Women remain underrepresented in faculty leadership roles within medicine, despite growing representation and significant contributions across a wide range of specialties. This is especially true in the traditionally male-dominated field of radiology. While traditional mentorship has largely been endorsed as a tool for professional growth, recent research suggests mentorship alone is insufficient to address structural inequities in highly complex academic environments. Instead, sponsorship - or active advocacy by individuals in positions of power and influence - may be more beneficial to increase visibility, support, and access to opportunities for advancement. This brief communication describes the American Association for Women in Radiology (AAWR) Sponsorship Circle, conducted during the 2025 American College of Radiology (ACR) Annual Meeting in Washington, DC. Twenty participants across career stages practiced articulating professional "asks," received real-time feedback, and exchanged tangible offers of sponsorship. Participants reported strengthened self-advocacy skills, expanded professional networks, and a heightened sense of community and belonging. The event demonstrated that even brief, well-structured interventions can catalyze career growth and foster a culture of mutual advocacy. Sponsorship circles provide a scalable model for accelerating women's career growth and leadership in academic radiology.

Health care policy in the United States is made by nonphysician lawmakers and government employees. Through advocacy and lobbying, physicians have an opportunity to be involved in the process. Interventional radiologists (IRs) are the experts on issues related to IR. Government relation offers IRs the opportunity to engage with members of Congress, officials in Federal and State agencies, and State legislators to inform and influence their decision making. The Society of Interventional Radiology PAC (SIRPAC) is the only PAC to represent the interests of interventional radiology. Increased contributions to SIRPAC are essential to be sure that the voice of IR is heard.

On June 24th 2022 the US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that established the constitutional right to abortion. We are radiologists and medical physicists, many of whom hold or have held leadership roles in our professional community. We are deeply concerned about this erosion of reproductive choice and bodily autonomy across the many States that will now further restrict or even ban access to abortion. Radiologists are physicians who use medical imaging - such as ultrasound, CT, and MRI - to diagnose and treat disease. We use imaging to monitor pregnancy from start to finish and have perspective on the myriad of issues that can arise, making us qualified to speak on the importance of bodily autonomy and the right to choose whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy. Diagnostic radiologists are experienced in evaluating post-surgical complications and interventional radiologists are thoroughly trained in minimally invasive techniques to stop uncontrolled bleeding and place drains to treat abscesses. "Today, approximately 21 million women around the world obtain unsafe, illegal abortions each year, and complications from these unsafe procedures account for approximately 13% of all maternal deaths, nearly 50,000 annually." 1The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). "Facts are important: abortion is healthcare." https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/abortion-is-healthcare#:~:text=ACOG's%20November%202017%20Statement%20of,undue%20interference%20by%20outside%20parties. Accessed May 13, 2022. These are our patients, and their morbidity and mortality is entirely preventable with access to safe and legal abortion. We support our patients, of all genders, in making their own informed decisions about their healthcare and management. We urge lawmakers and policy makers to ensure access to reproductive health including safe, legal abortion to all who need these essential healthcare services. Signed Aditya Karandikar, MD A.J. Mariano, MD Adam A. Dmytriw, MD, MPH, MSc Agnieszka Solberg, MD Alan H. Matsumoto, MD Alda L. Tam, MD Alexandra H. Fairchild, MD Alexia Tatem, MD, MPH Alexie Riofrio, MD Alice Fung, MD Alice Zhou, MD Alison Roth, PhD Allison Gittens, MD Ami A. Shah, MD Amie Y. Lee, MD, FSBI Amina Farooq, MD Amit Chakraborty, MD Amy C. Taylor, MD Amy Killeen, MD Amy L. Kotsenas, MD, FACR Amy Lynn Conners, MD Amy Oliveira, MD Anand Narayan, MD, PhD Andi Senter, MD Andrea A. Birch, MD, FACR Andrew Bruner, MD Aneesa Majid, MD, MBA, FSIR Angela Tong, MD Anika L. McGrath, MD Anjali Malik, MD Ann Leylek Brown, MD Anna Nidecker, MD Anne C. Hoyt, MD Anne Roberts, MD Arjun Patel, MD Arthur Fleischer, MD, FACR, FAIUM, FSRU Asha Sarma, MD Ashley Hastings-Robinson, MD Babak Rejaie, MD Bahar Mansoori, MD Bamidele F. Kammen, MD Benjamin Meyer, MD Beth Vettiyil, MD Beth Zigmund, MD Bindu Avutu, MD, MPH Brian Latimer, MD, PhD Brian Park, MD Brooke Morrell, MD Bruce Curran, MS, ME Cameron Henry, MD Camilo Jaimes, MD Cara Connolly, MD Caroline Robson, MBChB Carolyn C. Meltzer, MD, FACR Carolynn DeBenedectis, MD Cassy L. Cook, MD Catherine Everett, MD, MBA, FACR Catherine H. Phillips, MD Chelsea Dunning, PhD Chelsea Neesham, MD Cheri L. Canon, MD, FACR, FSAR Christian Fauria-Robinson, MD Christie M. Lincoln, MD Christine Dove, MD Christine Glastonbury, MBBS Christine Rehwald, MD Christopher Hess, MD, PhD Christopher Murphy, MD Christy Pomeranz, MD Claudia F.E. Kirsch, MD, PhD Cody Quirk, MD Constantine M. Burgan, MD Courtney Scher, DO Courtney Tomblinson, MD Cristina Fuss, MD Cynthia Santillan, MD Dania Daye, MD, PhD Daniel B. Brown, MD, FSIR Daniel J. Young, MD Daniel Kopans MD Daniel Vargas, MD Dann Martin, MD, MS Darren L. Transue, MD David Thompson, MD David W. Jordan, PhD, FACR, FAAPM Deborah Shatzkes, MD Derek Sun, MD Desiree M. Clement, MD Domenico Mastrodicasa, MD Doris Lin, MD, PhD Edward Lo, MD Elainea Smith, MD Elena Korngold, MD Eleza Golden, MD Elianna L. Goldstein, MD, MS Elizabeth A. Russ, MD Elizabeth England, MD Elizabeth H. Dibble, MD Elizabeth K. Arleo, MD, FACR, FSBI Elizabeth M. Hecht, MD, FSAR Elizabeth Morris, MD Elizabeth P. Maltin, MD, FACR Elizabeth Snyder, MD Emmanuel Carrodeguas, MD Erin A. Cooke, MD Erin Shropshire, MD Erin Simon Schwartz, MD, FACR Etta Pisano, MD Evan Lehrman, MD Faezeh Sodagari, MD Faisal Shah, MD, MBA Florence X. Doo, MD Francesca Rigiroli, MD George K. Vilanilam, MD Geraldine McGinty, MD Gina Landinez, MD Girish Bathla, MD Grace G. Zhu, MD Grace Gwe-Ya Kim, PhD Graham Keir, MD Habib Rahbar, MD Hailey Choi, MD Harmanpreet Bandesha, DO Harrison Lee, MD, MBA Haydee Ojeda-Fournier, MD, FSBI Heather Early, MD Heather Greenwood, MD Ichiro Ikuta, MD, MMSc Irena Dragojevic, PhD J. Hugo Decker MD, PhD James Matthew Kerchberger, MD, MPH Jamie Holtz, MD Jamie Hui, MD Jamie Lee Twist Schroeder, MD, DPhil Jana Ivanidze, MD, PhD Janine T. Katzen, MD Jason Chiang, MD, PhD Jeffers Nguyen, MD Jeffrey D Robinson, MD, MBA, FACR Jeffrey Shyu, MD, MPH, MA Jennifer C. Broder, MD Jennifer Chen, MD Jennifer J. Wan, MD Jennifer Kemp, MD, FACR Jennifer R. Buckley, MD, MBA Jennifer S. Weaver, MD Jesse M. Conyers, MD Jessica B. Robbins, MD Jessica Hayward, MD Jessica R. Leschied, MD Jessica Wen, MD, PhD Jiyon Lee, MD Jocelyn Park, MD Joelle Wazen, MD John Mongan, MD, PhD Jonathan Breslau, MD Jordan Cuskaden, MD Jordan Perchik, MD José Pablo Martínez Barbero, MD, PhD, EDiNR Jubin Jacob, MD Julia Schoen, MD, MS Justin Banaga, MD Kalpana Kanal, PhD, FACR Karla A. Sepulveda, MD Karyn Ledbetter, MD Katarzyna J. Macura, MD, PhD Katherine E. Maturen, MD MS Katherine Frederick-Dyer, MD Kathleen A. Ward, MD, FACR, FAAWR Kathryn McGillen, MD Katia Dodelzon, MD, FSBI Katie M. Davis, DO Kayla Cort, DO Kelly Kisling, PhD Kemi Babagbemi, MD, FACR Kevin C. McGill, MD, MPH Kevin J. Chang, MD, FACR, FSAR Kevin Terashima, MD Khashayar Farsad, MD, PhD Kimberly Feigin, MD Kimberly Kallianos MD Kimberly McFarland, MD Kimberly S. Winsor, MD Kimberly Seifert, MD, MS Kirang Patel, MD Kristin K. Porter, MD, PhD, FSAR Kristin M. Foley, MD Krupa Patel-Lippmann, MD Lacey J. McIntosh, DO Laura Barkley, MD Laura E. Heyneman, MD Laura Padilla, PhD Lauren Groner, DO Lauren M. Harry, MD, MS Lauren M. Ladd, MD Laurie Abrams, MD Leah H. Portnow, MD Leah Schafer, MD Leah Sieck, MD Leonard Morneau, MD Leslie Allen, MD Lindsay Busby, MD, MPH Lisa Kang, MD Lisa Walker, MD Lisa Wang, MD, MBA, MPH Lori Strachowski, MD, FSRU, FAOCR Lucy B. Spalluto, MD, MPH Luyao Shen, MD M Mahesh, MS, PhD, FAAPM, FACR, FACMP, FSCCT, FIOMP M. Victoria Marx, MD Majid Chalian, MD Margaret Fleming, MD, MSc Mariam Moshiri, MD Marianne R. Petruccelli, MD Mark D. Sugi, MD Mark P. Supanich, PhD Marla B.K. Sammer, MD, MHA Mary Tenenbaum, MD Maryellen Sun, MD, FACR, FSAR Masis Isikbay, MD Matthew J. Barkovich, MD Matthew J. Miller, MD Matthew S. Johnson, MD Maya Vella, MD Melika Rezaee, MD Melissa A. Davis, MD, MBA Melissa M. Chen, MD Meredith S. Byers, MD Meridith J. Englander, MD, FSIR, FACR Michael Durst, MD Michael Oumano, PhD Michael S. McCollum, DO Michelle Ouyang, MD Mignonne B. Morrell, MD Mitva Patel, MD Monica J. Wood, MD Morgan P. McBee, MD Nancy J. Fischbein, MD Narasim S. Murthy, MD Nataliya Kovalchuk, PhD Neil Lall, MD Neville Eclov, PhD Nicole Kurzbard Roach, MD Nikhil Madhuripan, MD Nikki S. Ariaratnam, MD Nina S. Vincoff, MD Nishanth Khanna, MD Nishita Kothary, MD, FSIR Noushin Yahyavi-Firouz-Abadi, MD Olga R. Brook, MD Orit A. Glenn, MD Pamela K. Woodard, MD Parag J. Patel, MD, MS Parisa Mazaheri, MD Patricia Rhyner MD, FACR Peter R. Eby, MD, FACR Pradnya Mhatre, MD Preethi Raghu, MD Priyanka Jha, MBBS Rachel F. Gerson, MD Rebecca Milman, PhD Rina Patel, MD Robert L. Gutierrez, MD Robert Marks, MD Robyn Gebhard, MD Rochelle F. Andreotti, MD, FACR, FAIUM, FSRU Rohini Nadgir, MD Rukya Masum, MD Ruth B. Goldstein, MD Ryan Manger, PhD Ryan Woods, MD, MPH Sabala Mandava, MD Samantha G. Harrington, MD, MSc Samir Parikh, MD, FACR Sammy Chu, MD, FRCPC Sandeep S. Arora, MBBS Sandra M. Meyers, PhD Sanjay Prabhu, MBBS Sara Shams, MD, PhD Sarah Nobles, MD Sarah Pittman, MD, FRCPC Sarah Rothan, MD Sejal N. Patel, MD Shabnam Mortazavi, MD, MPH Shalini V. Mukhi, MD Sheila Enamandram, MD, MBA Shelby Payne, MD Shravan Sridhar MD, MS Stephen Stein, MD, FACR Steven P. Poplack, MD Steven W. Hetts, MD, FACR Susan Richardson, PhD Suzanne Shepherd, MD Tarek A. Hijaz, MD Teresa Chapman, MD Theresa Caridi, MD, FSIR Thomas W. Loehfelm, MD, PhD Tiffany L. Chan, MD Tim Jenkins, MD Tina Shiang, MD Titania Juang, PhD Toshimasa J. Clark, MD Uzma Waheed, MD Valeria Potigailo, MD Vasantha Aaron, MD Vinil Shah, MD Virginia Planz, MD Vivek Kalia, MD, MPH Walid Ashmeik, MD Wendy DeMartini, MD William D. Donovan, MD, MPH, FACR William P. Dillon, MD Yasha Gupta, MD Yi Li, MD Yilun Koethe, MD Zachary Hartley-Blossom, MD, MBA Zhen Jane Wang, MD These views reflect the opinions of the authors only and do not equal endorsement from their associated affiliations.

Purpose: This report investigated physician compensation studies by gender, race, and ethnicity. Methods: Published U.S. physician compensation studies were assessed. Results: Of the 47 data sets within 46 studies, 36 analyzed compensation by gender and 32 (88.9%) found disparities. Thirteen and eight analyzed for race and ethnicity, with disparities found in four (30.8%) and none, respectively. The sample sizes of the four data sets with differences by race were among the largest in the subset. Conclusion: Most studies demonstrate pay disparities for women, but not for people who identify with underrepresented race/ethnic groups; however, small sample sizes may affect results.

HomeRadiologyVol. 300, No. 1 PreviousNext Reviews and CommentaryFree AccessEditorialFamily and Medical Leave for Diagnostic Radiology, Interventional Radiology, and Radiation Oncology Residents in the United States: A Policy OpportunityKirti Magudia , Thomas S. C. Ng, Shauna R. Campbell, Patricia Balthazar, Elizabeth H. Dibble, Comron J. Hassanzadeh, Neil Lall, Emily C. Merfeld, Shadi A. Esfahani, Rachel B. Jimenez, Emma C. Fields, Johnson B. Lightfoote, Susan J. Ackerman, Elizabeth B. Jeans, Meridith J. Englander, Carolynn M. DeBenedectis, Kristin K. Porter, Lucy B. Spalluto, Lori A. Deitte, Reshma Jagsi, Elizabeth Kagan ArleoKirti Magudia , Thomas S. C. Ng, Shauna R. Campbell, Patricia Balthazar, Elizabeth H. Dibble, Comron J. Hassanzadeh, Neil Lall, Emily C. Merfeld, Shadi A. Esfahani, Rachel B. Jimenez, Emma C. Fields, Johnson B. Lightfoote, Susan J. Ackerman, Elizabeth B. Jeans, Meridith J. Englander, Carolynn M. DeBenedectis, Kristin K. Porter, Lucy B. Spalluto, Lori A. Deitte, Reshma Jagsi, Elizabeth Kagan ArleoAuthor AffiliationsFrom the Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, 1700 4th St, Byers Hall, Suite 102, San Francisco, CA 94158 (K.M.); Departments of Radiology (T.S.C.N., P.B., S.A.E.) and Radiation Oncology (R.B.J.), Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass; Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (S.R.C.); Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Alpert Medical School of Brown University and Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI (E.H.D.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Mo (C.J.H.); Department of Radiology, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Ga (N.L.); Department of Radiology, Emory University, Atlanta, Ga (N.L.); Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine, Madison, Wis (E.C.M.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va (E.C.F.); Department of Radiology, Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center, Pomona, Calif (J.B.L.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charlestown, SC (S.J.A.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (E.B.J.); Department of Radiology, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY (M.J.E.); Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Mass (C.M.D.); Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Ala (K.K.P.); Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn (L.B.S., L.A.D.); Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich (R.J.); and Department of Radiology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Imaging, New York, NY (E.K.A.).Address correspondence to K.M. (e-mail: [email protected]).Kirti Magudia Thomas S. C. NgShauna R. CampbellPatricia BalthazarElizabeth H. DibbleComron J. HassanzadehNeil LallEmily C. MerfeldShadi A. EsfahaniRachel B. JimenezEmma C. FieldsJohnson B. LightfooteSusan J. AckermanElizabeth B. JeansMeridith J. EnglanderCarolynn M. DeBenedectisKristin K. PorterLucy B. SpallutoLori A. DeitteReshma JagsiElizabeth Kagan ArleoPublished Online:Apr 13 2021https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021210798MoreSectionsPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookXLinked In IntroductionThe American Board of Medical Specialties recently announced that effective July 1, 2021, member boards with training programs of 2 years or more must "establish requirements for candidates to become eligible for Initial Certification, including standards for training" and have "policies that accommodate reasonable leaves of absence from residency and fellowship training for personal or familial needs" (1). In preparation for this mandate, the American Board of Radiology (ABR) solicited comments from diverse stakeholders in March 2021—including the Association of Program Directors in Radiology, the Association of Program Directors in Interventional Radiology, and the ABR Initial Certification Advisory Committee for Radiation Oncology—with regards to Residency Service-Time Requirement (2), including considerations of family and medical leave. These communications included an initial proposed policy suggesting that "Programs may grant up to six weeks Parental, Caregiver and Medical Leave during the residency" (2) (ABR, written communication, March 12, 2021; March 16, 2021; and March 17, 2021).We appreciate the ABR's efforts to seek feedback as it develops an updated policy. The purpose of this piece is to promote transparent discourse and to examine the nuanced issues pertaining to family and medical leave considerations within the broader context of Residency Service-Time Requirement (2) policies for diagnostic radiology (DR), interventional radiology (IR), and radiation oncology (RO) residents, with the shared goal of optimizing both the training of competent clinicians worthy of public trust as well as professional well-being and diversity, equity, and inclusion. Given the rationale provided below, we recommend that the ABR leave policy allow a resident who is in good standing to take 12 weeks of family and medical leave during residency (in addition to 4 weeks of vacation per year), to sit for the Core/Qualifying Examinations on time, and to graduate without extension of training, with additional leave to be considered by the program director on a case-by-case basis.Recent Family-friendly ABR PoliciesThe ABR has recently instituted multiple family-friendly policies for DR/IR/RO residents. These include:1. The 2019 Core Exam policy allowing "residents who are in or beyond their 32nd month of DR training to take the [Core] examination if (1) the program director attests that the resident is believed to have sufficient knowledge and experience, and (2) the candidate attests that he or she understands the potential consequences of taking the examination early. This policy change [allows for] up to a 4-month leave of absence, in addition to standard vacation and meeting time, during the first 3 years of radiology residency" [emphasis ours] (3,4).2. The 2020 Clinical Qualifying Exam policy for RO residents broadening eligibility from "until after completion of PGY-5/R4 year," representing completion of 48 months of residency, to now include "with approval of the program director, this option may be exercised after completion of 44 months of residency" (5).3. The 2020 Medical Physics and Cancer Biology Exam policy for RO residents broadening eligibility from "after completion of their PGY-4/R3 year," representing completion of 36 months of residency, to now include "with approval of the program director, this option may be exercised after completion of 24 months of residency" (5).4. The 2020 transition to a virtual examination format for the DR, IR/DR, and RO Core/Qualifying and Certifying Exams, in response to the COVID-19 global pandemic (6).5. Improved lactation accommodation in 2020 from 30 minutes for the Core/Qualifying Exam to an unspecified