PURPOSE: Hematology and oncology (HO) lags behind all medicine subspecialties in fellows under-represented in medicine (URM) despite a growing minority patient population. Websites have been effectively used in URM recruitment. We evaluated all US HO program websites to facilitate a more informed and URM-considerate recruitment. We also performed a stratified analysis on programs affiliated with National Cancer Institute (NCI) Designated Cancer Centers, National Comprehensive Cancer Center Network (NCCN) member institutions, and ranked as a top 50 cancer hospital by US News, given their stated commitment to outreach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Websites of all 2019-2020 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–accredited HO programs were assessed for 28 informational and three diversity categories. Websites with > 70% of categories were comprehensive. Affiliation with NCI, NCCN, and US News was noted. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-six websites were analyzed: 20% were comprehensive and 22% had any diversity information. Inclusion of diversity content and being comprehensive were significantly associated ( P = .001). NCI, NCCN, and US News ranking were significantly associated with inclusion of more information in univariate analyses ( P < .001, P = .008, and P < .001, respectively). Multivariate analyses showed that US News ranking was significantly associated with more information ( P = .005). Diversity-related univariate and multivariate analyses showed a significant association with US News ranking ( P = .006 and P = .029, respectively). CONCLUSION: Most HO fellowship websites are not comprehensive and lack diversity content. Given COVID-19 travel restrictions limit in-person interviews, digital program presence remains an important opportunity. HO programs should offer comprehensive and inclusive websites to better inform applicants, including URM. This may increase institutional diversity and potentially improve URM representation in the HO workforce.
11004 Background: Fellowship in hematology and oncology (HO) is widely sought after but lags behind all other internal medicine subspecialties in attracting applicants underrepresented in medicine (URM). An approach to appealing to URMs involves preexisting in-person strategies but also adapting virtual tools to promote inclusion. Specifically, program websites serve as the first impressions of a program, as well as influence the perception of diversity and inclusion. We evaluated the content and diversity representation of HO program websites to facilitate a generally more informed and URM-considerate recruitment. Methods: The websites of 2019-2020 ACGME accredited HO programs were assessed between June 1st to July 1st, 2020. Data focused on 30 informational categories, derived from published methodology, along with three additional categories concerning diversity, based on suggestions for inclusive graduate medical education recruitment strategies, were compared using two-tailed t tests. We defined websites with 70% or more of the 30 informational categories as “comprehensive websites.” Affiliation with a National Cancer Institute (NCI) Designated Cancer Center, NCI Designated Cancer Center + National Cancer Center Network (NCCN) member institution, and a top 50 ranked cancer hospital by U.S. News was also considered in the analysis. Results: A total of 156 program websites were analyzed: 37.2% NCI; 19.9% NCCN; 29.5% U.S. News ranked. Only 31 (19.9%) were “comprehensive websites,” and 34 (21.8%) had information pertaining to at least one of the diversity categories. There was a significant association between inclusion of diversity content and being a “comprehensive website” (p = 0.001). Compared to those that were neither designated nor ranked, programs designated by NCI, NCCN, or ranked by U.S. News were more likely to have more complete information available (p < 0.001, = 0.008, and < 0.001, respectively). However, only programs ranked by U.S. News were more likely to include information about diversity on their websites (p = 0.006). Conclusions: The vast majority of HO fellowship program websites were not comprehensive, including a lack of diversity and inclusivity content. NCI designation, NCCN participation, and US News ranking were significantly associated with more complete fellowship websites. Given the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in which institution visitation is restricted, program websites may have elevated importance in recruitment. HO programs should direct resources to offering more complete and inclusive websites to better inform applicants, including URM residents.
11043 Background: There is increasing use of social media as a platform to discuss research and educate. An article’s impact can be assessed through the Altmetric Attention score (AAS), which considers the volume of social media mentions (Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, policy, etc), and the PlumX Impact score, which incorporates interactions on these platforms and citations. COVID-19 has encouraged novel literature in oncology, and these metrics may holistically evaluate the immediate impact of articles in addition to gradual accrual of citations. We explored the relationship between traditionally used bibliometrics (citations, impact factor) and new bibliometrics (AAS, PlumX) of the top 100 trending articles on cancer and COVID-19. Methods: The 100 articles with highest AAS featuring keywords “cancer” and “COVID-19” between March 1, 2019 and January 15, 2022 were identified via Altmetric explorer. AAS, journal, social media mentions, open access status and other characteristics were collected. Scopus database was utilized to identify PlumX scores and citation count. Analysis included Spearman correlation coefficients and ANOVA. Results: Of the 100 articles, 64% were original investigations, 18% editorials/perspectives, 6% guidelines/consensus articles and remaining article types < 6% each. Original investigations comprised of 41% retrospective cohort, 33% cross-sectional, 20% prospective cohort, and remainder < 4% each. Most articles were open access (91%), from cancer-focused journals (77%), and based in North America (36%); 25% were in Europe, 24% multi-continental, and remainder < 8% each. Most publications were in 2020 (56%) and 2021 (40%). AAS and PlumX did not correlate with number of citations or impact factor. Open access publications were associated with greater PlumX (p = 0.033) compared to closed access; this was not seen with AAS. ANOVA showed greater AAS in Australian articles (p =.004) and greater PlumX in North American articles (p =.04). Article type or publication year did not impact AAS and PlumX. Conclusions: In our analysis, Altmetrics and PlumX did not correlate to traditional bibliometrics (citation count, impact factor) in cancer and COVID-19 articles. This suggests that these tools may be complimentary rather than predictive of citations. However, this may change given likely insufficient time for citations to accrue for 2021 studies. There were more editorials/perspective articles compared to similar studies in other specialties, suggesting greater impact of such articles in oncology during COVID-19; this is perhaps due to reliance on expert opinion given paucity of data. Additionally, we noted that PlumX benefits from open access status. Overall, as the use of social media for research dissemination grows, researchers and journal editors may employ alternative metrics to better understand ways to increase the influence of oncology literature during the pandemic.
11044 Background: Social media has proven vital in the rapid dissemination of literature to medical professionals and the public. In recent years, seminal research articles have yielded breakthrough therapies for lung cancer, including targeted drugs and unique immunotherapy-based combinations. New metrics such as the Altmetric Attention score (AAS) and PlumX Impact score capture interactions through social media and other public forums and serve as swifter counterparts to citations, which can take years to accrue. In this study, we characterize and compare AAS, PlumX and traditional bibliometrics (citation count, impact factor [IF]) of the top 100 trending articles on lung cancer. Methods: The 100 articles with the highest AAS featuring the keywords “lung cancer” between 01/2019 and 12/2021 were identified via Altmetric explorer. AAS, open access status, article type, topic, year and continent of publication were collected. PlumX and citation count were identified via Scopus database. Analysis included Spearman correlation coefficients and ANOVA. Results: A majority of the 100 articles were original investigations, of which 40% were RCTs, 22% retrospective cohort, 14% prospective, 9% basic science, 8% cross-sectional and 6% genome-wide association studies. Most articles focused on NSCLC (59%) and were conducted in North America (44%); 13% were in Europe, 36% multi-continental and the remainder < 5% each. PlumX positively correlated with both citation count (p <.001, r =.765) and IF (p <.001, r =.581). AAS did not correlate with citation or IF. Articles on guidelines (p <.001) and screening (p <.001) were associated with higher AAS in comparison to other article types and topics, respectively. Basic science articles were associated with a higher PlumX (p <.001) in comparison to others article topics. Year and continent of publication did not impact PlumX or AAS. Open access status did not correlate with PlumX or AAS. Conclusions: In our study, PlumX scores strongly correlated with citations and IF for recently published articles on lung cancer; this mirrors trends in other specialties. PlumX may be predictive in terms of academic impact, making it valuable to the research community. Though AAS did not correlate with traditional bibliometrics, its association with guidelines and screening articles suggests AAS may reflect interactions amongst a broader community (oncologic and non-oncologic clinicians). With the growing use of social media, the continued exploration of alternative metrics will play a role in understanding readership and fields of interest in lung cancer and in anticipating academic impact.[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.