Jennifer Y Y Kwan1, Joyce Nyhof-Young2, Pamela Catton3, Meredith E Giuliani4. 1. School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: Meredith.Giuliani@rmp.uhn.on.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate (1) the quantity and quality of current undergraduate oncology teaching at a major Canadian medical school; and (2) curricular changes over the past decade, to enhance local oncology education and provide insight for other educators. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Relevant 2011-2012 undergraduate curricular sessions were extracted from the University of Toronto curriculum mapping database using keywords and database identifiers. Educational sessions were analyzed according to Medical Council of Canada objectives, discussion topics, instructor qualifications, teaching format, program year, and course subject. Course-related oncology research projects performed by students during 2000 to 2012 were extracted from another internal database. Elective choices of clerks during 2008-2014 were retrieved from the institution. The 2011-2012 and 2000-2001 curricula were compared using common criteria. RESULTS: The 2011-2012 curriculum covers 5 major themes (public health, cancer biology, diagnosis, principles of care, and therapy), which highlight 286 oncology teaching topics within 80 sessions. Genitourinary (10, 12.5%), gynecologic (8, 10.0%), and gastrointestinal cancers (7.9, 9.8%) were the most commonly taught cancers. A minority of sessions were taught by surgical oncologists (6.5, 8.1%), medical oncologists (2.5, 3.1%), and radiation oncologists (1, 1.2%). During 2000-2012, 9.0% of students (233 of 2578) opted to complete an oncology research project. During 2008-2014, oncology electives constituted 2.2% of all clerkship elective choices (209 of 9596). Compared with pre-2001 curricula, the 2012 oncology curriculum shows notable expansion in the coverage of epidemiology (6:1 increase), prevention (4:1), screening (3:1), and molecular biology (6:1). CONCLUSIONS: The scope of the oncology curriculum has grown over the past decade. Nevertheless, further work is needed to improve medical student knowledge of cancers, particularly those relevant to public health needs. Defining minimum curricular content, emphasizing content based on population needs, and ensuring educational delivery with the support and expertise of oncologists and non-oncologists will be essential next steps.
PURPOSE: To evaluate (1) the quantity and quality of current undergraduate oncology teaching at a major Canadian medical school; and (2) curricular changes over the past decade, to enhance local oncology education and provide insight for other educators. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Relevant 2011-2012 undergraduate curricular sessions were extracted from the University of Toronto curriculum mapping database using keywords and database identifiers. Educational sessions were analyzed according to Medical Council of Canada objectives, discussion topics, instructor qualifications, teaching format, program year, and course subject. Course-related oncology research projects performed by students during 2000 to 2012 were extracted from another internal database. Elective choices of clerks during 2008-2014 were retrieved from the institution. The 2011-2012 and 2000-2001 curricula were compared using common criteria. RESULTS: The 2011-2012 curriculum covers 5 major themes (public health, cancer biology, diagnosis, principles of care, and therapy), which highlight 286 oncology teaching topics within 80 sessions. Genitourinary (10, 12.5%), gynecologic (8, 10.0%), and gastrointestinal cancers (7.9, 9.8%) were the most commonly taught cancers. A minority of sessions were taught by surgical oncologists (6.5, 8.1%), medical oncologists (2.5, 3.1%), and radiation oncologists (1, 1.2%). During 2000-2012, 9.0% of students (233 of 2578) opted to complete an oncology research project. During 2008-2014, oncology electives constituted 2.2% of all clerkship elective choices (209 of 9596). Compared with pre-2001 curricula, the 2012 oncology curriculum shows notable expansion in the coverage of epidemiology (6:1 increase), prevention (4:1), screening (3:1), and molecular biology (6:1). CONCLUSIONS: The scope of the oncology curriculum has grown over the past decade. Nevertheless, further work is needed to improve medical student knowledge of cancers, particularly those relevant to public health needs. Defining minimum curricular content, emphasizing content based on population needs, and ensuring educational delivery with the support and expertise of oncologists and non-oncologists will be essential next steps.
Authors: Jonathan Oskvarek; Steve Braunstein; Jeanne Farnan; Mark K Ferguson; Olwen Hahn; Tara Henderson; Susan Hong; Stacie Levine; Carol A Rosenberg; Daniel W Golden Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Jean-Christophe Faivre; Jean-Emmanuel Bibault; Thomas Leroy; Mikaël Agopiantz; Julia Salleron; Maxime Wack; Guillaume Janoray; Henri Roché; Stéphane Culine; Sofia Rivera Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Brandon C Neeley; Daniel W Golden; Jeffrey V Brower; Steve E Braunstein; Ariel E Hirsch; Malcolm D Mattes Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Xuanyi Li; Kaustav P Shah; Catherine Zivanov; Lourdes Estrada; William B Cutrer; Mary Hooks; Vicki Keedy; Kimberly Brown Dahlman Journal: Med Sci Educ Date: 2021-04-02