amount of additional break time that can be requested by a nursing mother (7).We commend the ABR for these policy changes that have benefitted all residents, particularly women and residents with families.Family and Medical Leave: Federal Law and within Medical OrganizationsThe 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows eligible employees to take 12 weeks unpaid, job-protected leave for the birth and care of a newborn, adopted child, or foster child, as well as for care of oneself or an immediate family member with a serious health condition (8). The U.S. Department of Labor considers medical residents to be employees under the FMLA (9). More recently, the Pediatric Policy Council and the American Academy of Pediatrics asked the federal government to pass the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act to create a social insurance system enabling workers to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave to care for themselves or their families (10). The need for these policies, especially with respect to parental leave, are manifold. Paid parental leave is associated with numerous benefits including decreased infant mortality, decreased mother and infant rehospitalizations, decreased post-partum maternal depression, improved infant attachment and child development, decreased intimate partner violence, more timely pediatrician visits and immunizations, and increased breastfeeding initiation and duration (11,12). These concerns are no different for those still in medical training, and in fact, compared with women of a similar age, residents experience higher rates of obstetric complications (13). Availability of leave for all parents can also encourage more equitable parental involvement in childrearing (14–16).In March 2019, the Society of Chairs of Academic Radiology Departments "[pledged] to strive for departmental, institutional, and organizational change that provides 12 weeks of paid parental leave for eligible (as defined by the FMLA) faculty members of all genders" (17). The following month, in April 2019, the Association of Program Directors in Radiology published a statement of support for family leave as well, affirming that "under FMLA, eligible radiology residents of all genders have the right to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid family leave" and the Association of Program Directors in Radiology "encourages program directors to make this right known to their trainees, as indicated by federal law, and to provide notice of any additional rights under relevant state family leave laws" (18). Multiple additional publications have recognized the necessity and importance of family and medical leave for medical trainees in general (19–22) and specifically for DR/IR/RO trainees and faculty (23–26).Shift toward Competency-based Training for ResidentsGiven the wide range in institutional and specialty board policies for family and medical leave (19,20), the American Board of Medical Specialties convened a joint workshop with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in February 2020 that brought together more than 80 stakeholders, including the ABR, to discuss issues pertaining to offering appropriate family and medical leave for graduate medical education trainees (27). The discussion focused on moving from time-based training requirements to competency-based training, which has been an ongoing focus of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education since 1999 with the Milestones Project (28). Competency-based training affords flexibility to accommodate family and medical leave for trainees while balancing the duty of specialty medical boards to the public to ensure the clinical competence of graduating residents. The resultant American Board of Medical Specialties policy for all training programs with 2 years or more duration requires "a minimum of 6 weeks of time away from training for purposes of parental, caregiver and medical leave at least once during training, without exhausting all other allowed time away from training and without extending training" effective July 1, 2021 (1).Considerations Regarding Leave Policy Duration in DR/IR/ROThe ABR's initial proposed leave policy was written as follows with a request for collateral comments:"Programs may grant up to four weeks' vacation per training year. This allowance may be averaged over the training period and is not associated with a requirement to extend training in order to allow the individual to be considered eligible for Initial Certification. Programs may grant up to six weeks Parental, Caregiver and Medical Leave during the residency. This is defined as leaves of absence for personal or familial needs, including the birth and care of a newborn, adopted, or foster child ("parental leave"); care of an immediate family member (child, spouse or parent) with a serious health condition ("caregiver leave"); or the trainee's own serious health condition ("medical leave"). This allowance is not associated with a requirement to extend training to allow the individual to be considered eligible for Initial Certification and is in addition to the vacation allowance as defined" (ABR, written communication, March 12, 2021; March 16, 2021; and March 17, 2021).The above would limit DR/IR/RO residents to a single instance of no more than 6 weeks of family and medical leave for the entirety of residency training if candidates took the allotted 4 weeks of vacation per year, strived to obtain timely Initial Certification (Core and Certifying Examinations for DR/IR residents; Medical Physics Examination, Cancer Biology Examination, Clinical Radiation Oncology Examination, and Oral Certifying Examination for RO residents) (29–31), and aimed to graduate on time. This would be less family and medical leave than many DR/IR/RO residencies currently offer to their residents, and also less than what is allotted by some other medical specialty boards (25,32,33).The duration of allowable parental leave may have a profound impact on the future composition of the DR/IR/RO workforce, a workforce already known to be lagging in gender diversity. For instance, DR, IR, and RO had 28%, 18% and 37% female residents in 2020, respectively, compared with 46% across all graduate medical education specialties (34). Beyond training, compared with other specialties in medicine, DR has one of the lowest proportions of full-time faculty and chairs who are women, at 30% and 17%, respectively (35). For RO, the proportions of full-time faculty and chairs who are women are even slightly lower at 28% and 14%, respectively (36). Lastly, only 10% of IR faculty (40) and chiefs are women (M. J. Englander, written communication, March 2021).Constraining parental leave to less than the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended 12 weeks (10) has the potential to impact the recruitment of women to DR/IR/RO given that specialty training occurs during prime childbearing years (6-year training pathway for DR/IR, including a 1-year fellowship for DR, or 5-year training pathway for RO). While trainees can take the FMLA of up to 12 weeks, this may require an extension of training, possibly having reverberating personal and professional consequences. Delay in residency graduation would delay the start date of fellowship, which may cause a subsequent delay to fellowship graduation or possibly the loss of the fellowship spot itself. Such a delay may also put a trainee at a disadvantage when applying for jobs, with potential financial repercussions in their career for years to come. This could incentivize residents to take less family and medical leave than they are entitled to under FMLA, potentially at the cost of their own wellness and the wellness of their family (38–40). Others may choose to delay pregnancy, even with the knowledge that age-related fertility decline may present significant fertility challenges, especially for female physicians (41–43).Currently, the ABR certification requirements dictate that DR trainees need to complete at least 32 months of clinical training and RO trainees need to complete 36 months of clinical training (27 months for both if on the Holman Research Pathway), within the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–defined 48-month residency training period (44,45). This framework has allowed many programs to offer a variety of rich experiences within the 12–16 months of available elective time, including mini-fellowships, extended research blocks, and nonclinical pursuits in Leadership and Global Health (46–50). Co-optation of this time for a 4-year Nuclear Radiology Pathway (51) and a 5-year integrated DR/IR program (52) has also been established. Accommodating 12 weeks of family and medical leave within this period would allow trainees to satisfy ABR certification requirements without graduation delay. We do acknowledge that the combined IR/DR training or the 4-year Nuclear Radiology pathway in their current forms may present less flexibility than DR and RO for elective time, potentially requiring more careful planning to accommodate family and medical leave.As previously described (53,54), any family and medical leave policy development should also be mindful of the following federal laws. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e and following) "prohibits practices that seem neutral but have a disproportionate impact on a protected group of people" (55,56). Moreover, according to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (an amendment to Title VII), "Title VII is violated if a facially neutral policy has a disproportionate adverse effect on women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth" (57). Furthermore, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits discrimination against a person with a disability, such as a postpartum woman with complications requiring additional time off (58). Lastly, Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs, including residency programs (59).Recommended Revisions to the ABR's Initial Proposed Leave PolicyWe recognize that the American Board of Medical Specialties policy mandates "a minimum of 6 weeks of time away from training for purposes of parental, caregiver and medical leave" (1). However, in the spirit of the FMLA and compatible with the American Academy of Pediatrics, Society of Chairs of Academic Radiology Departments, and Association of Program Directors in Radiology statements in support of 12 weeks of parental leave (8,10,17,18), as well as with the ongoing shift toward competency-based training, we propose that the ABR policy allows a resident who is in compliance with clinical competency and Initial Certification requirements as well as is in good standing within their program to:1. Take 12 weeks of family and medical leave during the course of residency (in addition to 4 weeks of vacation per year), while still remaining eligible to both sit for the Core/Qualifying Examinations and to graduate without extension of training.2. Take additional family and medical leave if approved by the program director without extension of training (to be considered on a case-by-case basis), in keeping with the ABR Initial Certification requirements and Leaves of Absence policy currently in place (4,5,60–63).The normalization of parental, caregiver, and medical leave is long overdue in medicine. The above recommended policy would represent an opportunity for the ABR to be a trailblazer among medical specialties with an approach that maintains high standards of clinical training and truly promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion as well as physician well-being, all of which will ultimately positively impact patient care.Disclosures of Conflicts of Interest: K.M. Activities related to the present article: RFS representative to the Committee for Women of the ACR Commission for Women and Diversity; received money for travel/accommodations/meeting expenses from American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) and Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) for February 2020 parental leave workshop. Activities not related to the present article: has grants/grants pending with Society of Abdominal Radiology, and Radiological Society of North America R&E Foundation. Other relationships: disclosed no relevant relationships. T.S.C.N. Activities related to the present article: disclosed no relevant