Dataset Information

Cautiously optimistic: A survey of radiation oncology professionals' perceptions of automation in radiotherapy planning.

ABSTRACT: Introduction:While there is evidence to show the positive effects of automation, the impact on radiation oncology professionals has been poorly considered. This study examined radiation oncology professionals' perceptions of automation in radiotherapy planning. Method:An online survey link was sent to the chief radiation therapists (RT) of all Australian radiotherapy centres to be forwarded to RTs, medical physicists (MP) and radiation oncologists (RO) within their institution. The survey was open from May-July 2019. Results:Participants were 204 RTs, 84 MPs and 37 ROs (response rates ?10% of the overall radiation oncology workforce). Respondents felt automation resulted in improvement in consistency in planning (90%), productivity (88%), quality of planning (57%), and staff focus on patient care (49%). When asked about perceived impact of automation, the responses were; will change the primary tasks of certain jobs (66%), will allow staff to do the remaining components of their job more effectively (51%), will eliminate jobs (20%), and will not have an impact on jobs (6%). 27% of respondents believe automation will reduce job satisfaction. 71% of respondents strongly agree/agree that automation will cause a loss of skills, while only 25% strongly agree/agree that the training and education tools in their department are sufficient. Conclusion:Although the effect of automation is perceived positively, there are some concerns on loss of skillsets and the lack of training to maintain this. These results highlight the need for continued education to ensure that skills and knowledge are not lost with automation.

SUBMITTER: Batumalai V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7683263 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cautiously optimistic: A survey of radiation oncology professionals' perceptions of automation in radiotherapy planning.

Batumalai Vikneswary V Jameson Michael G MG King Odette O Walker Rhiannon R Slater Chelsea C Dundas Kylie K Dinsdale Glen G Wallis Andrew A Ochoa Cesar C Gray Rohan R Vial Phil P Vinod Shalini K SK

Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology 20201117

<h4>Introduction</h4>While there is evidence to show the positive effects of automation, the impact on radiation oncology professionals has been poorly considered. This study examined radiation oncology professionals' perceptions of automation in radiotherapy planning.<h4>Method</h4>An online survey link was sent to the chief radiation therapists (RT) of all Australian radiotherapy centres to be forwarded to RTs, medical physicists (MP) and radiation oncologists (RO) within their institution. Th ...[more]

PMID: 33251344

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTelehealth has emerged as a means of improving access and reducing cost for medical oncology care; however, use by specialists prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic still remained low. Medical oncology professionals' perceptions of telehealth for cancer care are largely unknown, but are critical to telehealth utilization and expansion efforts.ObjectiveTo identify medical oncology health professionals' perceptions of the barriers to and benefits of telehealth video visits.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study used interviews conducted from October 30, 2019, to March 5, 2020, of medical oncology health professionals at the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, an urban academic health system in the US with a cancer center. All medical oncology physicians, physicians assistants, and nurse practitioners at the hospital were eligible to participate. A combination of volunteer and convenience sampling was used, resulting in the participation of 29 medical oncology health professionals, including 20 physicians and 9 advanced practice professionals, in semistructured interviews.Main outcomes and measuresMedical oncology health professionals' perceptions of barriers to and benefits of telehealth video visits as experienced by patients receiving cancer treatment.ResultsOf the 29 participants, 15 (52%) were women and 22 (76%) were White, with a mean (SD) age of 48.5 (12.0) years. Respondents' perceptions were organized using the 4 domains of the National Quality Forum framework: clinical effectiveness, patient experience, access to care, and financial impact. Respondents disagreed on the clinical effectiveness and potential limitations of the virtual physical examination, as well as on the financial impact on patients. Respondents also largely recognized the convenience and improved access to care enabled by telehealth for patients. However, many reported concern regarding the health professional-patient relationship and their limited ability to comfort patients in a virtual setting.Conclusions and relevanceMedical oncology health professionals shared conflicting opinions regarding the barriers to and benefits of telehealth in regard to clinical effectiveness, patient experience, access to care, and financial impact. Understanding oncologists' perceptions of telehealth elucidates potential barriers that need to be further investigated or improved for telehealth expansion and continued utilization; further research is ongoing to assess current perceptions of health professionals and patients given the rapid expansion of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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:ObjectivesTo describe current patterns of practice of radiation oncology peer review within a provincial cancer system, identifying barriers and facilitators to its use with the ultimate aim of process improvement.DesignA survey of radiation oncology programmes at provincial cancer centres.SettingAll cancer centres within the province of Ontario, Canada (n=14). These are community-based outpatient facilities overseen by Cancer Care Ontario, the provincial cancer agency.ParticipantsA delegate from each radiation oncology programme filled out a single survey based on input from their multidisciplinary team.Outcome measuresRated importance of peer review; current utilisation; format of the peer-review process; organisation and timing; case attributes; outcomes of the peer-review process and perceived barriers and facilitators to expanding peer-review processes.Results14 (100%) centres responded. All rated the importance of peer review as at least 8/10 (10=extremely important). Detection of medical error and improvement of planning processes were the highest rated perceived benefits of peer review (each median 9/10). Six centres (43%) reviewed at least 50% of curative cases; four of these centres (29%) conducted peer review in more than 80% of cases treated with curative intent. Fewer than 20% of cases treated with palliative intent were reviewed in most centres. Five centres (36%) reported usually conducting peer review prior to the initiation of treatment. Five centres (36%) recorded the outcomes of peer review on the medical record. Thirteen centres (93%) planned to expand peer-review activities; a critical mass of radiation oncologists was the most important limiting factor (median 6/10).ConclusionsRadiation oncology peer-review practices can vary even within a cancer system with provincial oversight. The application of guidelines and standards for peer-review processes, and monitoring of implementation and outcomes, will require effective knowledge translation activities.

Project description:PurposeScientific and clinical achievements in radiation, medical, and surgical oncology are changing the landscape of interdisciplinary oncology. The German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) working group of young clinicians and scientists (yDEGRO) and the DEGRO representation of associate and full professors (AKRO) are aware of the essential role of radiation oncology in multidisciplinary treatment approaches. Together, yDEGRO and AKRO endorsed developing a German radiotherapy & radiation oncology vision 2030 to address future challenges in patient care, research, and education. The vision 2030 aims to identify priorities and goals for the next decade in the field of radiation oncology.MethodsThe vision development comprised three phases. During the first phase, areas of interest, objectives, and the process of vision development were defined jointly by the yDEGRO, AKRO, and the DEGRO board. In the second phase, a one-day strategy retreat was held to develop AKRO and yDEGRO representatives' final vision from medicine, biology, and physics. The third phase was dedicated to vision interpretation and program development by yDEGRO representatives.ResultsThe strategy retreat's development process resulted in conception of the final vision "Innovative radiation oncology Together - Precise, Personalized, Human." The first term "Innovative radiation oncology" comprises the promotion of preclinical research and clinical trials and highlights the development of a national committee for strategic development in radiation oncology research. The term "together" underpins collaborations within radiation oncology departments as well as with other partners in the clinical and scientific setting. "Precise" mainly covers technological precision in radiotherapy as well as targeted oncologic therapeutics. "Personalized" emphasizes biology-directed individualization of radiation treatment. Finally, "Human" underlines the patient-centered approach and points towards the need for individual longer-term career curricula for clinicians and researchers in the field.ConclusionThe vision 2030 balances the ambition of physical, technological, and biological innovation as well as a comprehensive, patient-centered, and collaborative approach towards radiotherapy & radiation oncology in Germany.

Project description:BackgroundInequalities in health and wealth distributions are becoming pressing societal problems in many countries. How these inequalities are perceived and to what degree perceptions are aligned with actual distributions, is important for trust in public health services, social and economic policies, and policymakers. This study aims to assess perceived and desired levels of inequality in health and wealth in Germany and the UK.MethodsThe online-survey was filled out by 769 volunteers (322 from Germany, 447 from the UK), recruited from an existing commercial panel (Prolific Academic) or via Facebook advertisements in 2019. Perceived and ideal national health and wealth distributions were assessed and compared to actual health indicators (i.e. days absent from work, number of visits to general practitioners (GPs) and self-rated health), and actual wealth distributions with t-tests.ResultsA pronounced gap emerged between the estimated, ideal and actual inequality. Both samples strikingly underestimated the proportion of (very) good health in the national distribution by a factor of ~ 2.3 (participants estimated that 34% of the German and 36% of the UK population respectively are very healthy or healthy, while the actual proportion in the population was 75% in Germany and 84% in the UK, P < 0.001 for all). Moreover, actual health distributions were much closer to the desired than the perceived health distributions (78% of German and 72% of UK participants ideally being very healthy or healthy). A reversed pattern of results emerged for wealth in both samples, with wealth inequality being strikingly worse than desired and inequality being underestimated by a factor ~ 1.7 (P < 0.001 for all). Results were consistent across demographic groups.ConclusionsRespondents in both Germany and the UK have profoundly negative misperceptions regarding the distribution of health, which contrasts with starkly positive misperceptions regarding the distribution of wealth, indicating that the public is healthier but poorer than they think. More importantly, from a public health perspective, a high level of consensus emerged, with both healthy and wealthy participants misperceiving health and wealth distributions.

Dataset Information

Cautiously optimistic: A survey of radiation oncology professionals' perceptions of automation in radiotherapy planning.

Publications

Cautiously optimistic: A survey of radiation oncology professionals' perceptions of automation in radiotherapy planning.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets