Daniel W Golden1, Steve Braunstein2, Rachel B Jimenez3, Pranshu Mohindra4, Alexander Spektor5, Jason C Ye6. 1. Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago, Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: dgolden@radonc.uchicago.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Weill-Cornell Medical College, Stich Radiation Oncology Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radiation oncology curriculum development is challenging because of limited numbers of trainees at any single institution. The goal of this project is to implement and evaluate a standardized medical student clerkship curriculum following the multi-institutional cooperative group research model. METHODS: During the 2013 academic year, a standardized curriculum was implemented at 11 academic medical centers consisting of three 1-hour lectures and a hands-on radiation treatment planning workshop. After the curriculum, students completed anonymous evaluations using Likert-type scales (1 = "not at all" to 5 = "extremely") and free responses. Evaluations asked students to rate their comfort, before and after the curriculum, with radiation oncology as a specialty, knowledge of radiotherapy planning methods, and ability to function as a radiation oncology resident. Nonparametric statistical tests were used in the analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-eight students at 11 academic medical centers completed the curriculum de novo, with a 72.7% (64 of 88) survey response rate. Fifty-seven students (89.1%) reported intent to pursue radiation oncology as their specialty. Median (interquartile range) student ratings of the importance of curricular content were as follows: overview, 4 (4-5); radiation biology/physics, 5 (4-5); practical aspects/emergencies, 5 (4-5); and planning workshop, 4 (4-5). Students reported that the curriculum helped them better understand radiation oncology as a specialty (5 [4-5]), increased specialty decision comfort (4 [3-5]), and would help the transition to radiation oncology residency (4 [4-5]). Students rated their specialty decision comfort significantly higher after completing the curriculum (4 [4-5] versus 5 [5-5]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A national standardized curriculum was successfully implemented at 11 academic medical centers, providing proof of principle that curriculum development can follow the multi-institutional cooperative group research model.
PURPOSE: Radiation oncology curriculum development is challenging because of limited numbers of trainees at any single institution. The goal of this project is to implement and evaluate a standardized medical student clerkship curriculum following the multi-institutional cooperative group research model. METHODS: During the 2013 academic year, a standardized curriculum was implemented at 11 academic medical centers consisting of three 1-hour lectures and a hands-on radiation treatment planning workshop. After the curriculum, students completed anonymous evaluations using Likert-type scales (1 = "not at all" to 5 = "extremely") and free responses. Evaluations asked students to rate their comfort, before and after the curriculum, with radiation oncology as a specialty, knowledge of radiotherapy planning methods, and ability to function as a radiation oncology resident. Nonparametric statistical tests were used in the analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-eight students at 11 academic medical centers completed the curriculum de novo, with a 72.7% (64 of 88) survey response rate. Fifty-seven students (89.1%) reported intent to pursue radiation oncology as their specialty. Median (interquartile range) student ratings of the importance of curricular content were as follows: overview, 4 (4-5); radiation biology/physics, 5 (4-5); practical aspects/emergencies, 5 (4-5); and planning workshop, 4 (4-5). Students reported that the curriculum helped them better understand radiation oncology as a specialty (5 [4-5]), increased specialty decision comfort (4 [3-5]), and would help the transition to radiation oncology residency (4 [4-5]). Students rated their specialty decision comfort significantly higher after completing the curriculum (4 [4-5] versus 5 [5-5]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A national standardized curriculum was successfully implemented at 11 academic medical centers, providing proof of principle that curriculum development can follow the multi-institutional cooperative group research model.
Authors: Bernard Fisher; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Stewart Anderson; John Bryant; Edwin R Fisher; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-08-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Patricia A Carney; David W Nierenberg; Catherine F Pipas; W Blair Brooks; Therese A Stukel; Adam M Keller Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-09-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Theresa M Malatesta; Robert B Den; Evan Wuthrick; Peter H Ahn; Maria Werner-Wasik; Wenyin Shi; Adam P Dicker; P Rani Anne; Voichita Bar-Ad; Timothy N Showalter Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Daniel W Golden; David R Raleigh; Steven J Chmura; Matthew Koshy; Andrew R Howard Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-06-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jeffrey V Brower; Pranshu Mohindra; Kristin A Bradley; Daniel W Golden Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Vikrant S Jagadeesan; David R Raleigh; Matthew Koshy; Andrew R Howard; Steven J Chmura; Daniel W Golden Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jillian R Gunther; Rachel B Jimenez; Raphael L Yechieli; Akash Parekh; Abigail T Berman; Steve E Braunstein; Ariel E Hirsch; Erin F Gillespie; Neha Vapiwala; Charles R Thomas; Emma C Fields; Daniel W Golden Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Daniel W Golden; Gregory E Kauffmann; Ryan P McKillip; Jeanne M Farnan; Yoon Soo Park; Alan Schwartz Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael K Rooney; Fan Zhu; Erin F Gillespie; Jillian R Gunther; Ryan P McKillip; Matthew Lineberry; Ara Tekian; Daniel W Golden Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 7.038
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
Authors: Erqi L Pollom; Navjot Sandhu; Jessica Frank; Jacob A Miller; Jean-Pierre Obeid; Noah Kastelowitz; Neil Panjwani; Scott G Soltys; Hilary P Bagshaw; Sarah S Donaldson; Kathleen Horst; Beth M Beadle; Daniel T Chang; Iris Gibbs Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-05-20
Authors: Jonathan J Oskvarek; Jeffrey V Brower; Pranshu Mohindra; David R Raleigh; Steven J Chmura; Daniel W Golden Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2016-09-18 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Jillian R Gunther; Stanley L Liauw; Seungtaek Choi; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Nikhil G Thaker; Clifton D Fuller; Christopher J Stepaniak; Prajnan Das; Daniel W Golden Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 5.532