relationships. Activities not related to the present article: is employed by Massachusetts General Hospital Physicians Organization; has grants/grants pending with MGH Imaging. Other relationships: disclosed no relevant relationships. S.R.C. Activities related to the present article: served as 2020-2021 Chair of the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology (ARRO). Activities not related to the present article: disclosed no relevant relationships. Other relationships: disclosed no relevant relationships. P.B. Activities related to the present article: served as 2019-2020 President of the American Alliance of Academic Chief Residents in Radiology (ACR). Activities not related to the present article: disclosed no relevant relationships. Other relationships: disclosed no relevant relationships. E.H.D. disclosed no relevant relationships. C.J.H. disclosed no relevant relationships. N.L. disclosed no relevant relationships. E.C.M. disclosed no relevant relationships. S.A.E. Activities related to the present article: is a board member of American Association for Women in Radiology. Activities not related to the present article: disclosed no relevant relationships. Other relationships: disclosed no relevant relationships. R.B.J. disclosed no relevant relationships. E.C.F. disclosed no relevant relationships. J.B.L. disclosed no relevant relationships. S.J.A. disclosed no relevant relationships. E.B.J. disclosed no relevant relationships. M.J.E. disclosed no relevant relationships. C.M.D. Activities related to the present article: disclosed no relevant relationships. Activities not related to the present article: has grants/grants pending with Association of Program Directors in Radiology (Jerome Ardnt grant); received payment for lectures including service on speakers bureaus from MRIonline. Other relationships: disclosed no relevant relationships. K.K.P. Activities related to the present article: serves as 2021 President of the American Association for Women in Radiology (AAWR) and is a member of American College of Radiology's Commission for Women and Diversity. Activities not related to the present article: received honorarium for lectures including service on speakers bureaus from Bracco Diagnostics (COVID advisory panel); holds stock/stock options in Pfizer. Other relationships: disclosed no relevant relationships. L.B.S. Activities related to the present article: served as the 2020 President of the American Association for Women in Radiology (AAWR) and is a member of the American College of Radiology's Commission for Women and Diversity. Activities not related to the present article: has grants/grants pending with NIH, CDC, DHHS, VA Office of Research and Development, VA Office of Rural Health, and Association of VA Hematology and Oncology (AVAHO); received honorarium for lectures including Brown University Department of Radiology and University of Iowa Department of Radiology. Other relationships: disclosed no relevant relationships. L.A.D. disclosed no relevant relationships. R.J. Activities related to the present article: received money for travel/accommodations/meeting expenses from American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) and Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) for February 2020 parental leave workshop. Activities not related to the present article: is a consultant for Greenwall Foundation; has received payment for expert testimony; has grants/grants pending with NIH, Doris Duke Foundation, Komen Foundation, Greenwall Foundation, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan; has received payment for lectures for many professional societies and academic institutions; holds stock/stock options in Equity Quotient. Other relationships: disclosed contract for an investigator initiated study with Genentech. E.K.A. Activities related to the present article: served as 2019 President of the American Association for Women in Radiology (AAWR) and is a member of American College of Radiology's Commission for Women and Diversity. Activities not related to the present article: is employed by Elsevier as Editor-in-Chief of Clinical Imaging; received honorarium for lectures including University of Alabama, Department of Radiology. Other relationships: disclosed no relevant relationships.AcknowledgmentsThe authors gratefully acknowledge legal review of the manuscript by Anne Yuengert, JD, Partner, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Labor & Employment practice group, Birmingham, Alabama; review of the manuscript by Austin J Sim, MD, JD; and the support of Kaleigh Doke, MD, Laura Dover, MD, Virginia W. Osborn, MD, Amy Patel, MD, Yi Yang, MD, and Olga R Brook, MD.EndorsementsAmerican Association for Women in Radiology (AAWR) Board of Directors, Executive Board; Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR); Association for Directors of Radiation Oncology Programs (ADROP);Association of Program Directors in Interventional Radiology (APDIR); American College of Radiology (ACR),

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess self-reported breast cancer prevalence potentially associated with occupational radiation exposure from fluoroscopy-guided procedures in female physicians using current standard protection measures.MethodsAn institutional review board-approved survey was shared as a link to self-identified female physicians. We compared self-reported prevalence of breast cancer among women physicians with longer than 10 years of postfellowship practice in specialties with heavy fluoroscopy exposure versus specialties with low fluoroscopy exposure. We compared the distribution of breast cancer risk factors and personal radiation safety measures.ResultsA total of 303 women physicians participated in the survey. There were 8 (16%) of 49 from the first study group and 8 (18%) of 44 from the second study group who self-reported a diagnosis of breast cancer. There were no differences in the distribution of breast cancer risk factors between the 2 groups or prevalence of breast cancer (P = 0.81).ConclusionsSelf-reported breast cancer prevalence is similar between women physicians who are practicing fluoroscopically heavy and light medical specialties.

