Imam M. Xierali

Background: A rising population of cancer survivors is accompanied by a shortage of oncologists for continuity of care. This study examined the physicians who provided most of the care for cancer survivors, along with written information provided to the survivors before transfer of care. Methods: Data were collected through the CDC-sponsored Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Our analysis involved states whose respondents completed a cancer survivorship module from 2016 to 2020. Primary measures were the proportions of physician specialists who provided most of their subsequent health care and the proportions of survivors who received written summaries of their care and instructions. Results: The 36,737 cancer survivor respondents came from 33 states. Most of their health care came from primary care physicians [family physicians (42.3%, 95% CI: 41.3–43.2%) and general internists (26.0%, 95% CI: 25.2–26.9%)]. When seen by primary care physicians rather than subspecialists, a lower proportion of patients recalled receiving summaries of either their cancer treatments (44.3%, 95% CI: 42.5 to 46.2 vs 50.5%, 95% CI: 49.4 to 51.7%) or follow-up instructions (69.9%, 95% CI: 68.8 to 71.0% vs 78.7%, 95%CI 77.1 to 80.2%), regardless of their cancer type. Conclusions: Regardless of their cancer type, two-thirds of survivors received most of their health care from primary care physicians. Collaborative community-based care within a shared decision-making framework is essential to prioritize and individualize patients9 understandings and needs in this growing population.

Background: As designated department leader, chairs need to be sensitive to diversity and inclusiveness for recruitment and retention of faculty and visibility to medical students and resident physicians. The purpose of this analysis is to describe diversity by sex and race/ethnicity of family medicine (FM) chairs as a beginning to understand trends. Methods: This cross-sectional, observational study involved 2018 to 2020 data from the Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster. We compared this data with other department chairs, faculty, medical school matriculants, and the US general population. Results: There were 407 FM chair observations. While many FM chairs were White males, this was lower than all other clinical departments combined. The proportion of chairs who were under-represented minorities was highest in FM (16.7%) compared with all other departments The distributions of FM chairs who were Black, Asian, and Native American were comparable with the US population. The proportions of Hispanic FM chairs, FM faculty, and medical school matriculants lagged behind the population. Conclusion: Diversity of department chairs in FM is greater than many other clinical departments and more representative of the US general population. Attention by chairs to leadership development of females and recruitment of Hispanic faculty are priorities.

Withdrawal mapping is effective in showing the educational impact of residency programs and medical schools. It is often used for advocacy and education purposes, but it lacks grounding in the theoretical foundation of spatial accessibility research. This study proposes an improved technique called Decomposition Analysis of Spatial Accessibility, or DASA, to decompose spatial accessibility by applying the withdrawal mapping concept to the classical 2SFCA application. This study applies the DASA technique to three case studies with policy implications. The first case study details the contribution of Black surgeons to public access to the surgical workforce. The second case study details the contribution of international medical graduates from the original seven travel-ban countries. The third case study demonstrates the market competition between family physicians and general pediatricians. The study showcases the usefulness (particularly for workforce-planning for underserved populations) of the DASA technique in understanding subgroup contributions in spatial accessibility analyses.

Purpose: Faculty promotion is important for retention and has implications for diversity. This study provides an update on recent trends in faculty promotion in U.S. medical schools. Method: Using data from the Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster, the authors examined trends in faculty promotion over 10 years. Promotion status for full-time assistant and full-time associate professors who started between 2000 and 2009 inclusive was followed from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2019. The authors used bivariate analyses to assess associations and promotion rates by sex, race/ethnicity, department, tenure status, and degree type. Results: The promotion rate for assistant professors was 44.3% (2,330/5,263) in basic science departments, 37.1% (17,232/46,473) in clinical science departments, and 33.6% (131/390) in other departments. Among clinical departments, family medicine had the lowest rate of promoting assistant professors (24.4%; 484/1,982) and otolaryngology the highest rate (51.2%; 282/551). Faculty members who were male (38.9%; 11,687/30,017), White (40.0%; 12,635/31,596), tenured (58.7%; 98/167) or tenure-eligible (55.6%; 6,653/11,976), and holding MDs/PhDs (48.7%; 1,968/4,038) had higher promotion rates than, respectively, faculty who were female (36.3%; 7,975/21,998), minorities underrepresented in medicine (URM; 31.0%; 1,716/5,539), nontenured (32.5%; 12,174/37,433), and holding other/unknown degrees (20.6%; 195/948; all P < .001). These differences were less pronounced among associate professors; however, URM and nontenured faculty continued to have lower promotion rates compared with White, Asian, or tenured faculty at the associate professor level. Conclusions: Promotion rates varied not only by faculty rank but also by faculty sex, race/ethnicity, department, tenure status, and degree type. The differences were more pronounced for assistant professors than associate professors. URM faculty members, particularly assistant professors, were promoted at lower rates than their White and Asian peers. More research to understand the drivers of disparities in faculty promotion seems warranted.

Introduction. This study assessed medical students’ perception of lifestyle medicine and readiness to engage in lifestyle counseling. Methods. All medical students in one allopathic and one osteopathic medical school received a survey involving items designed to measure their awareness and interest in lifestyle medicine, perception of physicians serving as lifestyle role models for patients, and intent to practice lifestyle counseling. Results. Two hundred and eight-nine subjects (145 allopathic and 144 osteopathic students) responded to the survey. A total of 24.1% of responding allopathic students had heard about lifestyle medicine compared with 53.9% of responding osteopathic students (P < .01). A total of 90.5% of allopathic students rated their current knowledge of lifestyle medicine as inadequate or poor compared with 78.7% of osteopathic students (P < .01). Ninety-two percent of all respondents wanted to learn more about lifestyle medicine, while 95.2% believed they would provide more effective counseling if they were trained sufficiently to serve as a healthy lifestyle role model for their patients. Conclusions. Both cohorts favored learning more about lifestyle medicine and believed physicians should provide lifestyle counseling to patients with chronic diseases. Given these findings, and the demonstrated benefits of lifestyle medicine–based health care, the authors suggest that training in lifestyle medicine be increased in undergraduate medical education.

Purpose: To assess the changing diversity of faculty in specific clinical and basic science departments, stratified by sex and underrepresented in medicine (URM) status, at all Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME)-accredited medical schools. Method: In this retrospective, cross-sectional, observational study, the authors used data from the Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster (data pulled in October 2019) to identify trends in clinical department faculty and in basic science department faculty by sex and URM status. They included full-time faculty at all LCME-accredited medical schools from 1979 to 2018. They compared the proportions of faculty across separate departments according to sex and URM status, and they used 2-independent-sample t test and simple linear regressions for statistical comparisons. Results: The number of full-time faculty increased from 49,909 in 1979 to 175,326 in 2018. The largest increase occurred in clinical departments, where the number of faculty increased from 38,726 to 155,677 (a fourfold increase). The number of faculty in basic science departments increased from 11,183 to 19,649 (a 1.8-fold increase). The proportions of faculty who were non-URM females (compared with non-URM males, URM females, and URM males) increased the most—from 14.4% (5,595 of 38,726) to 37.6% (58,478 of 155,677) for clinical departments, and from 14.9% (1,669 of 11,183) to 33.0% (6,485 of 19,649) for basic science departments. Growth was steady but slow among URM faculty, especially for Black males; the absolute number of male URM faculty remained low in both basic science and clinical departments. The proportions of females and URM faculty were highest in the departments of obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, and family medicine. Conclusions: The substantial increase in faculty, especially in clinical departments, has led to greater diversity, but mostly among non-URM females. The rise of URM male and URM female faculty has been minimal.

The nationwide tertiary hospital catchment areas, known as the Dartmouth Hospital Referral Regions (HRRs), were created based on the 1992–1993 Medicare data in the U.S., to reflect referral patterns of hospitals and hospitalization patterns of patients for specialized medical cares at that time. Nowadays, those outdated HRRs have still been chosen as analytical units in most if not all studies in the U.S. where large and high-level hospital service areas are needed. This pilot study aimed to evaluate whether the HRR boundaries have significantly varied over time in Florida. The Dartmouth method was replicated to construct the contemporary HRRs in Geographic Information Systems with 2011 Florida State Inpatient Database. The contemporary HRRs and Dartmouth HRRs were visually and statistically compared in several function-related aspects. The contemporary HRRs included 38 eligible units, twice the number of (19) Dartmouth HRRs, with a comparable level of self-containment (p = 0.634) on average. This reflects the diffusion of specialized medical services such as cardiovascular surgeries among hospitals in the past 2-3 decades The contemporary HRRs hold values for a variety of health policy themes, including hospital policy-making, optimization of healthcare systems, and measurement of competition in healthcare markets.

Purpose To assess the long‐term trends in tenure status stratified by sex and underrepresented in medicine status among emergency medicine (EM) department faculty in U.S. medical schools. Methods This study used the Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster to study trends in tenure status of full‐time faculty from 1989 to 2018. The numbers and proportions of faculty by tenure status were studied over the years and compared across sex and status of minorities underrepresented in medicine (URM). Two‐independent‐sample t test and simple linear regression were used for statistical comparisons. Results The number of EM faculty increased from 177 in 1989 to 5,237 in 2018, with the majority of increase in nontenured (from 120 to 4,485) rather than tenured (from 24 to 198) or tenure track (from 28 to 548) positions. The proportions of tenure‐line faculty increased briefly from 1989 (29.4%) to 1994 (32.5%) and decreased since to 14.2% in 2018. The decreases were greater among men (from 34.5% to 14.9%) or non‐URM (from 32.7% to 14.1%) than women (from 24.8% to 13.1%) or URM (from 30.2% to 15.3%). Compared to other academic departments, EM departments had the second‐lowest proportion of tenure‐line faculty in 2018. Conclusions EM faculty size rose rapidly in the last 30 years, with the vast majority of growth in nontenured faculty, regardless of sex or URM status. This highlights the need to review career development and academic promotions for emergency medicine particularly among nontenured faculty.