Jonathan J Oskvarek1, Jeffrey V Brower2, Pranshu Mohindra3, David R Raleigh4, Steven J Chmura5, Daniel W Golden6. 1. Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 5. Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 6. Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: dgolden@radonc.uchicago.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many medical school clerkships have structured curricula; however, most radiation oncology clerkships do not. The Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group (ROECSG) implemented a curriculum for fourth-year radiation oncology clerkships at 14 institutions. We hypothesized that students completing clerkships with the curriculum would report greater subjective knowledge and comfort to function as a radiation oncology resident compared with students completing clerkships without the curriculum. METHODS: The ROECSG curriculum included three 1-hour lectures and a 1-hour hands-on radiation treatment planning workshop. Applicants to a single radiation oncology residency program in the 2014-2015 academic year were sent an anonymous, validated clerkship experience survey. Students indicated if clerkships were completed at a curriculum site. Likert-type data (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely) are reported as median (interquartile range). RESULTS: Respondents described 276 clerkship experiences, of which 64 (23.2%) were completed at a curriculum site. Students whose first clerkship was at a curriculum site perceived greater postclerkship confidence in knowledge of radiation biology (3 [3-4] versus 2 [2-3], P < .01), treatment setup/positioning (3 [2-3] versus 2 [2-3], P < .05), treatment planning (3 [2-3] versus 2 [2-3], P < .01), and ability to integrate evidence-based medicine into treatment (4 [2-4] versus 3 [2-4], P < .05). Students who completed any clerkship with the curriculum had greater postclerkship confidence to function as a radiation oncology resident (3 [3-4] versus 3 [2-3], P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: These results support the curriculum's ability to increase student knowledge in radiation oncology, especially in the students' first clerkship. Further, these findings suggest that expanded implementation of such curricula may ensure a rewarding educational experience during radiation oncology clerkships.
PURPOSE: Many medical school clerkships have structured curricula; however, most radiation oncology clerkships do not. The Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group (ROECSG) implemented a curriculum for fourth-year radiation oncology clerkships at 14 institutions. We hypothesized that students completing clerkships with the curriculum would report greater subjective knowledge and comfort to function as a radiation oncology resident compared with students completing clerkships without the curriculum. METHODS: The ROECSG curriculum included three 1-hour lectures and a 1-hour hands-on radiation treatment planning workshop. Applicants to a single radiation oncology residency program in the 2014-2015 academic year were sent an anonymous, validated clerkship experience survey. Students indicated if clerkships were completed at a curriculum site. Likert-type data (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely) are reported as median (interquartile range). RESULTS: Respondents described 276 clerkship experiences, of which 64 (23.2%) were completed at a curriculum site. Students whose first clerkship was at a curriculum site perceived greater postclerkship confidence in knowledge of radiation biology (3 [3-4] versus 2 [2-3], P < .01), treatment setup/positioning (3 [2-3] versus 2 [2-3], P < .05), treatment planning (3 [2-3] versus 2 [2-3], P < .01), and ability to integrate evidence-based medicine into treatment (4 [2-4] versus 3 [2-4], P < .05). Students who completed any clerkship with the curriculum had greater postclerkship confidence to function as a radiation oncology resident (3 [3-4] versus 3 [2-3], P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: These results support the curriculum's ability to increase student knowledge in radiation oncology, especially in the students' first clerkship. Further, these findings suggest that expanded implementation of such curricula may ensure a rewarding educational experience during radiation oncology clerkships.
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: Robert Timmerman; Rebecca Paulus; James Galvin; Jeffrey Michalski; William Straube; Jeffrey Bradley; Achilles Fakiris; Andrea Bezjak; Gregory Videtic; David Johnstone; Jack Fowler; Elizabeth Gore; Hak Choy Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Awad A Ahmed; Emma B Holliday; Curtiland Deville; Reshma Jagsi; Bruce G Haffty; Lynn D Wilson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: William R Wisniewski; Keith F Fournier; Yan K Ling; Rebecca S Slack; Gildy Babiera; Elizabeth G Grubbs; Laura J Moore; Jason B Fleming; Y Nancy You Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2013-07-01 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Matthew C Tews; Collette Marie Ditz Wyte; Marion Coltman; Kathy Hiller; Julianna Jung; Leslie C Oyama; Karen Jubanyik; Sorabh Khandelwal; William Goldenberg; David A Wald; Leslie S Zun; Shreni Zinzuwadia; Kiran Pandit; Charlene An; Douglas S Ander Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2015-03-29 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Sarah D Cipriano; Eric Dybbro; Christy K Boscardin; Kanade Shinkai; Timothy G Berger Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 11.527
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: Daniel W Golden; Steve Braunstein; Rachel B Jimenez; Pranshu Mohindra; Alexander Spektor; Jason C Ye Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2015-09-26 Impact factor: 5.532
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: James M G Tsui; Nicholas K S Grewal; Milani Sivapragasam; Melina Flanagan; Daniel W Golden; Joanne Alfieri; Malcolm D Mattes Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2019-04-03 Impact factor: 7.038