From Beaming Cancer to Beaming Parent: Paternity Leave Experiences in Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) With the arrival of a child, working professionals often struggle with child-caring responsibilities. This can be exacerbated by the absence of an adequate support system at work, such as lack of parental leave. Though supported by most men and women, paternity leave is heavily underutilized across industries due in part to external pressures and a lack of consistent availability. To date, the topic of paternity leave has not been examined in our field. Therefore, our goal is to evaluate the utilization of paternity leave in radiation oncology (RO) practices and identify any associated barriers. MATERIALS/METHODS After IRB approval, a voluntary, anonymous 36-item survey was distributed via email to 536 male domestic RO attending & resident physicians. Questions assessed paternity leave policies, utilization, and departmental support. Data was collected using an online survey platform from January to February 2021. Descriptive statistics were obtained for analysis. RESULTS The survey response rate was 20% (n = 108) with 98% of participants completing all applicable questions. Respondents comprised of 58% (n = 63) attending physicians and 42% (n = 45) resident physicians. The median age of all respondents was 35 years. Eighty-five percent (n = 92) of respondents were married and 67% (n = 72) had at least one child. Seventy-nine percent (n = 50) of attending physicians were 0 to 5 years removed from training. Amongst all participants, 47% (n = 51) stated their practice had a formal paternity leave policy in place, 18% (n = 19) stated paternity leave was allowed but there was no formal policy available, and 25% (n = 27) stated their department did not offer paternity leave. Of the 72 men with children, 64% (n = 46) reported they have taken paternity leave at least once while 22% (n = 16) noted that they would have but none was available. The median time allowed for leave was 4 weeks (range 0.5 weeks to unlimited) while median time taken was 2 weeks (range 0.5 to 12 weeks). Sixteen men stated they felt pressure to take less leave than what is allowed by their policy. In retrospect, 46% of men stated they would take more time off for paternity leave. Only 2% (n = 1) did not feel supported by their colleagues while 15% (n = 7) experienced financial repercussions by taking leave. CONCLUSION This is the first study to investigate the utilization of paternity leave in RO practices in the United States. More than a third of respondents did not have a formal paternity leave policy. Of those that utilized paternity leave, the median taken time was less than the median allotted time, partially due to departmental pressure. In retrospect, close to 50% of respondents would have taken more leave. Integrating expanded family leave policies, including specifically allowing for paternity leave and accompanying these policies with cultural changes acknowledging the importance of family leave, would be beneficial to improving quality of life and work-life balance for parents.