Advertisement

Quality at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting: Gender Balance Among Invited Speakers and Associations with Panel Success

      Purpose

      The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting is the most prominent international conference in radiation oncology. It represents one of the greatest time efforts for ASTRO volunteers, and the quality of the annual meeting is a high priority. Measures of diversity have been linked with quality of academic efforts. We conducted a study of gender diversity of the ASTRO invited speakers, focusing on speaker and panel characteristics, and associations of these characteristics with measures of audience satisfaction.

      Methods and Materials

      We created a database of all invited speakers (n = 1499 cumulative speaking positions, n = 725 individual speakers) and panels (n = 381) in the ASTRO annual meetings from 2012 to 2016. Speaker characteristics were acquired using publically available online search tools (including Scopus for citation metrics). SAS software was used for statistical analysis.

      Results

      Of the 725 individual speakers, 27% were women. Men had higher median Hirsch index (H-index) (27 vs 20, P < .001), M-index (1.36 vs 1.11, P < .001), earlier first publication (1994 vs 1997), professorship (57% vs 40%, P < .001), chair status (25% vs 14%, P < .001) and fellow designations/distinctions (ie, FASTRO/FACR/FAAPM) (12% vs 9.5%, P < .17). Median panel gender distribution was 25% female, and greatest female representation was in breast, gynecology, and pediatrics. On multivariable analysis, panel characteristics associated with individual measures of audience satisfaction included single discipline presentations (metric: overall evaluation score), panels not proposed or endorsed by committee (metric: room count), higher H-index (metric: room count) and M-index (metric: request for session repeat), and panels with gender composition >50% female (metric: request for session repeat). Female conveners were associated with greater panel gender diversity.

      Conclusion

      Given observations that women constitute a minority of invited speakers and that greater female representation correlates with a key panel success metric, efforts to ensure greater diversity of those included in AM speaking invitations merit serious attention.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      ASTRO Member Login
      ASTRO Members, full access to the journal is a member benefit. Use your society credentials to access all journal content and features.
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Woolley A.W.
        • Gerbasi M.
        • Chabris C.F.
        • Kosslyn S.M.
        • Hackman J.R.
        Bringing in the experts: How team composition and collaborative planning jointly shape analytic effectiveness.
        Small Group Res. 2008; 39: 352-371
        • Woolley A.W.
        • Chabris C.F.
        • Pentland A.
        • Hashmi N.
        • Malone T.W.
        Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups.
        Science. 2010; 330: 686-688
        • Bear J.B.
        • Woolley A.W.
        The role of gender in team collaboration and performance.
        Interdiscip Sci Rev. 2011; 36: 146-153
        • Mayo A.T.
        • Woolley A.W.
        Teamwork in health care: Maximizing collective intelligence via inclusive collaboration and open communication.
        AMA J Ethics. 2016; 18: 933-940
        • Campbell L.G.
        • Mehtani S.
        • Dozier M.E.
        • Rinehart J.
        Gender-heterogeneous working groups produce higher quality science.
        PloS one. 2013; 8e79147
        • Nielsen M.W.
        • Bloch C.W.
        • Schiebinger L.
        Making gender diversity work for scientific discovery and innovation.
        Nat Hum Behav. 2018; 2: 726-734
        • Garrett L.
        The trouble with girls: Obstacles to women’s success in medicine and research—an essay by Laurie Garrett.
        BMJ. 2018; 363: k5232
        • Westring A.F.
        • Speck R.M.
        • Sammel M.D.
        • et al.
        A culture conducive to women's academic success: development of a measure.
        Acad Med. 2012; 87: 1622-1631
        • Carr P.L.
        • Gunn C.M.
        • Kaplan S.A.
        • Raj A.
        • Freund K.M.
        Inadequate progress for women in academic medicine: Findings from the National Faculty Study.
        J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2015; 24: 190-199
        • Jagsi R.
        • Griffith K.A.
        • Stewart A.
        • Sambuco D.
        • DeCastro R.
        • Ubel P.A.
        Gender differences in the salaries of physician researchers.
        JAMA. 2012; 307: 2410-2417
        • Guss Z.D.
        • Chen Q.
        • Hu C.
        • Guss L.G.
        • DeWeese T.L.
        • Terezakis S.A.
        Differences in compensation between men and women at United states public academic radiation oncology departments.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019; 103: 314-319
        • Todisco A.
        • Souza R.F.
        • Gores G.J.
        Trains, tracks, and promotion in an academic medical center.
        Gastroenterology. 2011; 141: 1545-1548
        • Stenken J.A.
        • Zajicek A.M.
        The importance of asking, mentoring and building networks for academic career success—a personal and social science perspective.
        Anal Bioanal Chem. 2010; 396: 541-546
        • Mehta S.
        • Rose L.
        • Cook D.
        • Herridge M.
        • Owais S.
        • Metaxa V.
        The speaker gender gap at critical care conferences.
        Crit Care Med. 2018; 46: 991-996
        • Klein R.S.
        • Voskuhl R.
        • Segal B.M.
        • et al.
        Speaking out about gender imbalance in invited speakers improves diversity.
        Nat Immunol. 2017; 18: 475-478
        • Käfer J.
        • Betancourt A.
        • Villain A.S.
        • et al.
        Progress and prospects in gender visibility at SMBE annual meetings.
        Genome Biol Evol. 2018; 10: 901-908
        • Ahmed A.A.
        • Egleston B.
        • Holliday E.
        • Eastwick G.
        • Takita C.
        • Jagsi R.
        Gender trends in radiation oncology in the United States: A 30-year analysis.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014; 88: 33-38
        • Lewis R.S.
        • Sunshine J.H.
        Radiation oncologists in the United States.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007; 69: 518-527
        • Fung C.Y.
        • Chen E.
        • Vapiwala N.
        • et al.
        The American Society for Radiation Oncology 2017 Radiation Oncologist Workforce Study.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019; 103: 547-556
        • Meho L.
        The rise and rise of citation analysis.
        Phys World. 2007; 20: 32
        • Choi M.
        • Holliday E.B.
        • Jagsi R.
        • Wilson L.D.
        • Fuller C.D.
        • Thomas C.R.
        Citation-based estimation of scholarly activity among domestic academic radiation oncologists: Five-year update.
        J Radiat Oncol. 2014; 3: 115-122
        • Reed D.A.
        • Enders F.
        • Lindor R.
        • McClees M.
        • Lindor K.D.
        Gender differences in academic productivity and leadership appointments of physicians throughout academic careers.
        Acad Med. 2011; 86: 43-47
        • Ash A.S.
