ArticleCureus2026
The Society for Women in Radiation Oncology Medical Physicists: Where Are We Five Years Later?
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background A better understanding of the personal experiences of women and gender minorities in medical physics is needed to ensure the vitality of the radiation oncology (RO) workforce. Founded in 2017, the Society for Women in Radiation Oncology (SWRO) sought to promote gender equity in RO and includes both physician and medical physicist members. Methods From January to February 2023, an anonymous 82-question survey was conducted among all current SWRO members, including both physicians and medical physicists, via the SWRO email listserv. Survey questions covered demographics, family planning, mentorship, well-being, perceptions of SWRO membership, and perceptions of the RO field. A sub-analysis was performed on the survey responses from medical physicists. Descriptive statistics were utilized to summarize the findings. Results In this sub-analysis of physicists, 20 of 26 physicist members (77% participation rate), including 15 medical physicists and five resident physicists, completed the survey. The majority of survey respondents were in the 31-35 year old age group (35%) and female (95%). The top three limitations of academic productivity reported included clinical responsibilities (34%), insufficient mentorship (26%), and insufficient funding (16%). Twenty-eight percent of respondents reported feeling somewhat or extremely satisfied with the mentorship available at their institution, while 60% reported being somewhat or extremely satisfied with female mentorship in the field. Thirty-nine percent of respondents perceived gender-specific biases or obstacles within their program. Among respondents, 44% reported unwanted sexual comments, attention, or advances by colleagues or superiors. Suggested areas for improvement included increasing education on career development, promoting greater physics representation within SWRO, enhancing integration of physics and RO events, and increasing opportunities for in-person interaction. Conclusion This sub-analysis of a broader SWRO survey presents the perspectives of women and gender minority physicists within RO, highlighting shared opportunities for improvement between RO physicians and physicists regarding female mentorship and gender-based challenges. This supports the importance of organizations such as SWRO in promoting representation and gender equity in RO.
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.