skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Burnout in United States Academic Chairs of Radiation Oncology Programs

Abstract

Purpose: The aims of this study were to determine the self-reported prevalence of burnout in chairs of academic radiation oncology departments, to identify factors contributing to burnout, and to compare the prevalence of burnout with that seen in other academic chair groups. Methods and Materials: An anonymous online survey was administered to the membership of the Society of Chairs of Academic Radiation Oncology Programs (SCAROP). Burnout was measured with the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS). Results: Questionnaires were returned from 66 of 87 chairs (76% response rate). Seventy-nine percent of respondents reported satisfaction with their current positions. Common major stressors were budget deficits and human resource issues. One-quarter of chairs reported that it was at least moderately likely that they would step down in the next 1 to 2 years; these individuals demonstrated significantly higher emotional exhaustion. Twenty-five percent of respondents met the MBI-HSS criteria for low burnout, 75% for moderate burnout, and none for high burnout. Group MBI-HSS subscale scores demonstrated a pattern of moderate emotional exhaustion, low depersonalization, and moderate personal accomplishment, comparing favorably with other specialties. Conclusions: This is the first study of burnout in radiation oncology chairs with a high response rate and using amore » validated psychometric tool. Radiation oncology chairs share similar major stressors to other chair groups, but they demonstrate relatively high job satisfaction and lower burnout. Emotional exhaustion may contribute to the anticipated turnover in coming years. Further efforts addressing individual and institutional factors associated with burnout may improve the relationship with work of chairs and other department members.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [3];  [4];  [5];  [6];  [7];  [8]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington (United States)
  2. Department of Radiation Medicine, Knight Cancer Institute/Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon (United States)
  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama (United States)
  4. Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland (United States)
  5. Department of Radiation Oncology, New York University, New York, New York (United States)
  6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (United States)
  7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (United States)
  8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ilinois (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22283352
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 88; Journal Issue: 2; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2014 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES; MEDICAL PERSONNEL; OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES; STANDARD OF LIVING; USA

Citation Formats

Kusano, Aaron S., Thomas, Charles R., E-mail: thomasch@ohsu.edu, Bonner, James A., DeWeese, Theodore L., Formenti, Silvia C., Hahn, Stephen M., Lawrence, Theodore S., and Mittal, Bharat B.. Burnout in United States Academic Chairs of Radiation Oncology Programs. United States: N. p., 2014. Web. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2013.09.027.
Kusano, Aaron S., Thomas, Charles R., E-mail: thomasch@ohsu.edu, Bonner, James A., DeWeese, Theodore L., Formenti, Silvia C., Hahn, Stephen M., Lawrence, Theodore S., & Mittal, Bharat B.. Burnout in United States Academic Chairs of Radiation Oncology Programs. United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2013.09.027.
Kusano, Aaron S., Thomas, Charles R., E-mail: thomasch@ohsu.edu, Bonner, James A., DeWeese, Theodore L., Formenti, Silvia C., Hahn, Stephen M., Lawrence, Theodore S., and Mittal, Bharat B.. 2014. "Burnout in United States Academic Chairs of Radiation Oncology Programs". United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2013.09.027.
@article{osti_22283352,
title = {Burnout in United States Academic Chairs of Radiation Oncology Programs},
author = {Kusano, Aaron S. and Thomas, Charles R., E-mail: thomasch@ohsu.edu and Bonner, James A. and DeWeese, Theodore L. and Formenti, Silvia C. and Hahn, Stephen M. and Lawrence, Theodore S. and Mittal, Bharat B.},
abstractNote = {Purpose: The aims of this study were to determine the self-reported prevalence of burnout in chairs of academic radiation oncology departments, to identify factors contributing to burnout, and to compare the prevalence of burnout with that seen in other academic chair groups. Methods and Materials: An anonymous online survey was administered to the membership of the Society of Chairs of Academic Radiation Oncology Programs (SCAROP). Burnout was measured with the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS). Results: Questionnaires were returned from 66 of 87 chairs (76% response rate). Seventy-nine percent of respondents reported satisfaction with their current positions. Common major stressors were budget deficits and human resource issues. One-quarter of chairs reported that it was at least moderately likely that they would step down in the next 1 to 2 years; these individuals demonstrated significantly higher emotional exhaustion. Twenty-five percent of respondents met the MBI-HSS criteria for low burnout, 75% for moderate burnout, and none for high burnout. Group MBI-HSS subscale scores demonstrated a pattern of moderate emotional exhaustion, low depersonalization, and moderate personal accomplishment, comparing favorably with other specialties. Conclusions: This is the first study of burnout in radiation oncology chairs with a high response rate and using a validated psychometric tool. Radiation oncology chairs share similar major stressors to other chair groups, but they demonstrate relatively high job satisfaction and lower burnout. Emotional exhaustion may contribute to the anticipated turnover in coming years. Further efforts addressing individual and institutional factors associated with burnout may improve the relationship with work of chairs and other department members.},
doi = {10.1016/J.IJROBP.2013.09.027},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
number = 2,
volume = 88,
place = {United States},
year = 2014,
month = 2
}
  • No abstract prepared.
  • Purpose: To evaluate stressors among radiation oncology residency program directors (PDs) and determine the prevalence and indicators of burnout. Methods and Materials: An anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey was offered to PDs of US radiation oncology programs in the fall of 2014. Survey content examined individual and program demographics, perceptions surrounding the role of PD, and commonly encountered stressors. Burnout was assessed using the validated Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey. Results: In total, 47 of 88 PDs (53%) responded to the survey. Although 78% of respondents reported feeling “satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with their current role, 85% planned to remain as PDmore » for <5 years. The most commonly cited stressors were satisfying Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education/Residency Review Committee requirements (47%), administrative duties (30%) and resident morale (28%). Three-quarters of respondents were satisfied that they became PDs. Overall, 11% of respondents met criteria for low burnout, 83% for moderate burnout, and 6% for high burnout. Not having served as a PD at a prior institution correlated with high depersonalization (OR 6.75, P=.04) and overall burnout (odds ratio [OR], 15.6; P=.04). Having more years on faculty prior to becoming PD correlated with less emotional exhaustion (OR, 0.44, P=.05) and depersonalization (OR, 0.20, P=.04). Finally, having dedicated time for PD duties correlated with less emotional exhaustion (OR, 0.27, P=.04). Conclusions: Moderate levels of burnout are common in U.S. radiation oncology PDs with regulatory stressors being common. Despite this, many PDs are fulfilled with their role. Longitudinal studies assessing dynamic external factors and their influence on PD burnout would be beneficial.« less
  • Purpose: To identify objective characteristics and benchmarks for program leadership in academic radiation oncology. Methods and Materials: A study of the 87 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education radiation oncology training program directors (PD) and their chairs was performed. Variables included age, gender, original training department, highest degree, rank, endowed chair assignment, National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, and Hirsch index (H-index). Data were gathered from online sources such as departmental websites, NIH RePORTER, and Scopus. Results: There were a total of 87 PD. The median age was 48, and 14 (16%) were MD/PhD. A total of 21 (24%) weremore » female, and rank was relatively equally distributed above instructor. Of the 26 professors, at least 7 (27%) were female. At least 24 (28%) were working at the institution from which they had received their training. A total of 6 individuals held endowed chairs. Only 2 PD had active NIH funding in 2012. The median H-index was 12 (range, 0-51) but the index dropped to 9 (range, 0-38) when those who served as both PD and chair were removed from the group. A total of 76 chairs were identified at the time of the study. The median age was 55, and 9 (12%) were MD/PhD. A total of 7 (9%) of the chairs were female, and rank was professor for all with the exception of 1 who was listed as “Head” and was an associate professor. Of the 76 chairs, at least 10 (13%) were working at the institution from which they received their training. There were a total of 21 individuals with endowed chairs. A total of 13 (17%) had NIH funding in 2012. The median H-index was 29 (range, 3-60). Conclusions: These data provide benchmarks for individuals and departments evaluating leadership positions in the field of academic radiation oncology. Such data are useful for evaluating leadership trends over time and comparing academic radiation oncology with other specialties.« less
  • Purpose: To determine what factors US radiation oncology residents consider when choosing academic or nonacademic careers. Methods and Materials: A 20-question online survey was developed and sent to all US radiation oncology residents to assess factors that influence their career interest. Residents were asked to rate their interest in academics (A) versus private practice (PP) on a 0 (strong interest in A) to 100 (strong interest in PP) scale. Responses were classified as A (0-30), undecided (40-60), and PP (70-100). Residents were also asked to rank 10 factors that most strongly influenced their career interest. Results: Three hundred thirty-one responsesmore » were collected, of which 264 were complete and form the basis for this analysis. Factors that correlated with interest in A included having a PhD (P=.018), postgraduate year level (P=.0006), research elective time (P=.0003), obtaining grant funding during residency (P=.012), and number of publications before residency (P=.0001), but not number of abstracts accepted in the past year (P=.65) or publications during residency (P=.67). The 3 most influential factors for residents interested in A were: (1) baseline interest before residency; (2) academic role models; and (3) research opportunities during residency. The 3 most influential factors for residents interested in PP were: (1) baseline interest before residency; (2) academic role models; and (3) academic pressure and obligations. Conclusions: Interest in A correlated with postgraduate year level, degree, and research time during residency. Publications before but not during residency correlated with academic interest, and baseline interest was the most influential factor. These data can be used by residency program directors to better understand what influences residents' career interest.« less
  • Purpose: Our purpose was to assess comparative female representation trends for trainees and full-time faculty in the academic radiation oncology and hematology oncology workforce of the United States over 3 decades. Methods and Materials: Simple linear regression models with year as the independent variable were used to determine changes in female percentage representation per year and associated 95% confidence intervals for trainees and full-time faculty in each specialty. Results: Peak representation was 48.4% (801/1654) in 2013 for hematology oncology trainees, 39.0% (585/1499) in 2014 for hematology oncology full-time faculty, 34.8% (202/581) in 2007 for radiation oncology trainees, and 27.7% (439/1584) inmore » 2015 for radiation oncology full-time faculty. Representation significantly increased for trainees and full-time faculty in both specialties at approximately 1% per year for hematology oncology trainees and full-time faculty and 0.3% per year for radiation oncology trainees and full-time faculty. Compared with radiation oncology, the rates were 3.84 and 2.94 times greater for hematology oncology trainees and full-time faculty, respectively. Conclusion: Despite increased female trainee and full-time faculty representation over time in the academic oncology physician workforce, radiation oncology is lagging behind hematology oncology, with trainees declining in recent years in radiation oncology; this suggests a de facto ceiling in female representation. Whether such issues as delayed or insufficient exposure, inadequate mentorship, or specialty competitiveness disparately affect female representation in radiation oncology compared to hematology oncology are underexplored and require continued investigation to ensure that the future oncologic physician workforce reflects the diversity of the population it serves.« less