Literature DB >> 23436001

The impact of undergraduate education in radiation oncology.

Ravinder Clayton1, Theresa Trotter.   

Abstract

Many medical practitioners provide care to patients for whom radiotherapy [radiation oncology (RO)] is a recommended treatment or who have received radiotherapy treatment for cancer. A basic level of understanding about this modality is important to ensure a continuum of good patient care. This study aimed to explore the current teaching practices in RO across medical schools in Canada and understand the perception of RO as a career choice among final-year medical students. Ethics approval and/or consent was obtained from each medical school prior to sending an electronic survey to the Undergraduate Medical Education office and to the final-year medical school class. Only six of the 14 Canadian medical schools participated in the surveys. Four of the 14 refused external surveys. The response rate was 8 % (155/1,917) for all final-year medical students and 17 % (155/897) for students from participating medical schools. Didactic lectures are the primary means of delivering RO knowledge. One in five students reports that they did not receive any RO teaching, and 65 % received <2 h. The level of interest in RO as a career choice (scale of 1-5) was greater in students who received >2 h of RO teaching (2.85 vs. 3.18, p = 0.012) and those that took part in a RO elective (2.86 vs. 3.53, p < 0.001). This study confirms the underrepresentation of RO teaching within the Canadian undergraduate medical curriculum. Interest in this specialty is minimal but does appear to be influenced by exposure to RO teaching. It is important to highlight the limitations of conducting a survey study within the Canadian medical undergraduate system. Steps to conduct such studies in a more seamless fashion are required, in order to assist curriculum development in RO and enhance the understanding of the specialty as a career choice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23436001     DOI: 10.1007/s13187-013-0458-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cancer Educ        ISSN: 0885-8195            Impact factor:   2.037


  6 in total

1.  The effectiveness of the Ivan H. Smith Memorial Studentships program on encouraging medical students to pursue a career in radiation oncology.

Authors:  Kate Barrett; Nisha Mistry; Charles Hayter; Peter Poldre; Marilynne Henry; Sandra Gardner
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  An increase in medical student knowledge of radiation oncology: a pre-post examination analysis of the oncology education initiative.

Authors:  Ariel E Hirsch; Pauline Mulleady Bishop; Luqman Dad; Deeptej Singh; Priscilla J Slanetz
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2009-03-15       Impact factor: 7.038

3.  The long-term impact of preclinical education on medical students' opinions about radiology.

Authors:  Barton F Branstetter; Allen L Humphrey; John B Schumann
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  What should doctors know about cancer? Undergraduate medical education from a societal perspective.

Authors:  Michael B Barton; Pamela Bell; Sabe Sabesan; Bogda Koczwara
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 41.316

Review 5.  Radiation oncology in undergraduate medical education: a literature review.

Authors:  Kristopher E B Dennis; Graeme Duncan
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2010-03-01       Impact factor: 7.038

6.  Radiation oncology--the misunderstood specialty.

Authors:  F Wong; R N Fairey
Journal:  J Can Assoc Radiol       Date:  1984-06
  6 in total
  8 in total

1.  The Impact of a Radiation Oncologist led Oncology Curriculum on Medical Student Knowledge.

Authors:  Ankit Agarwal; Aishwarya Shah; Bhartesh Shah; Brian Koottappillil; Ariel E Hirsch
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Radiation Oncology Teaching Programmes as Part of the Undergraduate Degree in Medicine in Spanish Universities: the Need for an Update of the Contents and Structure.

Authors:  Meritxell Arenas; Sebastià Sabater; Albert Biete; Pedro Lara; Felipe Calvo
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.037

3.  An interactive contouring module improves engagement and interest in radiation oncology among preclinical medical students: Results of a randomized trial.

Authors:  Pushpa Neppala; Michael V Sherer; Grant Larson; Alex K Bryant; Neil Panjwani; James D Murphy; Erin F Gillespie
Journal:  Pract Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-01-12

4.  Medical Student Exposure to Cancer Patients Whilst on Clinical Placement: a Retrospective Analyses of Clinical Log Books.

Authors:  Darren L Starmer
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 2.037

5.  A Scoping Review of Radiation Oncology Educational and Career-Planning Interventions in Undergraduate Medical Education.

Authors:  Andrew J Arifin; Karina Liubchenko; Gabriel Boldt; Timothy K Nguyen
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2021-01-31       Impact factor: 3.677

6.  Radiation oncology teaching provision and practice prior to and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in medical schools in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland: a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Gerard M Walls; Orla A Houlihan; Ciaran Mooney; Rebecca Prince; Katie Spencer; Ciara Lyons; Aidan J Cole; James J McAleer; Christopher Mark Jones
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-10-27       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Education in Radiation Oncology-Current Challenges and Difficulties.

Authors:  Camil Ciprian Mireștean; Roxana Irina Iancu; Dragoș Petru Teodor Iancu
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-03-22       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  A Virtual Curriculum to Increase Exposure to Oncologic Subspecialties for Undergraduate Medical Students.

Authors:  Maria Claudia Moncaliano; Anita Mahadevan; Jessica C Liu; Ilora Naik; Irina Pateva
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2022-09-23       Impact factor: 1.771

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.