Cited by 188Diversity and Career in MedicineCareer Development and DiversityGender Diversity and Inequality

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access

Abstract

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacr.2014.03.007

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 49 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Hansen, 2013, Diversified assets: A new ACR commission seeks to change the traditional face of radiology, ACR Bull, 68
  2. Macura, 2013, Diversity 3.0: Are we there yet, ACR Bull, 68
  3. Cobb, 1955, Association of American Medical Colleges acknowedges problem, J Natl Med Assoc, 47, 73
  4. AMA. AMA policies on GLBT issues 2013. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-people/member-groups-sections/glbt-advisory-committee/ama-policy-regarding-sexual-orientation.page. Accessed November 23, 2013.
  5. Chen, 2013, 5 signs that disney has supported gay rights for over 2 decades, PolicyMic
  6. 2011, Only skin deep? Re-examining the business case for diversity, Australia, Syndey

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lightfoote, J. B., Fielding, J. R., Deville, C., Gunderman, R. B., Morgan, G. N., Pandharipande, P. V., Duerinckx, A. J., Wynn, R. B., & Macura, K. J.
Affiliations
  • Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
  • Virginia Mason Medical Center (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Lightfoote, Johnson B.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Radiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-07
Volume
11
Issue
7
Pages
673-680
ISSN
1546-1440 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2160657387
Cited by
188
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
17.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • Health Resources and Services Administration
  • National Cancer Institute (P30CA006973)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Career Development and Diversity
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
Keywords
diversity in medicine, inclusion, representation, radiology workforce, radiation oncology workforce, gender diversity, racial and ethnic diversity, sexual orientation, gender identity, diversity policy, business case for diversity
MeSH terms
Workforce, Minority Groups, Physicians, Prejudice, United States, Radiation Oncology, Cultural Diversity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review