ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) chapter climate check: Mixed methods analysis of survey responses.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) chapter climate check: Mixed methods analysis of survey responses.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) recently shared results and recommendations from its first Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) Climate Survey, which was designed to assess the climate at the workplace, the AAPM organization, and the AAPM regional chapter level. This work further explores the status of EDI at the regional chapter level.
methodsAAPM's EDI Survey was distributed to 5500 members and had a response rate of 25%. In the survey, three open-ended comment boxes were provided for feedback, including one for regional AAPM members. Sixty-four percent of respondents indicated they were part of a regional chapter, and 6% provided written responses to the regional chapter question. Responses were analyzed using a mixed methods approach with an exploratory sequential design. Two phases were conducted; the first relied on a Grounded Theory quantitative systemic approach, and the second applied qualitative analysis. Chapter member demographic data were collected to support findings.
resultsSurvey respondents provided open comments and feedback on their regional chapter's climate. Data are summarized as five themes: positive experiences, negative experiences, challenges within chapters, diversity and inclusion, and changes observed. Experiences of regional chapters were rated positively by 75% of respondents. Respondents found their chapters were welcoming, and some noted their great chapter leadership. A number of incidents of sexual harassment, bullying, and discrimination incidences were also shared. Other respondents observed exclusion based on their gender, race, highest degree, and medical physics specialty. Chapter leadership data aligned with these claims, with most leaders to-date being white males, doctoral degree holders, and/or specializing in radiation therapy.
conclusionAAPM chapters provide rewarding professional opportunities. This study has highlighted positive and negative experiences reported by its members. The major themes identified can guide chapter leaders to continue to cultivate welcoming communities for regional AAPM members.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.