Journal of Women's HealthVol. 30, No. 7 Letter to the EditorRe: “Academic Productivity Differences by Gender and Child Age in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine Faculty During the COVID-19 Pandemic” by Krukowski et al.Nicole B. Katz, Katherine M. Bryan, Oranicha Jumreornvong, Danielle L. Sarno, Robin D. Ulep, and Meridith J. EnglanderNicole B. KatzAddress correspondence to: Nicole B. Katz, MD, Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, 3500 N Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19140, USA E-mail Address: [email protected]https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8707-5034Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.Search for more papers by this author, Katherine M. BryanVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.Search for more papers by this author, Oranicha JumreornvongIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.Search for more papers by this author, Danielle L. SarnoHarvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.Search for more papers by this author, Robin D. UlepUniversity of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.Search for more papers by this author, and Meridith J. EnglanderDepartment of Radiology, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York, USA.Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:12 Jul 2021https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2021.0238AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookXLinked InRedditEmail View article"Re: “Academic Productivity Differences by Gender and Child Age in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine Faculty During the COVID-19 Pandemic” by Krukowski et al.." Journal of Women's Health, 30(7), pp. 1052–1053FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byGender, Parenting Status, and the Academic Productivity of Pediatricians During the COVID-19 Pandemic17 October 2022 | Hospital Pediatrics, Vol. 12, No. 11 Volume 30Issue 7Jul 2021 InformationCopyright 2021, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishersTo cite this article:Nicole B. Katz, Katherine M. Bryan, Oranicha Jumreornvong, Danielle L. Sarno, Robin D. Ulep, and Meridith J. Englander.Re: “Academic Productivity Differences by Gender and Child Age in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine Faculty During the COVID-19 Pandemic” by Krukowski et al..Journal of Women's Health.Jul 2021.1052-1053.http://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2021.0238Published in Volume: 30 Issue 7: July 12, 2021Online Ahead of Print:June 10, 2021PDF download

This cross-sectional study examines the representation of women in authorship and dissemination of analyses of physician compensation.

The article is part of the series of articles on radiation protection. You can find further articles in the special section of the CVIR issue. Radiation exposure during pregnancy is a source of concern for many women interventional radiologists. There are misconceptions about the actual risks and what is safe. This article will address the myths surrounding occupational radiation exposure and clarify the facts.

Journal of Women's HealthVol. 29, No. 8 Letters to the EditorsRe: “Issues Faced by Senior Women Physicians: A National Survey,” by Templeton K, et al.Shikha Jain, Meridith J. Englander, Roberta E. Gebhard, Susan M. Moeschler, Katherine M. Sharkey, and Julie K. SilverShikha JainAddress correspondence to: Shikha Jain, MD, FACP, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Institution: Rush University, 1725 W Harrison, Suite 809B, Chicago, IL 60612, USA E-mail Address: shikha_jain@rush.eduDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois, USASearch for more papers by this author, Meridith J. EnglanderDepartment of Radiology, Albany Stratton VA Medical Center, Albany, New York, USA.Search for more papers by this author, Roberta E. GebhardAmerican Medical Women's Association, Reston, Virginia, USA.Search for more papers by this author, Susan M. MoeschlerMayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.Search for more papers by this author, Katherine M. SharkeyDepartment of Medicine, Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University Warren Alpert Medical School, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.Search for more papers by this author, and Julie K. SilverDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:17 Aug 2020https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2020.8346AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail View article"Re: “Issues Faced by Senior Women Physicians: A National Survey,” by Templeton K, et al.." Journal of Women's Health, 29(8), p. 1136FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byResponse to Jain et al. re: “Issues Faced by Senior Women Physicians: A National Survey” Kim Templeton, Kari M. Nilsen, and Anne Walling17 August 2020 | Journal of Women's Health, Vol. 29, No. 8 Volume 29Issue 8Aug 2020 InformationCopyright 2020, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishersTo cite this article:Shikha Jain, Meridith J. Englander, Roberta E. Gebhard, Susan M. Moeschler, Katherine M. Sharkey, and Julie K. Silver.Re: “Issues Faced by Senior Women Physicians: A National Survey,” by Templeton K, et al..Journal of Women's Health.Aug 2020.1136-1136.http://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2020.8346Published in Volume: 29 Issue 8: August 17, 2020Online Ahead of Print:May 21, 2020PDF download

Background: To increase awareness, search for solutions, and drive change, disparity-related research needs to be strategically disseminated. This study aimed to quantify whether a social media strategy could: (1) amplify dissemination of gender equity-related articles and (2) collect proposed solutions to gender equity issues. Methods: In April 2018, eight published journal articles covering separate gender equity issues were presented in a 1-hour Twitter chat hosted by Physician's Weekly. Metrics data were collected before, during, and after the chat. During the chat, one question related to each article was tweeted at a time. Qualitative data were extracted from responses and evaluated for thematic content. Results: In the 16-hour period during and following the chat, we tallied 1500 tweets from 294 participants and 8.6 million impressions (potential views). The Altmetric Attention Score of each article increased (average, 126.5 points; range, 91-208 points). Within the respective journal, the Altmetric Rank of seven articles improved (range, 3 to ≥19), while the eighth maintained its #1 rank. The one article for which share and download data were available experienced a 729% increase in shares following prechat posts and another 113% bump after the chat, a 1667% increase overall (n = 45-795). Similarly, downloads, and presumably reads, increased 712% following prechat posts and another 47% bump after the chat, a 1093% increase overall (n = 394-4700). We tallied 181 potential solutions to the eight gender equity-related questions. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that social media can be used strategically to increase the dissemination of research articles and collect solution-focused feedback.

