Dataset Information

Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic on Oncology Residency Training in India and a Novel Online Academic Solution: Results of an Online Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a global effect on the training of residents of medicine because of what has been required in the pandemic. The field of oncology has not been spared, as prepandemic training schedules have not been available for residents. We conducted an online survey to understand the effect of the pandemic and the effect of online teaching schedules as a measure to help residents of oncology in their training.

Methods and materials

An online survey consisting of 31 questions was sent through various social media platforms based on the training pattern before the onset of COVID-19, effect of the pandemic on educational activities, and the effect of online academic activities on residency training and learning. The survey addressed the need for online academics as an alternate mode of teaching. The survey was left open for a period of 4 weeks with participation requests from the various branches of oncology, including radiation, surgical and medical oncology, onco-anesthesia, palliative oncology, neuro-oncology, and so forth. The frequencies obtained in the survey were analyzed using descriptive statistical analyses.

Results

After a 4-week period, there were 255 responses received from students of oncology from various specialties. Around 69.8.1% of respondents (n = 178) were junior residents, followed by senior residents (n = 72; 28.2%). The majority of the respondents were radiation oncologists (n = 204; 80%). Around 70.9% had an ongoing structured teaching program related to oncology training, with the majority (40.3%) of them having more than 3 hours every week of oncology-based training. Another 31.3% reported having 1 to 2 hours of such training every week, and 60.8% of participants agreed their training was affected by pandemic and related safety regulations. Most students (90.9%) found the online teaching sessions helped maintain training qualities as they were in the pre-COVID times. About 69.1% of the students felt that the quality of these online sessions was better compared with the institute-based onsite classroom teaching. However, as is expected, 77.6% of them agreed that their hands-on training was affected in the pandemic. When asked if online teaching can replace every aspect of classroom teaching, 66.7% of respondents did not agree. The majority (83.9%) felt that students should be given the opportunity to present a given topic under the supervision of a senior faculty member experienced and expert in that topic. The students pointed out the lack of practical exposure as the most common deficiency, followed by the lack of direct interaction with the teaching faculty.

Conclusions

The pandemic has limited the access to essential training in the branches of oncology, and though online sessions cannot replace the hands-on training and clinical exposure needed for the students, online academics and webinars have proven to be an effective tool to minimize that effect and can lead to a positive outcome, as shown by the survey. A combination of online and onsite training modules may be the future of teaching and training in our country.

SUBMITTER: Mondal D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8281456 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeDespite the call to increase the number of radiation oncologists in Latin America, the quality, similarity, and number of residency training programs are unknown. We seek to describe the current state of residency programs in radiation oncology in Latin America.Methods and materialsLatin American Residents in Radiation Oncology performed a cross-sectional analysis of universities and training centers for radiation oncologists in Latin America. Latin American Residents in Radiation Oncology members identified and contacted current residents and specialists at each center to obtain information and documents that described their training curricula.ResultsAs of 2020, 13 of 23 (56.5%) Latin American countries have radiation oncology training. Seventy-three training centers were identified (59 active and 14 inactive), associated with 28 universities. On average, each active center trains 2.6 new residents per year, and in total, 156 residents are trained annually. The average length of training programs is 3.6 years. Brazil and Mexico comprise 31 (52.5%) and 7 (11.9%) of active programs, respectively, and 64 (41.8%) and 50 (32.7%) residents, respectively. Training is available in 38 cities in 13 countries, and outside Brazil and Mexico, only 13 cities in 11 countries (9 capitals and 4 noncapital cities). Individualized curriculum documents were provided by 20 (83.3%) of 24 non-Brazilian programs, while 1 standardized guideline was provided for Brazilian training programs. These demonstrated variation between subjects taught, their devoted time, outside specialty rotations, and experiences in modern techniques. Seventy-five percent include volumetric modulated arc therapy, 70% stereotactic radiosurgery, and 55% stereotactic body radiation therapy training. One-hundred percent include gynecologic brachytherapy education and <50% brachytherapy education in other disease sites.ConclusionsTraining is highly centralized in capital cities. The number of trainees is insufficient to close the current human resource divide but is limited by available job openings. Over 50% of training programs now include technological training in stereotactic radiosurgery, stereotactic body radiation therapy, or volumetric modulated arc therapy; however, substantial variation still exists. The development of radiation oncology specialists must be improved and modernized to address the escalating demand for cancer care.

Project description:PurposeThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had an immense impact on the healthcare industry. Oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) clinical practice uniquely exposes providers to COVID-19. The purpose of the present study was to understand the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on OMS residency training programs (OMSRTPs): 1) training and education; 2) availability and use of personal protective equipment (PPE); 3) experience with, and use of, screening and viral testing; 4) resident experience; and 5) program director (PD) experience and observations of the immediate and future effects on OMSRTPs.Materials and methodsOMS residents and PDs in OMSRTPs in the United States were invited to participate in the present cross-sectional study from April 1, 2020 to May 1, 2020. A 51-question survey was used to evaluate the effects of COVID-19 on OMSRTPs and to assess the 5 specific aims of the present study.ResultsA total of 160 residents and 13 PDs participated in the survey, representing 83% of US states or territories with OMSRTPs. Almost all residents (96.5%) reported modifications to their training program, and 14% had been reassigned to off-service clinical rotations (eg, medicine, intensive care unit). The use of an N95 respirator mask plus standard PPE precautions during aerosol-generating procedures varied by procedure location, with 36.8% reporting limited access to these respirators. Widespread screening practices were in use, with 83.6% using laboratory-based viral testing. Residents scheduled to graduate in 2022 were most concerned with the completion of the graduation requirements and with decreased operative experience. Most residents (94.2%) had moved to web-based didactics, and a plurality (47%) had found increased value in the didactics.ConclusionsSweeping alterations to OMS clinical practice have occurred for those in OMSRTPs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the overall OMSRTP response has been favorable, residents' concerns regarding the ubiquitous availability of appropriate PPE, operative experience, and completion of graduation requirements requires further deliberation.

Project description:Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruptions in international communications and travel for academic global health programs (AGHPs) in both high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Given the importance of international travel and communication to AGHPs, the pandemic has likely had considerable impact on the education, research, and administrative components of these programs. To date, no substantive study has determined the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on AGHPs in HICs and LMICs. This study assessed the impacts and resultant adaptations of AGHPs to pandemic realities with the goal of sharing strategies and approaches. Methods: This study applied a mixed methods sequential explanatory design to survey AGHPs in HICs and LMICs about the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on three program domains: education, research, and administration. First, we surveyed a range of AGHP stakeholders to capture quantitative data on the pandemic’s impact. Subsequently we conducted semi-structured interviews with select survey participants to gather qualitative data expanding on specific survey responses. Data from both phases were then compared and interpreted together to develop conclusions and suggest adaptive/innovative approaches for AGHPs. Results: AGHPs in both HICs and LMICs were significantly impacted by the pandemic in all three domains, though in different ways. While education initiatives managed to adapt by pivoting towards virtual learning, research programs were impacted more negatively by the disruptions in communication and international travel. The impact of the pandemic on scholarly output as well as on funding for education and research was quite variable, although LMIC programs were more negatively impacted. Administratively, AGHPs implemented a range of safety and risk mitigation strategies and showed a low risk tolerance for international travel. The pandemic posed many challenges but also revealed opportunities for AGHPs. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted AGHPs in HICs and LMICs in expected and unexpected ways. Programs noted some unanticipated reductions in education program funding, negative impacts on research programs, and reduced scholarly output. Many programs reported well-coordinated adaptive responses to the pandemic including, for instance, virtual (in place of in-person) collaboration in research. The pandemic will likely have lasting impacts with regard to education, research collaborations, and administration of programs.