Dataset Information

Beyond 'charting outcomes' in the radiation oncology match: analysis of self-reported applicant data.

ABSTRACT: The Charting Outcomes resource is useful in gauging an applicant's competiveness for a given specialty. However, many variables are not reported in Charting Outcomes that may influence an applicant's ability to match. A significant proportion of applicants record their experiences in an anonymous, self-reported applicant spreadsheet. We analyzed factors associated with a successful match using this dataset to test the hypothesis that research productivity and high academic performance correlates with success rates. A retrospective analysis of "RadOnc Interview Spreadsheet" for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 radiation oncology match was performed. Data were accessed via studentdoctor.net. Board scores, research characteristics, Sub-I participation, and interview invitation rates were available. Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis, and chi-square tests were used for statistical analysis. When possible, results were compared to those reported in the National Residency Match Program's "Charting Outcomes" report. A total of 158 applicants were examined for the applicant characteristics. Applicants applied to a median of 61 programs and received a median of 14 interviews. The mean step 1 score was 248 (range: 198 to 272) and most were in the highest grade point average quartile (68.3%). 21.7% participated in additional research year(s), and 19% obtained a PhD. The majority of applicants took three radiation oncology electives (48.7%). On multivariate analysis, alpha-omega-alpha (AOA) honors society status (p=0.033), participating in a research year (p=0.001) and number of journal publications (p=0.047) significantly correlated with higher interview invitation rates. In summary, this study identifies important considerations for radiation oncology applicants that have not been previously reported, such as induction into AOA and number of journal publications.

SUBMITTER: Jang S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6022246 | biostudies-other | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Beyond 'charting outcomes' in the radiation oncology match: analysis of self-reported applicant data.

Jang Samuel S Rosenberg Stephen A SA Hullett Craig C Bradley Kristin A KA Kimple Randall J RJ

Medical education online 20181201 1

The Charting Outcomes resource is useful in gauging an applicant's competiveness for a given specialty. However, many variables are not reported in Charting Outcomes that may influence an applicant's ability to match. A significant proportion of applicants record their experiences in an anonymous, self-reported applicant spreadsheet. We analyzed factors associated with a successful match using this dataset to test the hypothesis that research productivity and high academic performance correlates ...[more]

PMID: 29943670

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeDespite evidence for clinical benefits, recommendations in guidelines, and options for electronic data collection, routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is mostly not implemented in clinical practice. This study aimed to plan, conduct and evaluate the implementation of electronic PRO (e-PRO) assessment in the clinical routine of an inpatient radiation oncology clinic.MethodsThe guideline- and evidence-based, stepwise approach of this single-center implementation study comprised preparatory analyses of current practice, selection of assessment instruments and times, development of staff training, and evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of the e-PRO assessment, as well as on-site support of the implementation. Process evaluation focused on potential clinical benefit (number of documented symptoms and supportive measures), feasibility and acceptance (patient contacts resulting in completion/non-completion of the e-PRO assessment, reasons for non-completion, preconditions, facilitators and barriers of implementation), and required resources (duration of patient contacts to explain/support the completion).ResultsSelection of instruments and assessment times resulted in initial assessment at admission (EORTC QLQ-C30, QSR 10), daily symptom monitoring (EORTC single items), and assessment at discharge (EORTC QLQ-C30). Recommendations for PRO-based clinical action and self-management advice for patients concerning nine core symptoms were developed. Staff training comprised group and face-to-face meetings and an additional e-learning course was developed. Analyses of clinical records showed that e-PRO assessment identified more symptoms followed by a higher number of supportive measures compared to records of patients without e-PRO assessment. Analysis of n = 1597 patient contacts resulted in n = 1355 (84.9%) completed e-PROs (initial assessment: n = 355, monitoring: n = 967, final assessment: n = 44) and n = 242 (15.2%) non-completions. Instructions or support to complete e-PROs took on average 5.5 ± 5.3 min per patient contact. The most challenging issue was the integration of the results in clinical practice.ConclusionE-PRO assessment in oncologic inpatient settings is acceptable for patients and can support symptom identification and the initiation of supportive measures. The challenge of making the "data actionable" within the clinical workflow and motivating clinical staff to use the results became evident.

Project description:PurposeFinancial toxicity is highly prevalent in oncology. Early identification of at-risk patients is essential because financial toxicity is associated with inferior outcomes. Validated general oncology screening tools are cumbersome and not specific to challenges related to radiation therapy, such as daily treatments. In the population of radiation oncology patients, no standardized, validated, rapid screening tool exists. We sought to develop a rapid, no-cost, and reliable financial-toxicity screening tool for clinical radiation oncology.Methods and materialsWe retrospectively analyzed data from a prospective survey study conducted at a large referral center with a heterogeneous population. Before treatment, a 25-item modified comprehensive survey for financial toxicity incorporating subjective and objective patient-reported measures was administered to identify factors linked to the risk of developing financial toxicity, which was defined as radiation therapy resulting in any of the following: loss of income, job, or spouse or difficulty paying for meals, housing, or transportation. We applied a logistic regression model with a stepwise, backward model selection procedure. Estimated probabilities of experiencing financial toxicity were computed using the inverse-logit transformation of the sum of patient-specific predictor values multiplied by the coefficients of the selected logistic regression model. The Youden index was used to determine a reasonable risk threshold.ResultsA total of 157 patients completed the questionnaire, and 34 (22%) were assessed as experiencing financial toxicity. The model retained 3 factors: age, money owed, and copayment-related worries. It resulted in a concordance statistic of 0.85, developed with a risk threshold of 18% (Youden index, 0.59). This model conferred a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 70%, positive predictive value of 44%, and negative predictive value of 96%.ConclusionsOur proposed financial-toxicity screen is rapid, free, sensitive, and specific, and in this study, it identified early-onset, patient-reported financial toxicity after radiation therapy with just 3 simple variables: age, money owed, and copayment-related concerns. Future research steps should include a validation cohort and identification of interventions to mitigate financial toxicity.

Project description:PurposeTo report trends in the number and types of applicants and matched trainees to radiation oncology in comparison to other specialties participating in the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) between 2010 and 2020.Methods and materialsData from the NRMP and Electronic Residency Application System (ERAS) were obtained for 18 medical specialties between 2010 and 2020. We assessed the numbers and types of applicants and matched trainees relative to available positions in the NRMP and Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP).ResultsIn the 2020 NRMP, 122 US MD senior graduates preferentially ranked radiation oncology, a significant decrease from a median of 187 between 2010 to 2019 (interquartile range [IQR], 170-192; P < .001). Across all 18 specialties, radiation oncology experienced the greatest declines in the 2020 NRMP cycle relative to 2010 to 2019, in both the number of ERAS applicants from the United States and Canada (-31%) and the percentage of positions filled by US MD or DO senior graduates (-28%). Of 189 available positions, 81% (n = 154) filled in the NRMP prior to the SOAP, of which 65% (n = 122) were "matched" by US MD senior graduates who preferentially ranked radiation oncology as their top choice of specialty, representing a significant decrease from a median of 92% between 2010 to 2019 (IQR, 88%-94%; P = .002). The percentages of radiation oncology programs and positions unfilled in the NRMP prior to the SOAP were significantly increased in 2020 compared with 2010 to 2019 (programs: 29% vs 8% [IQR, 5%-8%; P < .001]; positions: 19% vs 4% [IQR, 2%-4%; P <.001]). Despite >99% (n = 127 of 128) of US MD or DO senior applicants preferring radiation oncology successfully matching to a radiation oncology position in the 2020 NRMP, 16 of 35 remaining unfilled positions were filled via the SOAP. Radiation oncology was the top user of the SOAP across all specialties participating in the 2020 NRMP, filling 15% of total positions versus a median of 0.9% (IQR, 0.3%-2.3%; P <.001).ConclusionsThe supply of radiation oncology residency positions now far exceeds demand by graduating US medical students. Efforts to nullify a market correction revealed by medical student behavior via continued reliance on the SOAP to fill historical levels of training positions may not be in the best of interest of trainees, individual programs, or the specialty as a whole.

