. With ongoing trends of increasing misinformation spreading through social media, CC have an opportunity to create and disseminate high-quality, reliable, and comprehensive educational videos that meet the informational needs of patients with cancer and their caregivers.[Table: see text]
6547 Background: Oncology clinical research studies (CRS) are essential for developing new therapies and improving patient outcomes, yet the lack of diversity among research participants remains an issue. The logistical complexity of participating in CRS, lack of funding, limited location of study sites, socioeconomic barriers, and the exclusion of non-English speakers (NES) likely contribute to this lack of diversity. In this study, we sought to evaluate what proportion of oncology CRS exclude NES. Methods: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov on December 28, 2022, to identify registered oncology CRS in the most prevalent cancer types: breast, lung, colorectal, and prostate cancers. Only US based studies were included. We reviewed the inclusion and exclusion criteria of each study and identified those that excluded NES. Trials with available informed consent forms (ICFs) were examined to evaluate length, available languages, and readability. Descriptive analysis and chi-squared tests were used to explore associations between study characteristics and the exclusion of NES. Results: We identified 12,393 CRS, of which 2527 were excluded due to duplicates listed under more than one cancer type. Of 9866 evaluable studies, 1195 (12%) explicitly excluded NES individuals from participating. Of these, 161 (13%) allowed Spanish-speaking participants. Breast cancer trials had the highest proportion of CRS which excluded NES (17%), followed by trials in colorectal (13%), prostate (9%), and lung (7%) cancer. When analyzed by funding sources, studies funded by academic institutions had the highest proportion of CRS that excluded NES individuals (24%) compared to 15% of NIH funded, 19% of other government-funded, and 2% of industry-funded studies (p<0.001). Compared to interventional studies, observational research studies were more likely to exclude NES (11% vs 20%; p<0.001). Notably, most CRS did not have ICFs available online. Of the 242 (2%) studies that had ICFs available for review, only 3 (1%) had ICFs available in another language – all of which were in Spanish. Furthermore, many ICFs were lengthy, with a median of 11 pages (range 1-54), and complex, with a median readability of 12th grade Flesch Kincaid level (range 6-26). Conclusions: Many oncology CRS, especially those funded by academic institutions, exclude NES, impacting 1 in 10 individuals in the US. This exclusion is not always explicit, making it likely that our findings underestimate the issue. Requiring English proficiency for research study participation will continue to contribute to the underrepresentation of historically excluded populations and NES patients with cancer from clinical trials and other research studies. Eliminating exclusionary criteria based on language and providing adaptive resources for NES participants is crucial for ensuring that oncology research is inclusive and grounded in equity.
11014 Background: The well-being of oncology providers (OP) is in jeopardy with increasing workload, limited resources, and personal challenges that result from the COVID-19 pandemic. We aim to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on work-related (WR) satisfaction and fatigue among OP in Latin America. Methods: We conducted an international cross-sectional online survey of OP practicing in Latin America. The survey was administered in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests. Results: In August 2020, 704 OP from 20 Latin American countries completed the survey (77% of 913 who started the survey). Table outlines baseline characteristics. Higher frequency of WR fatigue (67% vs. 58%, p=0.010) and exhaustion (81% vs. 70%, p=0.001) were reported by OP who cared for patients with COVID-19, compared to OP who cared for patients without COVID-19. Providers that observed delays in referrals to radiation (p=0.002) and surgery (p=0.04) reported WR fatigue at higher rates than their counterparts. Higher exhaustion (p=0.016) and dissatisfaction (p=0.046) were reported by OP who lacked access to supportive services, as social work. A significantly higher proportion of women reported WR fatigue (72% vs. 56%, p=0.003) and exhaustion (86% vs. 68%, p=0.001), when compared to men. Women were more likely than men to endorse higher current levels of fatigue when compared to pre-COVID-19 (61% vs. 46%, p=0.0001). To reduce stress, women were more likely than men to cut the time spent watching the news (p=0.002). Both genders declined research collaborations and speaking opportunities. Conclusions: Fatigue and dissatisfaction with work-life were prevalent among OP in Latin America. Higher rates of WR fatigue were seen in women, OP caring for patients with COVID-19, and OP with patients who experienced cancer care delays. Our data imply that OP may be a prime target for psychosocial support, particularly as current challenges will continue for the foreseen future. Baseline characteristics (N=704).[Table: see text]
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.