Dataset Information

The integrated nuclear medicine and radiology residency program in the Netherlands: strengths and potential areas for improvement according to nuclear medicine physicians and radiologists.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To evaluate the Dutch integrated nuclear medicine and radiology residency program from the perspective of nuclear medicine physicians and radiologists.

Methods

A survey was distributed among nuclear medicine physicians and radiologists in hospitals that participate in the Dutch integrated nuclear medicine and radiology training program.

Results

A total of 139 completed questionnaires were included. Nuclear medicine physicians (n = 36) assigned a mean score of 5.7 ± 2.0, and radiologists (n = 103) assigned a mean score of 6.5 ± 2.8 (on a 1-10 scale) to the success of the integrated training program in their hospital. On multiple regression, female gender of the survey participant (B = 2.22, P = 0.034), musculoskeletal radiology as subspecialty of the survey participant (B = 3.36, P = 0.032), and the survey participant's expectancy of resident's ability to handle workload after completion of residency were significantly associated with perceived success of the integrated training program (B = 1.16, P = 0.023). Perceived strengths of the integrated training program included broadening of expertise, a better preparation of future imaging specialists for hybrid imaging, increased efficiency in training residents, and increased efficiency in multidisciplinary meetings. Perceived weaknesses of the integrated training program included reduced exposure to nuclear medicine, less time for research and innovation, and concerns about its international recognition.

Conclusion

This study provided insights into the experiences of nuclear medicine physicians and radiologists with the Dutch integrated nuclear medicine and radiology residency program, which may be helpful to improve the program and similar residency programs in other countries.

SUBMITTER: Velleman T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9250465 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rationale and objectivesVirtual residency interviews have become crucial in maintaining CDC-recommended precautionary measures throughout the ongoing COVID-era. However, scant literature exists regarding the direct impact the pandemic has had on the radiology program selection process, including preferred modalities of residency interviews and social media utilization. This survey aimed to understand how radiology programs adapted to changes in the 2020-2021 virtual application cycle.Materials and methodsA 32-question survey was distributed to 194 residency programs between July and August of 2021. Data were analyzed primarily by using descriptive statistics and Paired Student's T-testing.ResultsA total of 31 programs completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 16%. When queried about the perceived success of virtual interviews during the 2020-2021 application cycle, 21 programs (68%) said the new interview format was very successful. Twenty-seven of the programs (87%) believed they were able to adequately gauge applicants through virtual interviews. However, when surveyed about personal preferences for interviews, the responses were more evenly distributed between virtual (11/31, 35%) and in-person (14/31, 45%). Pre-COVID, the top three criteria programs used to rank candidates were USMLE Step 1 score (20/31, 65%), letters of recommendation (17/31, 55%), and MSPE (12/31, 39%). Within the virtual, COVID-19 era, these criteria remained statistically unchanged (p = 0.22): USMLE Step 1 score (21/31, 68%), letters of recommendation (17/31, 55%), and MSPE (14/31, 45%). About half of programs who had not previously utilized social media (12 of 23, 52%) created accounts, mostly via Twitter or Instagram.ConclusionThe primary findings indicate that programs perceived success with virtually interviewing and ranking applicants, the criteria to rank applicants remain unchanged despite the virtual environment, and programs' social media utilization increased.

Project description:ObjectivesRadiologists' perception is likely to influence the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical practice. We investigated knowledge and attitude towards AI by radiologists and residents in Europe and beyond.MethodsBetween April and July 2019, a survey on fear of replacement, knowledge, and attitude towards AI was accessible to radiologists and residents. The survey was distributed through several radiological societies, author networks, and social media. Independent predictors of fear of replacement and a positive attitude towards AI were assessed using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsThe survey was completed by 1,041 respondents from 54 mostly European countries. Most respondents were male (n = 670, 65%), median age was 38 (24-74) years, n = 142 (35%) residents, and n = 471 (45%) worked in an academic center. Basic AI-specific knowledge was associated with fear (adjusted OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.10-2.21, p = 0.01), while intermediate AI-specific knowledge (adjusted OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20-0.80, p = 0.01) or advanced AI-specific knowledge (adjusted OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.90, p = 0.03) was inversely associated with fear. A positive attitude towards AI was observed in 48% (n = 501) and was associated with only having heard of AI, intermediate (adjusted OR 11.65, 95% CI 4.25-31.92, p < 0.001), or advanced AI-specific knowledge (adjusted OR 17.65, 95% CI 6.16-50.54, p < 0.001).ConclusionsLimited AI-specific knowledge levels among radiology residents and radiologists are associated with fear, while intermediate to advanced AI-specific knowledge levels are associated with a positive attitude towards AI. Additional training may therefore improve clinical adoption.Key points• Forty-eight percent of radiologists and residents have an open and proactive attitude towards artificial intelligence (AI), while 38% fear of replacement by AI. • Intermediate and advanced AI-specific knowledge levels may enhance adoption of AI in clinical practice, while rudimentary knowledge levels appear to be inhibitive. • AI should be incorporated in radiology training curricula to help facilitate its clinical adoption.

Project description:Despite approval by the Food and Drug Administration and consistent reports of the efficacy and safety of (90)Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan and (131)I-tositumomab, these therapies are infrequently used. This study investigates the opinions and patterns of the use of radioimmunotherapy by nuclear physicians, affiliated researchers, nuclear medicine technologists, and radiation oncologists and aims to identify possible barriers to the use of this promising therapy.An e-mail-based survey with 13 broad questions related to radioimmunotherapy was sent electronically to 13,221 Society of Nuclear Medicine members and radiation oncologists throughout the United States.Six hundred thirteen individuals (4.6%) responded to the electronic survey. Two hundred fifty-one responders (40.9%) had treated patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) with radioimmunotherapy in the last 24 mo. Of the responders, 29.5% used only (90)Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan, 7.6% used only (131)I-tositumomab, and 24.9% used both radiopharmaceuticals; 37.9% did not treat NHL with radioimmunotherapy. Most responders said their patients came from university hospitals (33.9%) or private offices (25.6%), and they mainly treated in a second-line (42.9%), third-line (35.6%), or consolidation (23.5%) setting. Major concerns were that referring oncologists and hematologists wanted to treat by themselves with nonradioactive compounds (mean ± SD, 3.418 ± 1.49) and that (90)Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan and (131)I-tositumomab were expensive (mean ± SD, 3.413 ± 1.35). Of the responders and involved physicians, 40.4% and 35.2%, respectively, did not know if their institution accepted Medicare patients for radioimmunotherapy. Almost 30% (29.6%) of the responders thought radioimmunotherapy would probably grow and 38.0% thought it would grow in importance in the future. Responders who did not administer radioimmunotherapy for NHL thought it took too much time to administer radioimmunotherapy (P < 0.01) and had concerns about the dosimetry procedure (P < 0.01) and radiation safety (P < 0.01). Individuals who perceived a negative future for radioimmunotherapy had significantly more concerns about the time-consuming administration process (P < 0.05) and the high cost of radioimmunotherapy (P < 0.05). Responders from academic centers had significantly fewer concerns about payment (P < 0.01), dosimetry (P < 0.01), and radiation safety (P < 0.01).Radioimmunotherapy was generally viewed positively by the surveyed population. However, limited referrals due to alternative nonradioactive therapies and logistic, educational, and economic concerns played an important role for subgroups in the perception of radioimmunotherapy for NHL.