Daniel V Wakefield1, Bogdan A Manole1, Amit Jethanandani1, Michael E May1, Samuel R Marcrom2, Michael R Farmer3, Matthew T Ballo3, Noam A VanderWalde4. 1. University of Tennessee College of Medicine, Memphis, Tennessee. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tennessee West Cancer Center, Memphis, Tennessee. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tennessee West Cancer Center, Memphis, Tennessee. Electronic address: nvanderw@westclinic.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radiation oncology (RO) residency applicants commonly use Internet resources for information on residency programs. The purpose of this study is to assess the accessibility, availability, and quality of online information for RO graduate medical education. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Accessibility of online information was determined by surveying databases for RO residency programs within the Fellowship Residency Electronic Interactive Data Access System (FREIDA) of the American Medical Association, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), and Google search. As of June 30, 2015, websites were assessed for presence, accessibility, and overall content availability based on a 55-item list of desired features based on 13 program features important to previously surveyed applicants. Quality scoring of available content was performed based on previously published Likert scale variables deemed desirable to RO applicants. Quality score labels were given based on percentage of desired information presented. RESULTS: FREIDA and ACGME databases listed 89% and 98% of program websites, respectively, but only 56% and 52% of links routed to a RO department-specific website, respectively. Google search obtained websites for 98% of programs and 95% of links routed to RO department-specific websites. The majority of websites had program descriptions (98%) and information on staff. However, resident information was more limited (total number [42%], education [47%], previous residents [28%], positions available [35%], contact information [13%]). Based on quality scoring, program websites contained only 47% of desired information on average. Only 13% of programs had superior websites containing 80% or more of desired information. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with Google, the FREIDA and ACGME program databases provide limited access to RO residency websites. The overall information availability and quality of information within RO residency websites varies widely. Applicants and programs may benefit from improved content accessibility and quality from US RO program websites in the residency application process.
PURPOSE: Radiation oncology (RO) residency applicants commonly use Internet resources for information on residency programs. The purpose of this study is to assess the accessibility, availability, and quality of online information for RO graduate medical education. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Accessibility of online information was determined by surveying databases for RO residency programs within the Fellowship Residency Electronic Interactive Data Access System (FREIDA) of the American Medical Association, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), and Google search. As of June 30, 2015, websites were assessed for presence, accessibility, and overall content availability based on a 55-item list of desired features based on 13 program features important to previously surveyed applicants. Quality scoring of available content was performed based on previously published Likert scale variables deemed desirable to RO applicants. Quality score labels were given based on percentage of desired information presented. RESULTS: FREIDA and ACGME databases listed 89% and 98% of program websites, respectively, but only 56% and 52% of links routed to a RO department-specific website, respectively. Google search obtained websites for 98% of programs and 95% of links routed to RO department-specific websites. The majority of websites had program descriptions (98%) and information on staff. However, resident information was more limited (total number [42%], education [47%], previous residents [28%], positions available [35%], contact information [13%]). Based on quality scoring, program websites contained only 47% of desired information on average. Only 13% of programs had superior websites containing 80% or more of desired information. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with Google, the FREIDA and ACGME program databases provide limited access to RO residency websites. The overall information availability and quality of information within RO residency websites varies widely. Applicants and programs may benefit from improved content accessibility and quality from US RO program websites in the residency application process.