Improving Diversity, Inclusion, and Representation in Radiology and Radiation Oncology Part 1: Why These Matter

The ACR Commission for Women and General Diversity is committed to identifying barriers to a diverse physician workforce in radiology and radiation oncology (RRO), and to offering policy recommendations to overcome these barriers. In Part 1 of a 2-part position article from the commission, diversity as a concept and its dimensions of personality, character, ethnicity, biology, biography, and organization are introduced. Terms commonly used to describe diverse individuals and groups are reviewed. The history of diversity and inclusion in US society and health care are addressed. The post–Civil Rights Era evolution of diversity in medicine is delineated: Diversity 1.0, with basic awareness, nondiscrimination, and recruitment; Diversity 2.0, with appreciation of the value of diversity but inclusion as peripheral or in opposition to other goals; and Diversity 3.0, which integrates diversity and inclusion into core missions of organizations and their leadership, and leverages its potential for innovation and contribution. The current states of diversity and inclusion in RRO are reviewed in regard to gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity. The lack of representation and unchanged demographics in these fields relative to other medical specialties are explored. The business case for diversity is discussed, with examples of successful models and potential application to the health care industry in general and to RRO. The moral, ethical, and public health imperative for diversity is also highlighted

Workplace experience of radiographers: impact of structural and interpersonal interventions

PURPOSE: Within the framework of organisational development, an assessment of the workplace experience of radiographers (RGs) was conducted. The aims of this study were to develop structural and interpersonal interventions and to prove their effectiveness and feasibility. METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of work-related factors, e.g. time management and communication, and two validated instruments (Workplace Analysis Questionnaire, Effort-Reward Imbalance Scale) was distributed to all RGs (n = 33) at baseline (T1). Interventions were implemented and a follow-up survey (T2) was performed 18 months after the initial assessment. RESULTS: At T1, areas with highest dissatisfaction were communication and time management for ambulant patients (bad/very bad, 57% each). The interventions addressed adaptation of work plans, coaching in developing interpersonal and team leadership skills, and regular team meetings. The follow-up survey (T2) showed significantly improved communication and cooperation within the team and improved qualification opportunities, whereas no significant changes could be identified in time management and in the workplace-related scales 'effort' expended at work and 'reward' received in return for the effort. CONCLUSION: Motivating workplace experience is important for high-level service quality and for attracting well-qualified radiographers to work at a place and to stay in the team for a longer period

Toward optimal implementation of cancer prevention and control programs in public health: A study protocol on mis-implementation

Abstract Background Much of the cancer burden in the USA is preventable, through application of existing knowledge. State-level funders and public health practitioners are in ideal positions to affect programs and policies related to cancer control. Mis-implementation refers to ending effective programs and policies prematurely or continuing ineffective ones. Greater attention to mis-implementation should lead to use of effective interventions and more efficient expenditure of resources, which in the long term, will lead to more positive cancer outcomes. Methods This is a three-phase study that takes a comprehensive approach, leading to the elucidation of tactics for addressing mis-implementation. Phase 1: We assess the extent to which mis-implementation is occurring among state cancer control programs in public health. This initial phase will involve a survey of 800 practitioners representing all states. The programs represented will span the full continuum of cancer control, from primary prevention to survivorship. Phase 2: Using data from phase 1 to identify organizations in which mis-implementation is particularly high or low, the team will conduct eight comparative case studies to get a richer understanding of mis-implementation and to understand contextual differences. These case studies will highlight lessons learned about mis-implementation and identify hypothesized drivers. Phase 3: Agent-based modeling will be used to identify dynamic interactions between individual capacity, organizational capacity, use of evidence, funding, and external factors driving mis-implementation. The team will then translate and disseminate findings from phases 1 to 3 to practitioners and practice-related stakeholders to support the reduction of mis-implementation. Discussion This study is innovative and significant because it will (1) be the first to refine and further develop reliable and valid measures of mis-implementation of public health programs; (2) bring together a strong, transdisciplinary team with significant expertise in practice-based research; (3) use agent-based modeling to address cancer control implementation; and (4) use a participatory, evidence-based, stakeholder-driven approach that will identify key leverage points for addressing mis-implementation among state public health programs. This research is expected to provide replicable computational simulation models that can identify leverage points and public health system dynamics to reduce mis-implementation in cancer control and may be of interest to other health areas