Dataset Information

What Are Medical Students in the United States Learning About Radiation Oncology? Results of a Multi-Institutional Survey.

ABSTRACT: The purposes of this study were to assess the exposure that medical students (MSs) have to radiation oncology (RO) during the course of their medical school career, as evidenced by 2 time points in current medical training (ie, first vs fourth year; MS1s and MS4s, respectively) and to assess the knowledge of MS1s, MS4s, and primary care physicians (PCPs) about the appropriateness of RT in cancer management in comparison with RO attendings.We developed and beta tested an electronic survey divided into 3 parts: RO job descriptions, appropriateness of RT, and toxicities of RT. The surveys were distributed to 7 medical schools in the United States. A concordance of >90% (either yes or no) among RO attendings in an answer was necessary to determine the correct answer and to compare with other subgroups using a ?(2) test (P<.05 was significant).The overall response rate for ROs, MS1s, MS4s, and PCPs was 26%; n (22 + 315 + 404 + 43)/3004. RT misconceptions decreased with increasing level of training. More than 1 of 10 MSs did not believe that RT alone could cure cancer. Emergent oncologic conditions for RT (eg, spinal cord compression, superior vena cava syndrome) could not be identified by >1 of 5 respondents. Multiple nontoxicities of RT (eg, emitting low-level radiation from the treatment site) were incorrectly identified as toxicities by >1 of 5 respondents. MS4s/PCPs with an RO rotation in medical school had improved scores in all prompts.Although MS knowledge of general RT principles improves from the first to the fourth year, a large knowledge gap still exists between MSs, current PCPs, and ROs. Some basic misconceptions of RT persist among a minority of MSs and PCPs. We recommend implementing formal education in RO fundamentals during the core curriculum of medical school.

SUBMITTER: Zaorsky NG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7548032 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What Are Medical Students in the United States Learning About Radiation Oncology? Results of a Multi-Institutional Survey.

Zaorsky Nicholas G NG Shaikh Talha T Handorf Elizabeth E Eastwick Gary G Hesney Adam A Scher Eli D ED Jones Ryan T RT Showalter Timothy N TN Avkshtol Vladimir V Rice Stephanie R SR Horwitz Eric M EM Meyer Joshua E JE

International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 20151009 2

<h4>Purpose</h4>The purposes of this study were to assess the exposure that medical students (MSs) have to radiation oncology (RO) during the course of their medical school career, as evidenced by 2 time points in current medical training (ie, first vs fourth year; MS1s and MS4s, respectively) and to assess the knowledge of MS1s, MS4s, and primary care physicians (PCPs) about the appropriateness of RT in cancer management in comparison with RO attendings.<h4>Methods</h4>We developed and beta tes ...[more]

PMID: 26684409

Similar Datasets

Project description:Surface imaging (SI) has been rapidly integrated into radiotherapy clinics across the country without specific guidelines and recommendations on its commissioning and use aside from vendor-provided information. A survey was created under the auspices of AAPM TG-302 to assess the current status of SI to identify if there is need for formal guidance. The survey was designed to determine the institutional setting of responders, availability and length of its use, commissioning procedures, and clinical applications. This survey was created in REDCap, and approved as IRB exempt to collect anonymized data. Questions were reviewed by multiple physicists to ensure concept validity and piloted by a small group of independent physicists to ensure process validity. All full members of AAPM self-identified as "therapy" or "other" were sent the survey link by email. The survey was active from February to March 2018. Of 3677 members successfully contacted, 439 completed responses; the summary of these responses provides insight on current surface imaging clinical practices, though they should not be assumed to be representative of radiation oncology as a whole. Results showed that 53.3% of respondents have SI in their clinics, mostly in treatment rooms, rarely in simulation rooms. Half of those without SI plan on purchasing it within 3 years. Over 10% have SI but do not use it clinically, 36.8% classify themselves as "expert" users, and 85.5% agreed/strongly agreed that SI guidelines are needed. Initial positioning with SI is most common for breast/chestwall and SRS/SBRT treatments, least common for pediatrics. Use of SI for intra-fraction monitoring follows a similar distribution. Gating with SI is most prevalent for breast/chestwall (66.0%) but also used in SBRT (33.0%), and non-SBRT lung/abdomen (<30%) treatments. SI is a rapidly growing technology in the field with widespread use for several anatomic sites. Guidelines and recommendations on commissioning and clinical use are warranted.