Project description:PurposeWe evaluated the impact of a virtual radiation oncology clerkship.Methods and materialsWe developed a 2-week virtual radiation oncology clerkship that launched on April 27, 2020. Clerkship components included a virtual clinic with radiation oncology faculty and residents, didactic lectures, student talks, and supplemental sessions such as tumor boards and chart rounds. Medical students completed pre- and post-clerkship self-assessments. Faculty and resident participants also completed surveys on their experience with virtual lectures and clinics. Pre- and post-clerkship results were compared using a 2-sided paired t test. An analysis of variance model was used to analyze the clerkship components.ResultsTwenty-six medical students, including 4 visiting students, enrolled over 2 clerkship periods (4 weeks). All students completed the pre- and post-clerkship self-assessments and agreed that the clerkship improved their understanding of radiation oncology. Compared with 3 (11.5%) students who agreed that they understood the daily responsibilities of a radiation oncologist before the clerkship, 22 (84.6%) students agreed and 3 (11.5%) strongly agreed that they understood the daily responsibilities of a radiation oncologist after the clerkship (P < .0001). Although 15 students (57.7%) reported an increased interest in radiation oncology because of the clerkship, the mean level of interest in radiation oncology as a career remained the same, with pre- and post-clerkship scores of 3.0 (±0.9) and 3.0 (±1.1) on a 5-point scale, respectively (P = .7). Students found virtual clinic and didactic lectures to be the most valuable components of the clerkship. Most respondents agreed (30.8%) or strongly agreed (65.4%) to recommend the clerkship to their classmates.ConclusionsOur virtual clerkship was effective in increasing medical student interest in and knowledge about radiation oncology. These data will help optimize a new paradigm of virtual radiation oncology education for medical students during COVID-19 and beyond.

Project description:PurposeUsing 2020 match applicants, the purpose of this study was to identify baseline applicant perspectives on the match process surveying (1) away rotations, (2) interview/postinterview communications, and (3) factors influencing applicant rank order lists.Methods and materialsApplicants in the 2020 match cycle at a large radiation oncology (RO) residency program received a questionnaire covering demographics and the match process: away rotations, interview/postinterview communications, and ranking. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with completing fewer away rotations.ResultsOf 141 surveys sent, 76 were completed, for a response rate of 54%. Most applicants were White, male, and matched into RO. One in 3 applicants did not have a home RO program. Most applicants completed 2 RO rotations (ie, a home rotation and an additional away rotation; range, 0-4 total rotations); RO rotations influenced the applicant rank order lists and the ultimate match result for 94% and 79% of applicants, respectively. Forty-seven percent of applicants reported being asked inappropriate questions during the interview (eg, parental or marital status). Applicants did not perceive a consistent message regarding postinterview communications from program directors. Most applicants were contacted postinterview. Interviews cost most applicants more than $5000. Thirty-seven percent of respondents reported submitting a letter of interest after the interview, hoping to improve their rank. When applying to programs, general reputation and location were the most common influential factors mentioned. When ranking programs, informal conversations with residents and program culture observations were the most common influential factors mentioned. Based on multivariable analysis, applicants who completed fewer RO rotations (including away rotations) had greater odds of matching to their home program (odds ratio [OR], 12.05; 95% CI, 1.27-206.69), lower odds of program location influencing where to apply (OR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.003-0.37), and lower odds of the program's general reputation affecting their rank list (OR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.001-0.47).ConclusionsThe results suggest that medical students perceive away rotations as an important influencer of their match process. Although applicants and program directors both participate in postinterview communications, interactions with residents influence rank order lists. These data may serve as an up-to-date baseline to evaluate the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the RO match process.

Dataset Information

Beyond 'charting outcomes' in the radiation oncology match: analysis of self-reported applicant data.

Publications

Beyond 'charting outcomes' in the radiation oncology match: analysis of self-reported applicant data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets