The MedPhys Match (MPM) was initiated in 2014 with first matching results released in 2015. The MPM was designed similarly to other national matching systems for medical school graduates being placed into medical residency programs. Applicants and programs each submit a rank order list of their preferred and acceptable programs and applicants, respectively, by a single deadline. The placement of applicants into residency slots is binding by both parties.

Medical Physics is a highly desirable career where currently the numbers of graduates of medical physics graduate programs and certificate programs far outnumbers the number of residency slots available each year. Completion of a CAMPEP-accredited residency is now required for a medical physicist to be eligible to take ABR board exams. While ABR certification is not required for all careers in medical physics, a scan of job openings listed on the AAPM website makes it clear that it is required by many clinical positions. All of these factors lead to a highly competitive environment for medical physics graduates vying for residency training.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that prohibit discrimination against a job applicant or employee because of an individual's race, color, religion, gender (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, or genetic information. The law forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment, including the search and hiring processes of programs participating in the MPM.¹

A survey study of gender discrimination

A voluntary and anonymous survey was sent to all applicants and program directors registered for the MPM in each of the years 2015-2018 (all years of the MPM to date). The survey study was reviewed by the University of Washington Human Subjects Division and determined to be exempt by the Institutional Review Board. The survey questions asked about the respondents' experiences in the MPM and all stages of the residency search and hiring process, including the interview and post interview interactions. Results from the first two years of the MPM have been published.² In this article, we present select results related to gender discrimination from the first four years of study results.

Table 1: Gender discrimination questions. The table shows the percentage and number of survey respondents in each of the four years of the survey who indicated that they were asked the following questions during an interview for a residency position.

In Table 1, the survey questions related to gender discrimination are shown. According to the respondents, during the interview or post interview process applicants were asked (1) about their marital or relationship status, (2) about their children or plans to have children, and/or (3) about their sexual orientation. The percentages of respondents who indicated that they were asked these illegal and potentially discriminatory questions are shown in Table 1, including a breakdown by gender. The survey also asked how comfortable respondents were in answering these questions. These results are shown in Figures 1-4. Female respondents are significantly more uncomfortable answering these questions because they know that the information could be used to discriminate against them in the residency search process.

Figure 4: The bar graphs in this figure show the comfort level of female and male respondents who were asked about children or their plans to have children.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws that prohibit workplace discrimination, including in search, hiring, and training. They provide guidelines for appropriate interviewing behavior and a list of inappropriate and/or invasive personal questions that are to be avoided. Basically, any question that could be construed as a reason to discriminate against a candidate should be avoided. Such illegal and potentially discriminatory questions have been asked during the MPM search and interview process and, as multiple year data show, continue to be asked. Programs need to do better to avoid gender discrimination.

What You Can Do?

Programs should instruct their interviewing participants—including direct interviewers and all individuals who may be involved in more casual interactions such as current residents, other faculty and staff, and administrators—not to initiate any topics related to family, spouse, children, or sexual orientation. Invite your HR department to provide training and require all interviewing participants to attend. Create a code of conduct for your department that outlines acceptable and unacceptable interviewing behaviors, and ask each of your participants to sign it. Standardize your interview questions to ensure that all applicants are asked the same set of questions. These are common strategies used in other fields and in the business environment.

Graduate schools can also educate their students who are participating in residency interviews regarding their rights related to illegal discriminatory questions. Student groups can role play scenarios where illegal questions are asked and practice how they would like to respond.

The AAPM Board of Directors approved several focus areas and strategic goals at its April 11, 2018 meeting. Among these focus areas is Diversity and Inclusion, where the Strategic Goal is to champion equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in the field of medical physics.³ Eliminating gender discrimination in the field of medical physics is an important part of achieving this.

• ¹ https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/index.cfm; accessed 10/8/2018
• ² Ethical violations and discriminatory behavior in the MedPhys Match; J Appl Clin Med Phys 2017; 18:5:336-350
• ³ https://www.aapm.org/org/objectives.asp; accessed 10/8/2018