Oxentenko, Amy S.

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.

Abstract Many gastrointestinal disorders, autoimmune diseases, and pregnancy-related conditions preferentially impact women. This issue of The American Journal of Gastroenterology focuses on women's health in the context of gastrointestinal and liver disease. This editorial highlights the current issue's contents and seeks to spark the conversations to bring awareness to the many issues faced by women as both patients and practitioners.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopy-related injury (ERI) is common in gastroenterologists (GI). The study aim was to assess the prevalence of self-reported ERI, patterns of injury, and endoscopist knowledge of preventative strategies in a nationally representative sample. METHODS: A 38-item electronic survey was sent to 15,868 American College of Gastroenterology physician members. The survey was completed by 1,698 members and was included in analyses. Descriptive, univariate, and multivariate analyses were conducted to evaluate the likelihood of ERI based on workload parameters and gender. RESULTS: ERI was reported by 75% of respondents. ERI was most common in the thumb (63.3%), neck (59%), hand/finger (56.5%), lower back (52.6%), shoulder (47%), and wrist (45%). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of ERI between men and women GI. However, women GI were significantly more likely to report upper extremity ERI while men were more likely to report lower-back pain-related ERI. Significant gender differences were noted in the reported mechanisms attributed to ERI. Most respondents did not discuss ergonomic strategies in their current practice (63%). ERI was less likely to be reported in GI who took breaks during endoscopy ( P = 0.002). DISCUSSION: ERI is highly prevalent in GI physicians. Significant gender differences regarding specific sites affected by ERI and the contributing mechanisms were observed. Results strongly support institution of training in ergonomics for all GI as a strategy to prevent its impact on providers of endoscopy. JOURNAL/ajgast/04.03/00000434-202103000-00021/inline-graphic1/v/2026-07-10T100418Z/r/image-tiff

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]