Marshall, Ariela L.

Background: Parenthood during medical training is common and impacts trainee well-being. However, current graduate medical education parental health policies are often limited in scope. We explored current fellowship trainees’ knowledge of/satisfaction with current policies as well as interest in potential changes/additions to existing policies. Methods: Fellowship program directors/coordinators at a three-site academic institution were surveyed and information was collected from 2015 to 2019 regarding fellow demographics and parental health policies. We distributed an electronic survey to fellows containing Likert-type-scale questions rating knowledge/level of satisfaction with current parental health policies and interest in potential additions/modifications to current policies. Results: Thirty-five of 47 (74%) fellowship programs responded. An average of 11% of female fellows and 15% of male fellows took parental leave during the study period. Three (9%) of the programs had at least one additional parental health policy beyond institutional graduate medical education policies. In the fellow survey, 175 of 609 fellows responded (28.7%), of which 84 (48.6%) were female. Although 89.1% agreed/strongly agreed that parental health is an important part of health and well-being for fellows, only 32% were satisfied/very satisfied with current policies (no significant sex-related differences). Fellows reported the following potential interventions as important/very important: 79.2% increased (paid) maternity leave (72.7% male, 86.7% female, p = 0.02), 78% increased (paid) paternity leave (76.4% male, 81.9% female, p = 0.37), 72.3% part-time return to work (60.2% male, 84.3% female, p = 0.0005), 63% coverage for workup/management of infertility (52.3% male, 74.7% female, p = 0.002), and 79.9% on-site day care (70.7% male, 89.2% female, p = 0.003). Conclusions: Parental health includes multiple domains, not all of which are covered by current policies. Fellows feel that parental health is an important part of overall health and well-being, but most are not satisfied with current policies. Expanded access to parental leave and new policies (part-time return to work, infertility management, and on-site day care) are opportunities for innovation.

Purpose To explore the interaction between practice setting (academic practice [AP], private practice [PP]) and gender in relation to physician burnout and satisfaction with work–life integration (WLI). Method In 2017, the authors administered a cross-sectional survey of U.S. physicians and characterized rates of burnout and satisfaction with WLI using previously validated and/or standardized tools. They conducted multivariable logistic regression to determine the interaction between the included variables. Results Of the 3,603 participants in the final analysis, female physicians reported a higher prevalence of burnout than male physicians in both AP (50.7% vs 38.2%, P < .0001) and PP (48.1% vs 40.7%, P = .001). However, the multivariable analysis found no statistically significant gender-based differences in burnout (odds ratio [OR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76–1.17, P = .60). Women and men in AP were less likely to report burnout than men in PP (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52–0.94, P = .01 and OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53–0.90, P < .01, respectively); women in PP did not report different burnout rates from men in PP (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68–1.16, P = .38). Women in both AP and PP were less likely to be satisfied with WLI than men in PP (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47–0.83, P < .01 and OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58–0.97, P = .03, respectively); men in AP did not report different satisfaction with WLI than men in PP (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.82–1.33, P = .71). Conclusions Gender differences in rates of burnout are related to practice setting and other differences in physicians’ personal and professional lives. These results highlight the complex relationships among gender, practice setting, and other personal and professional factors in their influence on burnout and satisfaction with WLI.

11041 Background: Twitter (TW) is an essential tool in the medical community. Few studies have examined the use of TW by medical trainees. We aimed to assess its utilization among trainees in hematology-oncology related areas (HORAs). Methods: 576 training programs in HORAs were obtained. We contacted a potential pool of 3,142 trainees. A 50 item survey was distributed between 2/2019-5/2019, focusing on: demographics, professional use, attitudes toward TW, and patient interactions. Responses were analyzed using parametric descriptive statistics. Results: 442 responses (14% response rate) were received; 203 (46%) used a TW account for professional activities. See table for demographics. The most common reasons for using TW were: continuous education (73%), dissemination of information (62%), and networking (62%). > 80% of users have positive views on using TW for: promoting academic discussions (92%), trainees education (89%), and conference networking (83%). 50 (25%) have used TW for collaborations, with abstracts and papers being the most common (20%). Most agreed or strongly agreed that TW: is a useful education tool (89%), and might be useful for career advancement (85%). The most common challenges were: the value of TW content can be decreased by irrelevant content and biased sources (64%), not peer-reviewed (51%), and difficulty searching information (50%). 68% considered that programs should promote the engagement of trainees, but only 21% reported instruction in the use of TW. 83% agree or strongly agree that TW is useful for physicians and patient interactions, but 82% have concerns about legal repercussions. Conclusions: Almost half of trainees in HORAs use TW for professional activities. The most common uses are for education, dissemination of information and networking. Most trainees that use TW have positive views regarding education and academic collaborations. Use of Twitter may strengthen trainees’ education, provide mentorship opportunities, and promote career advancement. Challenges on TW use should continue to be addressed. [Table: see text]

53-year-old male with iMCD developed hematoma at biopsy site. He was diagnosed with acquired hemophilia A and Hashimoto’s both were associated with iMCD. He has been in remission without recurrence of hemophilia after Rituximab 375 mg/M² weekly for 1 month, and 375 mg/M² every 2 months for maintenance.

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.