Dhawan, Natasha

PURPOSE Integrating palliative care into oncology is essential, yet disparities in access and quality persist, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The ASCO guidelines advocate for early, routine, interdisciplinary palliative care for patients with advanced cancer. Barriers to implementing these recommendations include resource limitations, inadequate training, and cultural perceptions. Recognizing these challenges is essential for improving equitable access to palliative care worldwide. METHODS This prospective survey assessed adherence to ASCO recommendations for palliative care integration among LMIC health care providers (HCPs). Participants were recruited via e-mail, social media, and a list of members involved in the ASCO Palliative Care Communities of Practice from February to May 2024. The survey included sections on sociodemographic information, self-perceived adherence to ASCO guidelines on a 5-point Likert scale, and open-ended questions on implementation barriers. Data were collected using Research Electronic Data Capture system. Participants were grouped by WHO regions. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize characteristics and adherence scores, and chi-square tests were used to evaluate regional differences. Thematic analysis identified key themes from open-ended responses. RESULTS One hundred eighty HCPs participated; 62% was female, and 51.1% was age 35-44 years. Most were physicians (66%), and 50% lacked palliative care specialization. Adherence to ASCO guidelines varied, with early palliative care referrals ranging from 50% in the Americas region to 0% in the Western Pacific region. Key barriers included lack of policy support (25%), unmet educational needs (22%), and accessibility constraints (19%). CONCLUSION Addressing identified barriers through evidence-based advocacy, comprehensive policy changes, training, and continuing education programs is essential for integrating palliative care into oncology services across LMICs, promoting health equity for patients with cancer.

The integration of palliative care into routine oncology practice is the standard of care by most leading cancer organizations. Palliative medicine helps to deliver higher quality of care at a lower cost. However, there are barriers to implementing palliative oncology at many institutions for myriad reasons. In this article, we discuss an innovative strategy that ASCO implemented called the Communities of Practice (CoP). We share our experiences as the Palliative Care CoP and how our group seeks to develop processes and structures to collectively promote systemic change and enhance palliative care delivery for people with cancer. Our Palliative Care CoP engages with senior leaders, administrators, and those in power to achieve a shared vision of delivering holistic health care for people with serious illness. We continue to evolve to meet our members' growing needs by addressing eight main domains: (1) increasing palliative care education and resources; (2) creating opportunities for global palliative care research; (3) providing peer mentorship and community building; (4) engaging with patient advocates; (5) supporting and developing interdisciplinary teams; (6) assisting with professional development and identity formation, especially for trainees and early career faculty; (7) extending our outreach through social media; and (8) enhancing the clinical practice of palliative oncology. The ASCO CoP has been a vital forum to realize ASCO's mission of conquering cancer and advancing the Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.

Abstract Background The proportion of women in the field of hematology and oncology (H&O) has increased over recent decades, but the representation of women in leadership positions remains poor. In an effort to close the gender gap in academia, it is important to report on such inequities in hopes to close these gaps and improve career development. Materials and Methods We conducted a retrospective, observational study of published award recipients from 1994 to 2019 from the seven major H&O societies in the world. Gender was determined based on publicly available data. The χ2 and Cochran-Armitage tests were used for data analysis. Results Of the 1,642 awardees over the past 26 years, 915 met inclusion criteria. Award recipients were overwhelmingly men (77.9%) and non-Hispanic White (84.7%). Women awardees received 30.3% of the humanistic and education-related awards, whereas only receiving 16.0% of basic science awards (p < .01). Women represent 35.6% of all hematologists and oncologists but only received 24.0% of awards given to these physicians (p = .004). Black, Hispanic, and Asian awardees represented 3.7%, 3.3%, and 6.8% of the total awardees, respectively. Conclusion From 1994 to 2019, women were less likely to receive recognition awards from the seven major H&O societies studied compared with men. We also observed a considerably low proportion of minority awardees across all oncology subspecialties. Further studies examining how selection criteria favor either gender would be warranted in order to achieve equal representation in academic awards. Implications for Practice In this study, women and minority groups were found to be underrepresented amongst award recipients. Significant disparities were seen in disciplines that have been historically male predominant, such as basic sciences. As awards on an international level enhance academic resumes and assist with career advancement, it is important that awards are being given in an equitable manner. First steps to promote diversity and inclusion in academic medicine is reporting of gender and racial disparities in various areas of academia.

