scholarly journals Hematology/Oncology Fellows' Future Plans and Job Expectations: Findings from the 2019 Hematology/Oncology Fellows Survey

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 5780-5780
Author(s):  
Leah E Masselink ◽  
Alfred I Lee ◽  
Clese E Erikson

Introduction/Background The American Society of Hematology and researchers at the Fitzhugh Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity at the George Washington University are conducting a 3-year study of the hematology workforce to understand training, mentorship, and job market factors that influence the supply of hematology services in the U.S. The 2019 Hematology/Oncology Fellows Survey is one of a series of annual surveys of hematology/oncology fellows, focused specifically on second year fellows. Its goals include 1) examining how training and mentorship experiences during fellowship contribute to changes in fellows' career goals and 2) understanding their perceptions of job prospects in their chosen field (hematology, oncology, or both). Methods We collected the 2019 Hematology/Oncology Fellows Survey data via Qualtrics, an online survey platform. The survey included questions about fellows' training and mentorship experiences, career goals, and perceptions. This analysis uses data from the following questions: -At this point in your training, which of the following best describes your intended focus post fellowship? (malignant and/or benign hematology only, oncology only, both or undecided) -Given your current career plans, how confident are you that you will be able to find a position that offers what you are seeking in terms of (1) clinical focus, (2) research opportunities, (3) grant funding, (4) work-life balance, (5) income, (6) prestige, and (7) intellectual stimulation? (very confident, somewhat confident, not confident, not applicable) We used Fisher's exact tests to compare responses to each question about future position expectations by intended focus post fellowship (hematology only vs. oncology only vs. both/undecided) in Stata 15 (p<0.05=statistically significant difference). Results Among second year fellows invited to complete the survey, 204 (27.8%) had complete data to be included in the analysis: 71 (34.8%) with intended hematology-only focus, 64 (31.4%) oncology-only, and 69 (33.8%) both/undecided. We found statistically significant differences between future position expectations across focus areas in 3 domains: research opportunities (p<0.01), grant funding (p<0.01) and income (p<0.01). Fellows with a hematology-only focus were most likely to report being "very confident" they would find a position meeting their expectations for both research opportunities (21.1% vs. 17.2% for oncology-only and 11.6% for both/undecided) and grant funding (8.5% vs. 6.3% for oncology-only and 4.4% for both/undecided), while fellows with a both/undecided focus were most likely to report that these considerations did not apply (34.8% and 50.0% respectively). Fellows in the both/undecided category were most likely to say they were "very confident" they would find a position meeting their income expectations (30.4% vs. 14.1% hematology only and 9.4% oncology only). Fellows with a hematology-only focus were most likely to say they were "not confident" they would find positions meeting their income expectations (23.9%), followed by oncology only (18.8%) vs. only 5.8% both/undecided. Differences in work-life balance expectations (p=0.07) and prestige (p=0.08) also approached statistical significance. For both metrics, fellows with a both/undecided focus were most likely to report being "very confident" they would find positions with their desired work-life balance (24.6% vs. 8.5% hematology only and 9.4% oncology only) and prestige (18.8% vs. 11.3% hematology only and 9.4% oncology only). We found no statistically significant differences between fellows' expectations of finding their desired clinical focus (p=0.30) or intellectual stimulation (p=0.49) across focus areas. Conclusions Findings suggest that roughly ⅓ of hematology/oncology fellows plan to focus on each of 3 career paths: hematology only, oncology only, and both. Statistical analyses suggest stark differences between fellows' priorities and expectations of their future positions across focus areas, likely reflecting differences between more specialized academic positions (which offer greater research opportunities and expectations but possibly lower income) and less specialized, often private practice positions that offer greater income security and work-life balance. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 3538-3538 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie H Wallace ◽  
Janet P Hafler ◽  
Michael E Hurwitz ◽  
Nikolai A Podoltsev ◽  
Jill Lacy ◽  
...  

Abstract INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The majority of graduating fellows from hematology/oncology subspecialty training programs in the U.S. pursue careers in medical oncology or in non-academic fields. A workforce shortage of physicians specializing in hematology has been predicted for the next decade. Large-scale surveys have identified a number of factors responsible for this trend, including financial considerations, educational debt, work-life balance, and fellowship exposure. Qualitative studies in other subspecialty fields have yielded unique insights into specific factors motivating career decisions, but no such study has been conducted in hematology. We performed a qualitative study to identify factors influencing trainees' perceptions of careers in hematology. METHODS Senior or graduating fellows in the hematology/oncology training program at Yale School of Medicine were invited to participate in this study. Semi-structured interviews lasting between 30 and 90 minutes were conducted. Recordings were transcribed and analyzed using the framework method. RESULTS Eight trainees participated in the study, five in their senior year of training, three shortly after graduation. Five were female. Three held dual M.D. and Ph.D. degrees. Most were planning on an academic career or a career with an academic affiliation; two were specifically pursuing careers in benign or malignant hematology. Trainees' career decisions and perceptions of hematology revolved around five major themes: serendipity, mentorship, clinical exposure and teaching, intellectual interest, and lifestyle factors. Most trainees identified seminal, career-defining experiences prior to medical school but were not influenced by medical school classroom experiences and were not differentiated at the start of fellowship with respect to a hematology- or oncology-oriented career. By the end of their first year of fellowship, almost all had decided to pursue careers in solid tumor oncology owing to clinical exposure and research opportunities. Mentorship was identified as the single most important determinant, with mentorship opportunities tending to occur "randomly" or by "happenstance," and with oncology having "more" "available mentors" who played a "huge role" in the career-decision process. Trainees characterized hematology as having a less desirable work/life balance than oncology, and trainees' experiences on the inpatient hematology services caused some of them to feel "burned out." Despite this, fellows commonly perceived hematology to be more "interesting" and "challenging" than oncology, with "much more complex" disease pathology. Financial considerations were of importance to only a minority of trainees. CONCLUSIONS Mentorship and research opportunities are the major factors guiding career decisions among hematology/oncology fellows. An increase in structured mentorship opportunities in hematology may lead to greater trainee recruitment. Trainees view hematology as an intellectually engaging field although lifestyle factors render it less desirable than oncology. Disclosures Podoltsev: Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria.


ESMO Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
pp. e000389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Vittoria Dieci ◽  
Francesco Massari ◽  
Raffaele Giusti ◽  
Alessandro Inno ◽  
Giuseppe Lombardi ◽  
...  

BackgroundThe professional gender gap is increasingly recognised in oncology. We explored gender issues perception and gender influence on professional satisfaction/gratification among young Italian oncologists.MethodsItalian oncologists aged ≤40 years and members of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology were invited to participate in an online survey addressing workload/burnout, satisfaction in professional abilities and relations, relevant factors for professional gratification, and gender barriers. χ2 test for general association or χ2 test for trend was used to analyse the data.Results201 young oncologists participated in the survey: 67% female, 71% aged 30–40 years, 41% still in training and 82% without children. Women and men were equally poorly satisfied by the relations with people occupying superior hierarchical positions. There was heterogeneity between women and men in current (p=0.011) and expected future (p=0.007) satisfaction in professional abilities: women were more satisfied by current empathy and relations with colleagues and were more confident in their future managerial and team leader skills. The most important elements for professional gratification indicated by all participants were, in general, work–life balance (36%) and intellectual stimulation/research (32%); specifically for women, work–life balance (48%) and intellectual stimulation/research (20%); and specifically for men, career (29%) and social prestige/recognition (26%). Heterogeneity within the same gender emerged. For example, the elements indicated by men as the most important were intellectual stimulation/research (39%) and work–life balance (21%) in general, versus social prestige/recognition (24%) and career (24%), respectively, specifically for men (p<0.0001). More women versus men perceived gender issue as an actual problem (60% vs 38%, p=0.03); men underestimated gender barriers to women’s career (p=0.011).ConclusionsSatisfaction in professional abilities varied by gender. Work–life balance is important for both women and men. Stereotypes about gender issues may be present. Gender issue is an actual problem for young oncologists, mostly perceived by women.


Diagnostica ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 134-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Syrek ◽  
Claudia Bauer-Emmel ◽  
Conny Antoni ◽  
Jens Klusemann

Zusammenfassung. In diesem Beitrag wird die Trierer Kurzskala zur Messung von Work-Life Balance vorgestellt. Sie ermöglicht eine globale, richtungsfreie und in ihrem Aufwand ökonomische Möglichkeit zur Erfassung von Work-Life Balance. Die Struktur der Skala wurde anhand zweier Stichproben sowie einem zusätzlich erhobenen Fremdbild untersucht. Die Ergebnisse der Konstruktvalidierung bestätigten die einfaktorielle Struktur der Skala. Die interne Konsistenz der Skala erwies sich in beiden Studien als gut. Zudem konnte die empirische Trennbarkeit der Trierer Work-Life Balance Skala gegenüber einem gängigen Instrument zur Messung des Work-Family Conflicts ( Carlson, Kacmar & Williams, 2000 ) belegt werden. Im Hinblick auf die Kriteriumsvalidität der Skala wurden die angenommenen Zusammenhänge zu arbeits-, nicht-arbeits- sowie stressbezogenen Outcome-Variablen nachgewiesen. Die Eignung der Trierer Work-Life Balance Kurzskala zeigt sich auch daran, dass die Korrelationen zwischen den erhobenen Outcome-Variablen und dem Work-Family Conflict und denen der Trierer Work-Life Balance Skala ähnlich waren. Überdies vermochte die Trierer Work-Life Balance Skala über die Dimensionen des Work-Family Conflicts hinaus inkrementelle Varianz in den Outcome-Variablen aufzuklären. Insgesamt sprechen damit die Ergebnisse beider Stichproben für die Reliabilität und Validität der Trierer Work-Life Balance Kurzskala.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document