User login
Results from the survey were reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.
“Female radiation oncologists often spend their childbearing years in training and establishing careers,” commented lead investigator Anna Lee, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
“Currently, physician fertility and family planning are rarely discussed or taught in medical school or postgraduate training,” Dr. Lee said.
Dr. Lee and colleagues conducted a national anonymous cross-sectional online survey of female oncologists of all types and all career levels (including trainees). The team circulated a 39-item questionnaire exploring attitudes toward and experiences related to family planning and assisted reproductive technology (ART) by email and social media channels.
A total of 351 radiation oncologists participated, representing one-fifth of the specialty’s entire female workforce nationally and making this study the largest to date on family planning among these physicians.
Most respondents were aged 31-40 years (60%) and married (79%), had children (68%), and were in training (26%) or academic practice (48%).
Survey results
Fully 74% of respondents reported that their career plans strongly influenced the timing of when to start a family, and 29% said family planning considerations influenced their decision regarding their choice of academia versus private practice, Dr. Lee reported.
Overall, 24% of respondents indicated that they had difficulty with infertility or required fertility counseling/treatment, 66% said they wished fertility preservation was discussed at some point during their training, and 22% said either that ART would have benefited them if it had been available or that they were planning to or had already used fertility preservation.
On the topic of maternity leave, some respondents reported that their institution either had no formal leave policy during training or provided less than 1 month of leave (23%) and that they felt pressure to take less time off than was policy (15%).
“Of note, 32 women in our survey were not offered non–radiation-exposing assignments during pregnancy, and an additional 57 had to specifically ask for them,” Dr. Lee remarked.
About one-third of respondents each reported that they did not feel supported during training for issues related to fertility and/or pregnancy (33%) and that they experienced discrimination for being pregnant (32%) and taking maternity leave (30%).
“Systemic changes are necessary early in medical education and training to ensure women are supported and able to advance equitably in the field. As less than a third of the current radiation oncology workforce are women, improvement upon these issues will be necessary to draw more women into the field,” Dr. Lee commented. “Education on ART risks, benefits, and success rates can help physicians and those in training in their family planning, while the lack of education and structured policy can exacerbate the emotional, physical, and financial impact of infertility.
“Until recently, there has been a dearth of policy at the programmatic, institutional, and national level allowing time and protection for pregnancy and maternity leave,” she added. “Thankfully, this summer, the American Board of Medical Specialties announced a progressive leave policy for residents and fellows.”
The new policy, which goes into effect July 2021, allows a minimum of 6 weeks away without exhausting time allowed for vacation or sick leave and without requiring an extension in training.
When career and biology collide
“The collision of professional and biological clocks for women in medicine is an important issue highlighted by this study,” Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, said in an interview.
“Prior work focused on women in medicine more generally. A deeper dive into the experiences of women in a specific field may be even more compelling to drive change on the part of professional societies and organizations,” Dr. Jagsi added.
The infertility rate observed in the study could have potentially been skewed by the preponderance of younger respondents (resulting in underestimation) or by greater participation of those interested in the subject (resulting in overestimation), she noted. However, it aligns well with the rate in a study Dr. Jagsi and colleagues conducted among female physicians generally using somewhat different methods. That study was published in the Journal of Women’s Health.
Concern about radiation exposure and its potential reproductive health effects should not deter women from choosing radiation oncology as a specialty, according to Dr. Jagsi.
“Radiation exposure is actually very low in radiation oncology, much lower than in specialties like interventional cardiology, where physicians are in the room where fluoroscopy is being used. It is actually an important misconception about this field that merits correction,” she stressed. “Rather, the fertility concerns are related to the expectations of training and demands of work during the prime childbearing years more generally that can lead women to delay pregnancy, which is an issue common to all medical specialties.”
“The investigators’ conclusions are very reasonable,” Dr. Jagsi said. “Although one might quibble whether the exact proportions reflect the experiences of all women in the field perfectly due to the possibility of selection bias, one cannot question whether a substantial number of women are experiencing these challenges and that they merit intervention.”
The study did not receive specific funding. Dr. Lee and Dr. Jagsi disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Lee A et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract LBA 6.
Results from the survey were reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.
“Female radiation oncologists often spend their childbearing years in training and establishing careers,” commented lead investigator Anna Lee, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
“Currently, physician fertility and family planning are rarely discussed or taught in medical school or postgraduate training,” Dr. Lee said.
Dr. Lee and colleagues conducted a national anonymous cross-sectional online survey of female oncologists of all types and all career levels (including trainees). The team circulated a 39-item questionnaire exploring attitudes toward and experiences related to family planning and assisted reproductive technology (ART) by email and social media channels.
A total of 351 radiation oncologists participated, representing one-fifth of the specialty’s entire female workforce nationally and making this study the largest to date on family planning among these physicians.
Most respondents were aged 31-40 years (60%) and married (79%), had children (68%), and were in training (26%) or academic practice (48%).
Survey results
Fully 74% of respondents reported that their career plans strongly influenced the timing of when to start a family, and 29% said family planning considerations influenced their decision regarding their choice of academia versus private practice, Dr. Lee reported.
Overall, 24% of respondents indicated that they had difficulty with infertility or required fertility counseling/treatment, 66% said they wished fertility preservation was discussed at some point during their training, and 22% said either that ART would have benefited them if it had been available or that they were planning to or had already used fertility preservation.
On the topic of maternity leave, some respondents reported that their institution either had no formal leave policy during training or provided less than 1 month of leave (23%) and that they felt pressure to take less time off than was policy (15%).
“Of note, 32 women in our survey were not offered non–radiation-exposing assignments during pregnancy, and an additional 57 had to specifically ask for them,” Dr. Lee remarked.
About one-third of respondents each reported that they did not feel supported during training for issues related to fertility and/or pregnancy (33%) and that they experienced discrimination for being pregnant (32%) and taking maternity leave (30%).
“Systemic changes are necessary early in medical education and training to ensure women are supported and able to advance equitably in the field. As less than a third of the current radiation oncology workforce are women, improvement upon these issues will be necessary to draw more women into the field,” Dr. Lee commented. “Education on ART risks, benefits, and success rates can help physicians and those in training in their family planning, while the lack of education and structured policy can exacerbate the emotional, physical, and financial impact of infertility.
“Until recently, there has been a dearth of policy at the programmatic, institutional, and national level allowing time and protection for pregnancy and maternity leave,” she added. “Thankfully, this summer, the American Board of Medical Specialties announced a progressive leave policy for residents and fellows.”
The new policy, which goes into effect July 2021, allows a minimum of 6 weeks away without exhausting time allowed for vacation or sick leave and without requiring an extension in training.
When career and biology collide
“The collision of professional and biological clocks for women in medicine is an important issue highlighted by this study,” Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, said in an interview.
“Prior work focused on women in medicine more generally. A deeper dive into the experiences of women in a specific field may be even more compelling to drive change on the part of professional societies and organizations,” Dr. Jagsi added.
The infertility rate observed in the study could have potentially been skewed by the preponderance of younger respondents (resulting in underestimation) or by greater participation of those interested in the subject (resulting in overestimation), she noted. However, it aligns well with the rate in a study Dr. Jagsi and colleagues conducted among female physicians generally using somewhat different methods. That study was published in the Journal of Women’s Health.
Concern about radiation exposure and its potential reproductive health effects should not deter women from choosing radiation oncology as a specialty, according to Dr. Jagsi.
“Radiation exposure is actually very low in radiation oncology, much lower than in specialties like interventional cardiology, where physicians are in the room where fluoroscopy is being used. It is actually an important misconception about this field that merits correction,” she stressed. “Rather, the fertility concerns are related to the expectations of training and demands of work during the prime childbearing years more generally that can lead women to delay pregnancy, which is an issue common to all medical specialties.”
“The investigators’ conclusions are very reasonable,” Dr. Jagsi said. “Although one might quibble whether the exact proportions reflect the experiences of all women in the field perfectly due to the possibility of selection bias, one cannot question whether a substantial number of women are experiencing these challenges and that they merit intervention.”
The study did not receive specific funding. Dr. Lee and Dr. Jagsi disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Lee A et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract LBA 6.
Results from the survey were reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.
“Female radiation oncologists often spend their childbearing years in training and establishing careers,” commented lead investigator Anna Lee, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
“Currently, physician fertility and family planning are rarely discussed or taught in medical school or postgraduate training,” Dr. Lee said.
Dr. Lee and colleagues conducted a national anonymous cross-sectional online survey of female oncologists of all types and all career levels (including trainees). The team circulated a 39-item questionnaire exploring attitudes toward and experiences related to family planning and assisted reproductive technology (ART) by email and social media channels.
A total of 351 radiation oncologists participated, representing one-fifth of the specialty’s entire female workforce nationally and making this study the largest to date on family planning among these physicians.
Most respondents were aged 31-40 years (60%) and married (79%), had children (68%), and were in training (26%) or academic practice (48%).
Survey results
Fully 74% of respondents reported that their career plans strongly influenced the timing of when to start a family, and 29% said family planning considerations influenced their decision regarding their choice of academia versus private practice, Dr. Lee reported.
Overall, 24% of respondents indicated that they had difficulty with infertility or required fertility counseling/treatment, 66% said they wished fertility preservation was discussed at some point during their training, and 22% said either that ART would have benefited them if it had been available or that they were planning to or had already used fertility preservation.
On the topic of maternity leave, some respondents reported that their institution either had no formal leave policy during training or provided less than 1 month of leave (23%) and that they felt pressure to take less time off than was policy (15%).
“Of note, 32 women in our survey were not offered non–radiation-exposing assignments during pregnancy, and an additional 57 had to specifically ask for them,” Dr. Lee remarked.
About one-third of respondents each reported that they did not feel supported during training for issues related to fertility and/or pregnancy (33%) and that they experienced discrimination for being pregnant (32%) and taking maternity leave (30%).
“Systemic changes are necessary early in medical education and training to ensure women are supported and able to advance equitably in the field. As less than a third of the current radiation oncology workforce are women, improvement upon these issues will be necessary to draw more women into the field,” Dr. Lee commented. “Education on ART risks, benefits, and success rates can help physicians and those in training in their family planning, while the lack of education and structured policy can exacerbate the emotional, physical, and financial impact of infertility.
“Until recently, there has been a dearth of policy at the programmatic, institutional, and national level allowing time and protection for pregnancy and maternity leave,” she added. “Thankfully, this summer, the American Board of Medical Specialties announced a progressive leave policy for residents and fellows.”
The new policy, which goes into effect July 2021, allows a minimum of 6 weeks away without exhausting time allowed for vacation or sick leave and without requiring an extension in training.
When career and biology collide
“The collision of professional and biological clocks for women in medicine is an important issue highlighted by this study,” Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, said in an interview.
“Prior work focused on women in medicine more generally. A deeper dive into the experiences of women in a specific field may be even more compelling to drive change on the part of professional societies and organizations,” Dr. Jagsi added.
The infertility rate observed in the study could have potentially been skewed by the preponderance of younger respondents (resulting in underestimation) or by greater participation of those interested in the subject (resulting in overestimation), she noted. However, it aligns well with the rate in a study Dr. Jagsi and colleagues conducted among female physicians generally using somewhat different methods. That study was published in the Journal of Women’s Health.
Concern about radiation exposure and its potential reproductive health effects should not deter women from choosing radiation oncology as a specialty, according to Dr. Jagsi.
“Radiation exposure is actually very low in radiation oncology, much lower than in specialties like interventional cardiology, where physicians are in the room where fluoroscopy is being used. It is actually an important misconception about this field that merits correction,” she stressed. “Rather, the fertility concerns are related to the expectations of training and demands of work during the prime childbearing years more generally that can lead women to delay pregnancy, which is an issue common to all medical specialties.”
“The investigators’ conclusions are very reasonable,” Dr. Jagsi said. “Although one might quibble whether the exact proportions reflect the experiences of all women in the field perfectly due to the possibility of selection bias, one cannot question whether a substantial number of women are experiencing these challenges and that they merit intervention.”
The study did not receive specific funding. Dr. Lee and Dr. Jagsi disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Lee A et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract LBA 6.
FROM ASTRO 2020