OBJECTIVE. Given recent specialty attention to workforce diversity, we aimed to characterize potential gender differences in the practice patterns of interventional radiologists (IRs). MATERIALS AND METHODS. Using Medicare claims data, we identified IRs on the basis of the distribution of their billed clinical work effort and descriptively characterized practice patterns by gender. RESULTS. Women represented 8.2% (241/2936) of all IRs identified nationally. Female representation varied geographically (≤ 2% in nine states, ≥ 20% in three states) and by career stage (9.4% among early-career IRs and 6.4% among late-career IRs; 18.8% among early-career IRs in the Northeast). For both female IRs and male IRs, interventional case mixes were similar across service categories (e.g., venous and hemodialysis access, arterial and venous interventions, biopsies and drainages) and by procedural complexity (e.g., 5.7% vs 4.3% for low-complexity procedures and 59.5% vs 61.3% for high-complexity procedures). Average patient complexity scores were also similar for female (2.7 ± 12 [SD]) and male (2.8 ± 12) IRs. Female IRs spent slightly lower portions of their work effort rendering invasive services (66.5% vs 70.0%, respectively) and noninvasive diagnostic imaging (19.0% vs 22.2%) than male IRs but spent more time in evaluation and management clinical visits (14.5% vs 7.9%). Both female IRs and male IRs rendered a majority of their services to female patients (53.4% vs 53.1%). CONCLUSION. Although women remain underrepresented in interventional radiology, female IRs' interventional case composition, procedural complexity, and patient complexity are similar to those of their male colleagues. Female IRs' higher proportion of evaluation and management clinical visits supports the specialty's increased focus on longitudinal care so that interventional radiology will thrive alongside other clinical specialties.

OBJECTIVE. This study aimed to determine the effect of academic productivity measured using surrogate metrics, including h-index, publication number, and citation number, on the advancement of academic interventional radiology (IR) staff. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Publicly available data on faculty members in IR departments across academic institutions in Canada and the United States were collected. Gender, academic ranking, leadership position (if any), publication number, citation number, years of active research, and h-index were collected for each faculty member, and these data were used to create a prediction equation. RESULTS. Four hundred twenty IR faculty members met the inclusion criteria for this study. Overall, women were the minority, representing 10% of all IR faculty. Women in academic IR attained academic ranks at a rate comparable to that of men, with 59% of women attaining the rank of assistant professor and 32% attaining associate professor, compared with 59% of men at the assistant professor and 25% at the associate professor level. A trend toward lower female representation was present at the full professor level (women, 8%; men, 15%) but this difference did not reach statistical significance. Leadership position by gender as a percentage of their overall representation in the field was also similar between women and men (first-in-command women, 15%; first-in-command men, 15%; second-in-command women, 2%; second-in-command men, 2%). No significant difference was found between women and men in terms of academic achievement metrics, including publication number, citation number, h-index, and years of active research. CONCLUSION. Women in academic IR achieve similar publication metrics as men and attain promotion to higher academic rank and leadership positions equal to their overall representation in the field. However, women remain the minority among academic IR faculty across North America.

Women represent about 9% of practicing interventional radiologists suggesting lower recruitment and retention of women in IR. The purpose of this study is to understand the factors, attitudes and perceptions influencing female trainees to pursue careers in IR. A 20-item survey was sent to all members of the Society of Interventional Radiology Resident, Fellow and Student (SIR-RFS) section as part of an IRB-approved prospective study between April and August 2018. Survey-weighted descriptive summaries were calculated for all categorical variables. To quantify the association between gender and key survey items, a survey-weighted logistic regression model was constructed in which each dichotomized survey item was regressed on gender. Odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals and associated p-values were computed. 567 survey responses were received, corresponding to a 21% response rate. Among these, 51% were medical students and 49% were radiology residents and fellows. Females comprised 26% of survey respondents. Demographic composition consisted of 64%Caucasian; 23% Asian and 13% underrepresented minorities. In both male and female groups, difficulty in achieving work-life balance was the most cited deterrent (∼44%). Female respondents were less likely to be interested in pursuing careers in IR (OR=1.77, P=0.017). Deterrents notably influencing female career choices included: gender-related bias, desire to have children, and ethnicity-related bias (OR=13.71, 4.79 and 2.31 respectively; P<0.001). Male respondents cited compensation (OR=0.58, P=0.014), and lack of opportunity for professional advancement (OR=0.57, P=0.003) as main deterrents. Female respondents were less likely to agree that women in IR receive equal pay compared to male respondents (OR=0.48, P<0.001). All respondents independent of gender agreed that women are underrepresented in IR (OR=0.76, P=0.298). Female trainees are less interested in pursuing careers in IR citing gender-related bias and desire to have children as main deterrents. Implementation of targeted interventions is essential to improve the perception of our specialty, and increase the recruitment and retention of women in IR.