Project description:PurposeWe aimed to assess perceptions of, and training regarding, the publishing process among US radiation oncology (RO) residents, focusing on awareness and understanding of criteria for selecting appropriate and legitimate peer-reviewed journals for academic publishing. The growing challenge of predatory publication in the broader scientific realm and its relevancy to resident training is also briefly discussed.Methods and materialsA survey was opened to residents of all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited RO programs in the United States, focusing on 3 categories: (1) demographics; (2) submission, peer review, and publication of academic research; and (3) subjective ranking of factors for choosing an appropriate publisher/journal. Results were stratified by level of training and number of publications.ResultsOverall, 150 of 690 residents (19.8%) responded, with a 98% (147 of 150) completion rate. Twenty of 150 residents (13.3%) reported formal training in manuscript preparation and choosing academic journals. Only 3.4% of residents reported departmental guidelines regarding publication in "predatory" journals; 57.7% were unsure. The 3 most important factors influencing publisher and journal choice were impact factor (ranked first for 59.0%), whether a journal is found in a major index (ranked first for 18.0%), and association with a reputable organization (ranked first for 17.0%). Importance of impact factor increased with number of publications (50% with 0 publications, 48.3% with 1-5, 63.9% with 5-10, 76.2% with 10-15, and 70.6% with >15). Cost considerations influenced journal choice at least once for 79 (52.7%) residents.ConclusionsImpact factor was the most important consideration for residents when choosing an appropriate publisher, with increased emphasis with increasing number of publications. A minority had formal training in choosing appropriate academic journals and knowing how to identify so-called predatory journals or were aware if their department has proscriptions regarding publication in such journals. Additional emphasis on formal training for RO residents in manuscript preparation and choosing academic journals is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic added new and great uncertainty to the typical approach to applying into emergency medicine (EM) for medical students. There are little data on students' lived experience of applying during this time period. We performed a multi-institutional survey of EM-bound students' experiences with preparing to apply into EM during the pandemic.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional survey design study of fourth-year students preparing to apply into EM during the 2020-2021 academic year. All self-identified EM-bound students at four participating institutions were recruited by email in June 2020 to participate in a 13-item, 5-point Likert-scale survey. Univariate descriptive statistics, response rate, and nonresponse bias were calculated.ResultsSixty-seven of 125 eligible students responded for an overall response rate of 53.6%. Nonresponse bias for specific survey items ranged from 0.01 to 0.12. Students rated the importance of securing an EM rotation at their home institution the highest of any item (mean ± SD = 4.81 ± 0.68). Students indicated higher satisfaction with advice from their department of EM (mean ± SD = 4.28 ± 0.75) than from their school of medicine (mean ± SD = 3.52 ± 0.89). Students indicated higher confidence in their home EM rotations' ability to assure adequate personal protective equipment (PPE; mean ± SD = 3.91 ± 0.83) than an away rotation (mean ± SD = 2.82, 1.09). Students reported feeling between moderately and quite stressed about applying into EM this year (mean ± SD = 3.49 ± 1.01), but reported the financial stress the lowest of any item (mean ± SD = 1.46 ± 0.84). Students rated it highly important that away rotations prioritize students from institutions without an EM residency (mean ± SD = 4.51 ± 0.93).ConclusionMedical students applying into EM during the COVID-19 pandemic felt confident in their EM advisors' recommendations and their home institution's PPE provision. Students with EM residency programs at their schools recognized the importance of away rotations being prioritized for students from schools without EM residency programs. Strong EM advising is important to students.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine medical students' perceptions of having been harassed or belittled and their correlates, for the purposes of reducing such abuses.DesignLongitudinal survey.Setting16 nationally representative US medical schools.Participants2884 students from class of 2003.Main outcome measuresExperiences of harassment and belittlement at freshman orientation, at entry to wards, and in senior year by other students, by residents or fellows, by preclinical professors, by clinical professors or attendings, or by patients.Results2316 students provided data (response rate 80.3%). Among seniors, 42% (581/1387) reported having experienced harassment and 84% (1166/1393) belittlement during medical school. These types of abuse were caused by other students (11% (158/1389) and 32% (443/1390) of students experienced such harassment or belittlement, respectively). Harassment and belittlement was also caused by residents (27% (374/1387) and 71% (993/1393)), preclinical professors (9% (131/1386) and 29% (398/1385)), clinical professors (21% (285/1386) and 63% (878/1390)), and patients (25% (352/1387) and 43% (592/1388)). Only 13% (181/1385) of students classified any of these experiences as severe. Medical students who reported having been harassed or belittled did not differ significantly from those not reporting such experiences by sex, ethnicity, political orientation, or religion. They did differ significantly by chosen specialty and were significantly more likely to be stressed, depressed, and suicidal, to drink alcohol or to binge drink, and to state that their faculty did not care about medical students. They were also significantly less likely to be glad they trained to become a doctor.ConclusionMost medical students in the United States report having been harassed or belittled during their training. Although few students characterised the harassment or belittlement as severe, poor mental health and low career satisfaction were significantly correlated with these experiences.

Dataset Information

What Are Medical Students in the United States Learning About Radiation Oncology? Results of a Multi-Institutional Survey.

Publications

What Are Medical Students in the United States Learning About Radiation Oncology? Results of a Multi-Institutional Survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets