Dataset Information

Research Productivity of Canadian Radiation Oncology Residents: A Time-Trend Analysis.

ABSTRACT: (1) Background: Research productivity is a mandatory component of Canadian radiation oncology (RO) resident training. To our knowledge, Canadian RO resident research publication productivity has not previously been analysed. (2) Methods: We compiled a 12-year database of RO residents in Canadian training programs who completed residency between June 2005 and June 2016. Resident names and dates of training were abstracted from provincial databases and department websites and were used to abstract data from PubMed, including training program, publication year, journal, type of research, topic and authorship position. Residents were divided into four time periods and the linear trend test evaluated publication rates over time. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify authorship predictors. (3) Results: 227 RO residents representing 363 publications were identified. The majority were first-author publications (56%) and original research (77%). Overall, 82% of first-author, and 80% of any-author articles were published in resident year 4 or higher. Mean number of publications for first-author and any-author positions increased significantly over time (p = 0.016 and p = 0.039, respectively). After adjusting for gender and time period, large institutions (> 3 residents per year) trended toward associations with more first-author publications (odds ratio (OR): 2.44; p = 0.066) and more any-author publications (OR: 2.49; p = 0.052). No significant differences were observed by gender. (4) Conclusions: Canadian RO resident publication productivity nearly doubled over a 12-year period. The majority of publications are released in the last 2 years of residency, and larger residency programs may be associated with more publications. These findings serve as a baseline as programs transition to Competency Based Medical Education (CBME).

SUBMITTER: Mutsaers A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7816183 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Research Productivity of Canadian Radiation Oncology Residents: A Time-Trend Analysis.

Mutsaers Adam A Jia Sangyang S Warner Andrew A Nguyen Timothy K TK Laba Joanna M JM Palma David A DA

Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) 20201130 1

(1) Background: Research productivity is a mandatory component of Canadian radiation oncology (RO) resident training. To our knowledge, Canadian RO resident research publication productivity has not previously been analysed. (2) Methods: We compiled a 12-year database of RO residents in Canadian training programs who completed residency between June 2005 and June 2016. Resident names and dates of training were abstracted from provincial databases and department websites and were used to abstract ...[more]

PMID: 33704112

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe study objective was to determine the representation of women in Canadian radiation oncology (RO) trainees and the radiation oncologist workforce over time.Methods and materialsGender data for Canadian RO trainees (residents and fellows) and radiation oncologists were collected from the Canadian Post-MD Education Registry (1994-2021) and Canadian Medical Association (1994-2019). Visa trainees were excluded. Gender parity was defined as a 1:1 female-to-male ratio. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data.ResultsFemale trainee proportions varied with 2 rising trend periods (1994-1998: 38%-43%, P = .93; 2002-2014: 35%-51%, P = .53) and 2 regression trend periods (1998-2002: 43%-35%, P = .83; 2014-2021: 52%-35%, P = .011). Gender parity was observed in RO trainees between 2012 and 2016. The annual number of RO trainees ranged from 66 to 173 with 2 near-parallel periods of gender-associated growth (1994-1996; 2002-2008) and regression (1997-2001; 2009-2016) followed by gender divergence (2017-2021) with increasing male and decreasing female trainees. Nearly all Canadian regions, except Ontario, reached 50% or higher female representation in RO trainees during the study period. In the radiation oncologist workforce, female representation increased from 20% (54/271) to 37% (217/582) between 1994 and 2019, and all regions and age groups demonstrated higher female representation over time. Within radiation oncologist subgroups, age <35 years old and Quebec region cohorts reached gender parity.ConclusionsRepresentation of women varied in Canadian RO trainees and has fallen since 2014, whereas female representation generally increased in the radiation oncologist workforce over time. Gender parity was observed in RO trainees, radiation oncologists <35 years old, and radiation oncologists in Quebec. Recent declining female representation among RO trainees is worrisome, and further study is warranted to identify potential gender-based barriers in attracting women to the specialty.

Project description:PurposeMedical students may take a year off during medical school (a "gap year") to strengthen their applications for competitive specialties such as radiation oncology. This can incur significant financial and opportunity costs. We sought to understand the prevalence, nature, and funding of gap years undertaken by radiation oncology applicants.Methods and materialsAn anonymous survey was emailed to all applicants to a single radiation oncology program from 2015 to 2017. Survey questions assessed gap year utilization, funding, motivations, and perceptions. Separately, all 2017 Electronic Residency Application Service (n = 176) applications to this program were reviewed for reference.ResultsThe 2017 cohort had a response rate of 69% (n = 121), with an overall response rate of 39% (n = 194) for applicants between 2015 to 2017. Of non-MD/PhD respondents, 33% (n = 53) reported taking a gap year. The main reason for a gap year (68%) was to produce more publications, and 50% of all respondents viewed a gap year as "important" or "very important" for matching in radiation oncology. Twenty-eight students (53%) reported using personal loans, savings, or family support to cover gap year expenses. Most who took a gap year (83%) viewed funding as "difficult" or "extremely difficult" to obtain. Fewer publications before gap year and more dedicated research time were significant predictors of undertaking a gap year, whereas sex, marital status, dependent status, and financial aid were not significant.ConclusionsResearch productivity is commonly perceived as important for matching in radiation oncology, leading many applicants to take gap years, which are usually supported by personal financial resources. We did not identify statistically significant socioeconomic disparities between applicants that took a gap year and those who did not. However, further study is warranted to determine whether pressure to take a gap year, particularly in the absence of readily available funding sources, deters some potential applicants from pursuing radiation oncology altogether.

Project description:PurposeRadiation oncology (RO) has seen declines in Medicare reimbursement (MCR). However, there are no recent studies analyzing the contributions of specific billing codes to overall RO reimbursement. We compared total MCR for specific Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes in 2019 with MCR for those codes in 2010 and 2015, corrected for inflation, to see how the same basket of RO services in 2019 would have been reimbursed in 2010 and 2015 (adjusted MCR).Methods and materialsThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary database was used to obtain MCR data for RO HCPCS codes in 2010, 2015, and 2019. For each code, the total allowed charge was divided by the number of submitted claims to calculate the average MCR per claim in 2010, 2015, and 2019. The 2019 billing frequency for each code was then multiplied by the inflation-adjusted average MCR for those codes in 2010 and 2015 to determine what the MCR would have been in 2010 and 2015 using 2019 dollars and utilization rates. Results were compared with actual 2019 MCR to calculate the projected difference.ResultsTotal inflation-adjusted RO MCR was $2281 million (M), $1991 M, and $1848 M in 2010, 2015, and 2019 respectively. This represents a cut of $433 M (19%) and $143 M (7%) from 2010 and 2015, respectively, to 2019. After utilization adjustment, total reimbursement was $2534 M, $2034 M, and $1848 M for 2010, 2015, and 2019, respectively, representing a cut of $686 M (27%) and $186 M (9%) from 2010 and 2015, respectively, to 2019. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment delivery and planning accounted for $917 M (36%), $670 M (33%), and $573 M (31%) of the adjusted MCR in 2010, 2015, and 2019, respectively.ConclusionsMedicare reimbursement decreased substantially from 2010 to 2019. A decline in IMRT treatment reimbursement was the primary driver of MCR decline. When considering further cuts, policymakers should consider these trends and their consequences for health care quality and access.

Project description:IntroductionHealth research is one mechanism to improve population-level health and should generally match the health needs of populations. However, there have been limited data to assess the trends in national-level cardiovascular research output, even as cardiovascular disease [CVD] has become the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide.Materials and methodsWe performed a time trends analysis of cardiovascular research publications (1999-2008) downloaded from Web of Knowledge using a iteratively-tested cardiovascular bibliometric filter with >90% precision and recall. We evaluated cardiovascular research publications, five-year running actual citation indices [ACIs], and degree of international collaboration measured through the ratio of the fractional count of addresses from one country against all addresses for each publication.Results and discussionGlobal cardiovascular publication volume increased from 40 661 publications in 1999 to 55 284 publications in 2008, which represents a 36% increase. The proportion of cardiovascular publications from high-income, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] countries declined from 93% to 84% of the total share over the study period. High-income, OECD countries generally had higher fractional counts, which suggest less international collaboration, than lower income countries from 1999-2008. There was an inverse relationship between cardiovascular publications and age-standardized CVD morbidity and mortality rates, but a direct, curvilinear relationship between cardiovascular publications and Human Development Index from 1999-2008.ConclusionsCardiovascular health research output has increased substantially in the past decade, with a greater share of citations being published from low- and middle-income countries. However, low- and middle-income countries with the higher burdens of cardiovascular disease continue to have lower research output than high-income countries, and thus require targeted research investments to improve cardiovascular health.

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.

Dataset Information

Research Productivity of Canadian Radiation Oncology Residents: A Time-Trend Analysis.

Publications

Research Productivity of Canadian Radiation Oncology Residents: A Time-Trend Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets