Murphy, Martina

Abstract Background The National Institutes of Health define African Americans or Blacks, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Hispanics or Latinos, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders as being underrepresented in medicine. A number of studies have demonstrated that improving diversity of such underrepresented demographics within the medical profession improves patient outcomes, medical education and reduces health disparities in patients from vulnerable racial or socioeconomic groups. Despite this recognition, significant underrepresentation of various racial, ethnic, and sexual identities still exists within nearly all medical specialties. Aims The purpose of this study was to a gain a greater understanding of the current state of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts among U.S. hematology and medical oncology fellowship training programs. We explored the perspectives of adult and pediatric fellowship program directors regarding current recruitment strategies and suggestions for improvement to help mitigate the effects of implicit and explicit bias. Here, we present an interim analysis of the data using descriptive statistics. Methods: We convened a multi-institutional collaboration of fellowship program directors, teaching faculty, and staff members of the American Society of Hematology to develop a survey examining perceptions of DEI efforts among hematology and medical oncology fellowship program directors. The survey was pilot tested in a small group of program directors representing 6 different academic programs (5 adult, 1 pediatric). The final online survey was distributed via email to 224 fellowship program directors at U.S. adult and pediatric hematology and medical oncology fellowship programs. The survey included 29 questions regarding perspectives on bias within the fellowship selection process, current DEI initiatives, and current faculty and fellow demographics. Survey respondents were asked to rate the importance of numerous factors in determining which applicants to invite utilizing a scale of 0-10, with 0 and 10 representing lowest and highest importance, respectively. To measure program director perceptions of certain applicant groups, survey respondents were asked to rate applicant demographics as being advantaged/disadvantaged based on survey options ranging from 0-5, with 0 and 5 representing very disadvantaged and very advantaged, respectively. Results: At interim analysis, 41 of 224 program directors completed the survey for an interim response rate of 21%, including 25 adult program directors and 16 pediatric program directors, with representation from university and community programs. Of the program directors surveyed, 28 (68%) reported having access to a dedicated diversity committee or DEI policies in place to improve recruitment of underrepresented applicants. In determining which applicants to invite, respondents placed highest value on the applicant's program director letter (mean score ± standard deviation: 7.44±1.93), caliber of the applicant's residency program (7.28±2.06) and letters of recommendations (7.15±2.23). Survey respondents viewed white and male applicants as representing the most advantaged demographic group, while LGBTQI, age>40, and U.S. citizen and non-citizen international medical graduates were the most disadvantaged (Table 1). Suggestions regarding improving DEI in the fellowship selection process included implementing bias training, identifying potentially disadvantaged applicants in ERAS, increasing faculty diversity, and pairing underrepresented applicants with interviewers based on applicant preference. Conclusion: While the majority of hematology and medical oncology fellowship program directors report having DEI programs or policies to improve recruitment of underrepresented applicants, perceptions of advantaged/disadvantaged groups may extend beyond demographics traditionally viewed as being underrepresented in medicine. As our survey is ongoing, we plan to reanalyze our data when the survey has been finalized with a higher response rate utilizing multivariable regression to identify themes that may further improve DEI efforts within the fellowship selection process. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures LaCasce: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.: Other: Data Safetly and Monitoring. Murphy: North American Thrombosis Foundation: Honoraria. Naik: Rigel: Research Funding. Podoltsev: Pfizer: Honoraria; Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; PharmaEssentia: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squib: Honoraria; CTI BioPharma: Honoraria.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected many aspects of healthcare, including medical education and training. Its impact on hematology/oncology (HO) fellowship programs has not yet been characterized. Methods The American Society of Hematology (ASH) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) sent an anonymous survey in June 2020 to all HO program directors (PDs) addressing program changes during the COVID-19 pandemic and their perception of impact on trainees' experience, education, and mental health. The survey included 32 multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Participants who completed the survey received a $10 gift card. Quantitative descriptive analyses of multiple-choice questions were conducted. Open-ended responses were analyzed qualitatively using NVivo software. Results Of 233 invited PDs, 103 (44%) respondents completed the survey; 22 additional surveys were incomplete and not included in the analysis. Table 1 summarizes PDs and program characteristics. In response to the pandemic, 42% (N=43) of programs removed fellows from outpatient clinics and 63% (N=65) changed research location to home (Figure 1). Most PDs reported their fellows were participating in telehealth for HO care (79%, N=81) and 21% (N=22) had their fellows re-deployed to cover medicine and other non-HO services. To support fellows' mental health most programs held additional virtual meetings (76%, N=78) and social events (52%, N=54). Twenty one percent of PDs (N=22) reported their program's professional development funds were completely cut or frozen and 17% (N=17) had funds cut slightly. Most PDs reported the pandemic negatively impacted fellowship overall (67% slight to significant negative impact, N=69), 72% identified clinical education as negatively impacted (72% slight to significant negative impact, N=74), and 35% (N=36) reported significant negative impact on research training/productivity. Twenty three percent (N=24) of PDs thought their fellows were not able to make good use of their time during the pandemic, professionally speaking. One third (33%, N=34) of PDs anticipated the pandemic would lead to lack of fellow clinical preparedness, 24% (N=25) with need to make up clinical rotations, and 15% (N=15) anticipated a negative impact on HO board pass rates. Post-pandemic, most PDs plan to maintain some virtual educational sessions (73%, N=75) and telehealth in fellows' continuity clinic (55%, N=57). Among PDs, the prevalence of burnout increased from 16% (N=16) pre-pandemic to 45% (N=46) during the pandemic (p<0.0001). Seventeen percent (N=18) of PDs witnessed moderate signs of fellow burnout and 52% (N=54) witnessed minor signs of fellow burnout during the pandemic. Several educational and research constraints were identified via qualitative analysis: limited in-person clinical rotations, supervision of telehealth encounters, training year promotion and making up clinical time, limited professional development activities, board exam cancellations, and inability to perform research. Additional PD-identified trainee concerns included: ability to obtain childcare, separation from family, and Visa concerns among international fellows. PDs anticipated that financial constraints leading to cuts or removal of discretionary funds may have negative consequences for fellows' professional development activities and could force PDs to decrease program size in the future. PD recommendations for ASH and ASCO included: reducing or eliminating fellow membership fees, providing free access to educational materials and meetings, eliminating in-training examination fees, providing virtual sessions on career development, telehealth and wellness, virtual journal clubs, PD webinars focused on navigating fellowship issues and virtual interviews, and extending ASCO YIA funding for a second year. Conclusions PDs reported that their fellowship programs' clinical, educational, and research experiences have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. PDs are concerned about the impact of budget cuts on fellows' professional and career development. PD burnout increased during the pandemic and most PDs observed at least mild burnout among their fellows. Professional societies can support fellowship programs by limiting fees and costs associated with membership, exams, and meetings, and increasing virtual opportunities for both fellows and PDs. Disclosures Velazquez Manana: Portola Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership; Midatech: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership; Corbus Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership.

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.

10503 Background: Gender bias can be reinforced through the use of gender-subordinating language and differences in the forms of address. We examined how professional titles were used during speakers’ introductions at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting. Methods: A retrospective observational study of video-archived speaker introductions at the 2017 and 2018 ASCO annual meetings was conducted. Data were extracted by mixed-gender coders. Professional address was defined as professional title followed by full name or last name. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with the form of address. Results: 2511 videos were reviewed and 812 met inclusion criteria. Regarding speakers’ characteristics, 530 (65%) were non-Hispanic white (NHW), 743 (92%) held a MD or MD-PhD degree, and 484 (60%) were an associate or full professor. Female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address compared to male speakers (61% vs. 81%, p < 0.001). Female speakers were more likely to be introduced by first name only (17% vs. 3%, p < 0.001). Males were less likely to use a professional address when introducing female speakers compared to male speakers (53% vs. 80%, p < 0.01). No gender differences in professional address were observed for female introducers (p = 0.13). Male introducers were more likely to address female speakers by first name only compared to female introducers (24% vs. 7%, p < 0.01). In a multivariable regression including gender, race, degree, and academic rank, male speakers were more likely to receive a professional address compared to female speakers (OR: 2.67, 95%CI: 1.81-3.94, p < 0.01). Black speakers of both genders were less likely to receive a professional address compared to NHW (OR: 0.10, 95%CI: 0.01-0.53, p < 0.01). Female gender was a predictor for a non-professional form of address (first name only) (OR: 9.50, 95%CI: 4.38-20.62, p < 0.01). Conclusions: When introduced by men, female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address and more likely to be introduced by first name only compared to male speakers. Selective use of forms of address may strengthen gender bias; more research is needed to explore the causes of this disparity and its influence.

Introduction: Several recent studies have shown a gender disparity in professional doctoral introductions at major medical conferences, with female speakers being less likely to be introduced with a professional title. We sought to examine whether a similar disparity existed at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, 8 investigators reviewed available presentations from video archives of the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting. Presentations were excluded if gender could not be identified and/or speaker did not have a doctoral degree. We collected data on speaker gender, speaker academic/non-academic rank, speaker geographic location, speaker training status, speaker session type and introducer gender were all collected. A "professional address" was defined as either "Dr. [First and Last Name]" or "Dr. [Last Name]." Descriptive statistics and regression modelling were used to analyze the data. Results:Of the videos reviewed, 645 presentations were eligible for analysis; 380 (59%) speakers were men and 264 (41%) were women. A comparison of male and female speaker cohorts is seen in Table 1. Forty-eight percent of both men and women held a Medical Doctor degree (MD), and the rest were MD/PhD or PhD graduates. Substantially more men (28%) were full professors compared to women (13%). Almost half (47%) of session types for both men and women speakers were designated as "basic science." In an adjusted analysis, more women (N=174, 66%) compared to men (N=225, 59%) received a professional address (P&lt;.01). 43% of women were introduced by a female introducer and 42% of men were introduced by a female introducer (P=.79). In addition, 48 of the introducers (19%) for women and 68 of the introducers (18%) for men had a PhD or MD/PhD. In a logistic regression model adjusting for session type, academic rank, degree, geographic location, trainee status, and gender of introducer, there were no significant gender-based differences in professional introduction [Table 1; Odds Ratio (OR) 0.71, P=.06]. In addition, speakers with MD introducers were more likely to have a professional introduction compared to PhD introducers (OR 2.15, P=.03) regardless of sex. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that women were at least as likely as men to receive a professional address at the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting. These results differ from previous studies of other professional medical conferences. These findings may reflect the strong presence of PhD graduates as both speakers and introducers. Both forms of bias (gender and degree-based) merit further study and interventions including speaker training to ensure combatting unconscious bias. Disclosures Velazquez: Midatech: Other: Husband owns stock in this company; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Other: Husband owns stock in this company; Corbus Pharmaceuticals: Other: Husband owns stock in this company; Johnson & Johnson: Other: Husband is employed by this company.

PURPOSE In a professional setting, the introduction of female speakers without their professional title may have an impact on the public’s perception of the female speaker. We examined how professional titles were used during speakers’ introductions at the ASCO Annual Meeting. METHODS We conducted a retrospective, observational study of video-archived speaker introductions at the 2017 and 2018 ASCO Annual Meetings. A “professional address” was defined as the professional title followed by the speaker’s full name or last name. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with the form of address. RESULTS Of 2,511 videos reviewed, 781 met inclusion criteria. Female speakers were addressed less often by their professional title compared with male speakers (62% v 81%; P < .001). Males were less likely to use a professional address when introducing female speakers compared with females when introducing male speakers (53% v 80%; P < .01). When women performed speaker introductions, no gender differences in professional address were observed (75% v 82%; P = .13). Female speakers were more likely to be introduced by first name only (17% v 3%; P < .001). Male introducers were more likely to address female speakers by first name only compared with female introducers (24% v 7%; P < .01). In a multivariable regression including gender, degree, academic rank, and geographic location of the speaker’s institution, male speakers were more likely to receive a professional address compared with female speakers (odds ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.71 to 3.47; P < .01). CONCLUSION When introduced by men, female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address and more likely to be introduced by first name only compared with their male peers.