        • Carr P.L.
        • Goldstein R.
        • Friedman R.H.
        Compensation and advancement of women in academic medicine: Is there equity?.
        Ann Intern Med. 2004; 141: 205-212
        • Carr P.L.
        • Ash A.S.
        • Friedman R.H.
        • et al.
        Relation of family responsibilities and gender to the productivity and career satisfaction of medical faculty.
        Ann Intern Med. 1998; 129: 532-538
        • Buddeberg-Fischer B.
        • Stamm M.
        • Buddeberg C.
        • et al.
        The impact of gender and parenthood on physicians’ careers—professional and personal situation seven years after graduation.
        BMC Health Serv Res. 2010; 10: 40
        • Tsukada Y.T.
        • Tokita M.
        • Kato K.
        • et al.
        Solutions for retention of female cardiologists: From the survey of gender differences in the work and life of cardiologists.
        Circ J. 2009; 73: 2076-2083
        • Caniano D.A.
        • Sonnino R.E.
        • Paolo A.M.
        Keys to career satisfaction: Insights from a survey of women pediatric surgeons.
        J Pediatr Surg. 2004; 39: 984-990
        • Valsangkar B.
        • Chen C.
        • Wohltjen H.
        • Mullan F.
        Do medical school mission statements align with the nation's health care needs?.
        Acad Med. 2014; 89: 892-895
        • Coleman V.H.
        • Power M.L.
        • Williams S.
        • Carpentieri A.
        • Schulkin J.
        Continuing professional development: racial and gender differences in obstetrics and gynecology residents’ perceptions of mentoring.
        J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2005; 25: 268-277
        • Guarino C.M.
        • Borden V.M.H.
        Faculty Service Loads and Gender: Are Women Taking Care of the Academic Family?.
        Res High Educ. 2017; 58: 672-694
        • Buddeberg-Fischer B.
        • Stamm M.
        • Buddeberg C.
        • Klaghofer R.
        Career-success scale - a new instrument to assess young physicians’ academic career steps.
        BMC Health Serv Res. 2008; 8: 120
        • Ward K.
        Faculty Service Roles and the Scholarship of Engagement: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report.
        1st ed. Jossey-Bass, Plano, TX2003
        • Bird S.
        • Litt J.
        • Wang Y.
        Creating status of women reports: Institutional housekeeping as “women’s work.
        NWSA J. 2004; 16: 194-2016
        • Kaplan S.H.
        • Sullivan L.M.
        • Dukes K.A.
        • Phillips C.F.
        • Kelch R.P.
        • Schaller J.G.
        Sex differences in academic advancement. Results of a national study of pediatricians.
        N Engl J Med. 1996; 335: 1282-1289
        • Conrad P.
        • Carr P.
        • Knight S.
        • Renfrew M.R.
        • Dunn M.B.
        • Pololi L.
        Hierarchy as a barrier to advancement for women in academic medicine.
        J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2010; 19: 799-805
        • Smith-Doerr L.
        Women’s Work: Gender Equality vs. Hierarchy in the Life Sciences.
        L. Rienner, Boulder, CO2004
        • Choo E.K.
        • DeMayo R.F.
        • Glaucomflecken
        A lexicon for gender bias in academia and medicine.
        BMJ. 2018; 363
        • Jagsi R.
        • Griffith K.A.
        • Jones R.
        • Perumalswami C.R.
        • Ubel P.
        • Stewart A.
        Sexual harassment and discrimination experiences of academic medical faculty.
        JAMA. 2016; 315: 2120-2121
        • National Academies of Sciences
        Engineering, and Medicine. Sexual Harassment of Women.
        The National Academies Press, Washington, DC2018
        • Choi M.
        • Fuller C.D.
        • Thomas Jr., C.R.
        Estimation of citation-based scholarly activity among radiation oncology faculty at domestic residency-training institutions: 1996-2007.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009; 74: 172-178
        • Holliday E.B.
        • Jagsi R.
        • Wilson L.D.
        • Choi M.
        • Thomas Jr., C.R.
        • Fuller C.D.
        Gender differences in publication productivity, academic position, career duration, and funding among U.S. academic radiation oncology faculty.
        Acad Med. 2014; 89: 767-773
        • Casadevall A.
        Achieving speaker gender equity at the American Society for Microbiology General Meeting.
        MBio. 2015; 6e01146
        • Casadevall A.
        • Handelsman J.
        The presence of female conveners correlates with a higher proportion of female speakers at scientific symposia.
        MBio. 2014; 5 (e00846-13)

      Comments

      Commenting Guidelines

      To submit a comment for a journal article, please use the space above and note the following:

      • We will review submitted comments as soon as possible, striving for within two business days.
      • This forum is intended for constructive dialogue. Comments that are commercial or promotional in nature, pertain to specific medical cases, are not relevant to the article for which they have been submitted, or are otherwise inappropriate will not be posted.
      • We require that commenters identify themselves with names and affiliations.
      • Comments must be in compliance with our Terms & Conditions.
      • Comments are not peer-reviewed.