Gender analysis of oncology expert participation on online professional platforms. Issue 28 (1st October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kunzman, Jessica; Henry, Elizabeth; Housri, Nadine; Kamran, Sophia C.; Kunz, Pamela L.; Lee, Lauren E; LoConte, Noelle K.; Burt, Lindsay
• Is Part Of: Journal of clinical oncology. Volume 40:Issue 28(2022)Supplement
• Page Start: 350
• Page End: 350
• Publication Date: 2022-10-01
• Subjects: 3282-4644-3689 -- 613-616-1206 -- 227-133 -- 613-616-497; 6 -- 5 -- 2 -- 2; Oncology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Periodicals; Oncology; Medical Oncology; Cancérologie -- Périodiques; Cancer -- Périodiques; Cancérologie; Cancer; Oncology; Oncologia; Càncer; Periodicals; 616.994
• DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.28_suppl.350
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0732-183X

Abstract

Abstract : 350 Background: Social media platforms have been highlighted as a tool to help promote gender equity by amplifying women in medicine and providing means for collaboration and networking. However, limitations of social networks include sexual harassment and persistent gender biases. While the number of female trainees entering oncology specialties has mostly equalized, gender disparities persist among faculty in promotion, publishing, and leadership positions. We sought to characterize the engagement of female and male oncologists via a private, moderated knowledge-sharing platform, theMednet.org, which disseminates expert knowledge via question-and-answer format. Methods: Questions were posted by registered oncologists on theMednet.org and reviewed by a team of physician editors who then invited selected experts to respond. Experts were selected by the editorial team based on research prominence, academic rank, leadership, and other expert recommendations. Physician information, such as role (academic, community, or trainee), specialty (radiation oncology (RO), medical oncology (MO)), questions asked, and questions answered were analyzed from June 2014 through June 2022. The gender of each physician was determined from their associated National Provider Identifier (NPI), which is recorded as female or male; users without an associated NPI were excluded from the data set. Statistical significance was determined through unpaired two-tailed T-tests and chi-squared testing. Results: Among RO and MO physicians, 3376 were identified as female and 6011 were identified as male. Female faculty make up 42% of experts, which was proportionate to the percent of female users. Female and male experts were invited to answer questions at similar rates for all specialties; however, male experts answered questions at a statistically significantly higher rate in RO (51% vs 18%) and MO (27.5% vs 14%) (Table). Conclusions: While female and male experts were equally invited to answer questions, male experts were significantly more likely to answer questions. As online platforms are increasingly raising the prominence of academics on a national level, lower engagement by female experts may further compound gender disparities in academia. Further studies should identify actual and perceived barriers to female experts answering questions and interacting on professional platforms.User data for experts in oncology specialties. Specialty # Registered Physicians # Experts (% of user base by gender) Average # Questions Invited to Answer per Expert Average # Answers Submitted per Expert Rate of Response Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Radiation Oncology 1280 3126 217 (17%) 512 (15%) 18.39 18.21 3.33* 9.32* 18% 51% Medical Oncology 2219 3386 352 (16%) 508 (15%) 20.93 18.8 3.01*** 5.17*** 14% 27.5% Total 3499 6512 734 (21%) 1176 (18%) * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.