11009 Background: Gender & racial/ethnic leadership disparities have been independently identified in academic hematology/oncology (HO) and radiation oncology (RO). Here, we evaluate gender and racial/ethnic intersectionality from the trainee to the leadership level. Methods: All ACGME accredited HO and RO training program websites were queried to identify constituent trainees, academic faculty, program directors (PD) and department chairs (DC), with a leadership position defined as PD or DC. Individual gender & race/ethnicity was determined using externally validated software tools (Gender-API, NamSor, & Onolytics), publicly available descriptors, and image review. We grouped individuals into 6 categories: White Male (WM), White Female (WF), Asian Male (AM), Asian Female (AF), Underrepresented Groups in Medicine (as defined by AAMC) Male (URMM) and Female (URMF). The chi-squared goodness-of-fit test was applied to examine if deviations exist between the observed vs. expected proportions of gender/race dyads in trainees, PD, and DC compared to academic faculty. Results: We identified 7,722 individuals from 2019-2020: 1,759 trainees (HO=1525; RO=234), 5,726 faculty (HO=4834; RO=892), 242 PD (HO=149; RO=93) and 237 DC (HO=144; RO=93). Leadership positions were most often comprised by WM (52.6%), and least often comprised by URMF (2.9%). Combined HO/RO analysis revealed significant differences in the observed representation of trainees & DC vs expected levels based on total faculty, respectively: WM (33.7% & 60.3% vs. 42.3%), WF (19.2% & 13.9% vs. 22.3%), AM (20.75% & 16.9% vs. 16.4%), AF (17.9% & 2.5% vs. 12.7%), URMM (4.09% & 5.5% vs. 3.5%) and URMF (4.3% & 0.8% vs. 2.8%), p<0.01. No differences were seen between PD vs total faculty. On subset analysis, there were significant differences observed in HO programs at the trainee, PD and DC levels compared to total faculty, whereas significant differences in RO programs were seen only at the DC level [Table]. Conclusions: Gender & racial/ethnic disparity is present in academic oncology. Specifically, women of all races/ethnicities are proportionally underrepresented in DC positions in HO and RO programs. These data can serve as a benchmark to raise awareness and monitor progress towards a more balanced workforce in oncology.[Table: see text]

11007 Background: The proportion of women & underrepresented groups in medicine (URM) in the field of hematology and oncology remains low, particularly in academic leadership positions. Editorial board appointments allow physicians to have a substantial impact on the nature of the published scholarly work and serve as a platform for academic opportunities. We aimed to assess gender and race/ethnicity representation in editorial board positions in hematology and oncology journals. Methods: Editorial leadership board members from 60 journals from oncology, hematology, radiation oncology, and surgical oncology were reviewed, 54 journals were included in the analysis. Gender and race/ethnicity were determined based on publicly available data for editor-in-chief (EiC) and second-in-command (SiC) (including deputy, senior, or associate editors). Descriptive statistics and chi-squared were estimated. Results: A total of 793 editorial board members are included in the analysis. 72.6 % were men and 27.4 % were women. 71.3% of editorial leadership were non-Hispanic white with Asian editorial board members representing the second largest majority at 23.3%. The editorial position was significantly different among men and women (p = 0.038) with women filling only 15.9% (10/63) of the EiC positions. Of these 10 women, the racial breakdown was 90% white and 10% Asian. In the prevalence odds ratio (pOR), women were about half as likely to be in the EiC position compared with men [pOR: 0.47, 95%CI (0.23, 0.95, p = 0.03)]. Women represented 28.4% (207/730) of SiC editorial positions. White editors had the highest representation at 71.0% in the SiC editorial positions, followed by Asian editors at 16.0%. Notable differences were seen in gender proportions between journal specialties (p = 0.001); with surgical oncology and hematology having the lowest female representation at 11.9% and 22.7%, respectively. Conclusions: Women and UIM are markedly underrepresented in leadership roles on Editorial Boards in hematology and oncology journals. Importantly, the representation of minority women physicians in EiC positions is at an inexorable zero which is a sign of unconscious attitudes that may exclude women and minorities from certain positions. It is imperative that we work to move towards a more diverse and inclusive editorial board to ensure critical perspectives are heard and scientific discovery is fostered.[Table: see text]

11012 Background: The proportion of women in the field of hematology and oncology (H&O) has increased over recent decades, but representation by women in leadership positions remains a challenge. Our aim was to examine representation of winners of recognition awards by gender and race from the major international hematology and oncology societies. Methods: Published award recipients from the seven major H&O societies were reviewed, with 26 years of data included (1994-2019). Awardee demographics and academic rank were collected and included in the analysis. Gender was determined based on awardee full name and verified by public data. Chi-square and Cochran-Armitage tests were used to analyze the data. Results: Over the past 26 years, 942 awards were presented at the 7 major H&O societies. We excluded 27 gender specific awards from the analysis. Of the 915 awardees included in analysis, award recipients were overwhelmingly men (77.9%) and non-Hispanic white (84.7%). Gender breakdown by society is described in table. ESMO and ASTRO represented the lowest distribution of women at 9.1% and 11.1%, respectively. Women awardees received 30.3% of the awards categorized as humanistic and education-related, while only receiving 16.0% of awards in the basic sciences category (p<0.01). The Cochran-Armitage test demonstrated an upward trend in the number of women awardees, from 10% between 1994-1998 to 25.6% between 2014-2019 (p=0.0004). Over the past five years, the average proportion of women medical oncologists was 35.6% per the AAMC. In this time period, women oncologists have received only 24.0% of all awards, suggesting the awardees included in the study period do not represent the proportion women in the field (p=0.00424). Black, Hispanic, and Asian awardees represented 3.7%, 3.3%, and 6.8% of the total awardees, respectively. Of the 64 Black and Hispanic awardees, 60.9% of the awards were for investigating healthcare disparities and only 4.6% were given for basic science research. Conclusions: During our study period, women physicians and investigators were less likely to receive recognition awards from the seven major H&O societies compared to men. We also observed a considerable low proportion of minority awardees in all oncology subspecialties. While the proportion of women awardees has increased over time, significant underrepresentation remains. [Table: see text]