Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Data-Driven Respectful Discourse in the Society of Surgical Oncology

  • Global Health Services Research
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 13 March 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

We previously reported that professional forms of address in speaker introductions were inconsistently used at the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) 2018 and 2019 annual meetings, suggesting unconscious bias in speaker introductions. We sought to better understand how speakers would like to be introduced, and if guidelines could improve consistency in speaker introductions.

Methods

SSO 2021 abstract submitters received a survey regarding demographics and preferred form of address at the meeting. Respectful discourse guidelines were developed and distributed to meeting moderators. Speaker introductions were reviewed for the 2021 SSO annual meeting and were compared with the 2018 and 2019 meetings.

Results

The survey response rate was 183/347 (53%) abstract submitters, most of whom (143/183, 78%) indicated preference for a professional form of address (Doctor/Professor) during speaker introductions, which was significantly greater than those who were introduced with a professional form of address during the 2018 and 2019 meetings (351/499, 70%; Chi-square = 4.08, p = 0.043). There was no difference in speaker introduction preference based on gender or race/ethnic identification. Respectful discourse guidelines were developed and distributed to meeting moderators. During the 2021 SSO annual meeting, professional forms of address were used for 104 (84%) speakers, significantly greater than during the 2018 and 2019 meetings (Chi-square = 9.23, p = 0.002).

Conclusions

More survey respondents preferred speaker introductions with a professional form of address than were used in prior meetings. This preference was similar across all demographic groups evaluated. Professional addresses during speaker introductions increased significantly after the distribution of guidelines encouraging consistency to decrease unconscious bias and promote an inclusive environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. Torres MB, Salles A, Cochran A. Recognizing and reacting to microaggressions in medicine and surgery. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(9):868–72. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.1648.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Duma N, Durani U, Woods CB, et al. Evaluating unconscious bias: speaker introductions at an international oncology conference. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(36):3538–45. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.01608.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Stewart CL, De Andrade JP, Duma N, et al. Unconscious bias in speaker introductions at a surgical oncology meeting: hierarchy reigns over gender. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(10):3754–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Davids JS, Lyu HG, Hoang CM, et al. Female representation and implicit gender bias at the 2017 American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons’ Annual Scientific and Tripartite Meeting. Dis Colon Rectum. 2019;62(3):357–62. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000001274.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Zeh HJ, Wong SL, Heslin MJ. Warm and welcoming: is it what we say or how we say it? Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(10):3581–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. ExpertEd@SSO. 2019. https://experted.surgonc.org/Public/Catalog/Home.aspx?Criteria=110&tab=2. Accessed 1 Aug 2019.

  7. Cavallo J. Using respectful language to reduce unconscious bias in oncology care. The ASCO Post. 10 Apr 2020.

  8. West MA, Hwang S, Maier RV, et al. Ensuring equity, diversity, and inclusion in academic surgery: an American Surgical Association White Paper. Ann Surg. 2018;268(3):403–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. The Royal College of Surgeons of England. Avoiding unconscious bias: a guide for surgeons. 2016.

  10. Marcelin JR, Siraj DS, Victor R, Kotadia S, Maldonado YA. The impact of unconscious bias in healthcare: how to recognize and mitigate it. J Infect Dis. 2019;220(Suppl 2):S62–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiz214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Capers QT, Clinchot D, McDougle L, Greenwald AG. Implicit racial bias in medical school admissions. Acad Med. 2017;92(3):365–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000001388.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gerull KM, Loe M, Seiler K, McAllister J, Salles A. Assessing gender bias in qualitative evaluations of surgical residents. Am J Surg. 2019;217(2):306–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.09.029.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Qualifications of a Surgeon. 2021. https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/patient-care/surgical-staff-and-regulation/qualifications-of-a-surgeon/. Accessed 1 July 2021.

  14. Setting Ground Rules—Civil Discourse and Difficult Decisions. United States Courts. https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/setting-ground-rules-civil-discourse-and-difficult. Accessed 3 Mar 2020.

  15. Lusk C, Delclos GL, Burau K, Drawhorn DD, Aday LA. Mail Versus internet surveys: determinants of method of response preferences among health professionals. Eval Health Prof. 2007;30(2):186–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278707300634.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Martins Y, Lederman RI, Lowenstein CL, et al. Increasing response rates from physicians in oncology research: a structured literature review and data from a recent physician survey. Br J Cancer. 2012;106(6):1021–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to acknowledge the work of Rebecca Williams, Director of Scientific Meetings at the SSO, and Andrea King, Assistant Director of Governance and Administration, for their assistance with this work. The authors also would like to thank and acknowledge the leadership within the SSO, including the current president Dr. James Howe, for supporting this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA

    Camille L. Stewart MD

  2. Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA

    Susanne G. Warner MD & Andrew Nguyen MD

  3. Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IO, USA

    James De Andrade MD

  4. Department of Surgery, University of South Alabama School of Medicine, Mobile, AL, USA

    Martin Heslin MD

Authors
  1. Camille L. Stewart MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susanne G. Warner MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James De Andrade MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew Nguyen MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Martin Heslin MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Camille L. Stewart MD.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

Martin Heslin undertakes electronic consultations for Best Doctors Inc. Camille L. Stewart, Susanne G. Warner, James De Andrade, and Andrew Nguyen have no disclosures to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: The citations for references 7 through 13 were corrected both in the text and reference list.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 206 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stewart, C.L., Warner, S.G., De Andrade, J. et al. Data-Driven Respectful Discourse in the Society of Surgical Oncology. Ann Surg Oncol 29, 821–826 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-10808-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-10808-2

Search

Navigation