Daniel W Golden1, Gregory E Kauffmann2, Ryan P McKillip3, Jeanne M Farnan4, Yoon Soo Park5, Alan Schwartz5. 1. Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: dgolden@radonc.uchicago.edu. 2. Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Department of Medical Education, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A structured didactic radiation oncology clerkship curriculum for medical students is in use at multiple academic medical centers. Objective evidence supporting this educational approach over the traditional clerkship model is lacking. This study evaluated the curriculum efficacy using an objective knowledge assessment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Medical students received the Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group (ROECSG) curriculum consisting of 3 lectures (Overview of Radiation Oncology, Radiation Biology/Physics, and Practical Aspects of Simulation/Radiation Emergencies) and a radiation oncology treatment-planning workshop. A standardized 20-item multiple choice question (MCQ) knowledge assessment was completed pre- and post-curriculum and approximately 6 months after receiving the curriculum. RESULTS: One hundred forty-six students at 22 academic medical centers completed the ROECSG curriculum from July to November 2016. One hundred nine students completed pre- and post-clerkship MCQ knowledge assessments (response rate 74.7%). Twenty-four students reported a prior rotation at a ROECSG institution and were excluded from analysis. Mean assessment scores increased from pre- to post-curriculum (63.9% vs 80.2%, P < .01). Mean MCQ knowledge subdomain assessment scores all improved post-curriculum (t test, P values < .01). Post-scores for students rotating de novo at ROECSG institutions (n = 30) were higher compared with pre-scores for students with ≥1 prior rotations at non-ROECSG institutions (n = 55) (77.3% vs 68.8%, P = .01), with an effect size of 0.8. Students who completed rotations at ROECSG institutions continued to demonstrate a trend toward improved performance on the objective knowledge assessment at approximately 6 months after curriculum exposure (70.5% vs 65.6%, P = .11). CONCLUSIONS: Objective evaluation of a structured didactic curriculum for the radiation oncology clerkship at early and late time points demonstrated significant improvement in radiation oncology knowledge. Students who completed clerkships at ROECSG institutions performed objectively better than students who completed clerkships at non-ROECSG institutions. These results support including a structured didactic curriculum as a standard component of the radiation oncology clerkship.
PURPOSE: A structured didactic radiation oncology clerkship curriculum for medical students is in use at multiple academic medical centers. Objective evidence supporting this educational approach over the traditional clerkship model is lacking. This study evaluated the curriculum efficacy using an objective knowledge assessment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Medical students received the Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group (ROECSG) curriculum consisting of 3 lectures (Overview of Radiation Oncology, Radiation Biology/Physics, and Practical Aspects of Simulation/Radiation Emergencies) and a radiation oncology treatment-planning workshop. A standardized 20-item multiple choice question (MCQ) knowledge assessment was completed pre- and post-curriculum and approximately 6 months after receiving the curriculum. RESULTS: One hundred forty-six students at 22 academic medical centers completed the ROECSG curriculum from July to November 2016. One hundred nine students completed pre- and post-clerkship MCQ knowledge assessments (response rate 74.7%). Twenty-four students reported a prior rotation at a ROECSG institution and were excluded from analysis. Mean assessment scores increased from pre- to post-curriculum (63.9% vs 80.2%, P < .01). Mean MCQ knowledge subdomain assessment scores all improved post-curriculum (t test, P values < .01). Post-scores for students rotating de novo at ROECSG institutions (n = 30) were higher compared with pre-scores for students with ≥1 prior rotations at non-ROECSG institutions (n = 55) (77.3% vs 68.8%, P = .01), with an effect size of 0.8. Students who completed rotations at ROECSG institutions continued to demonstrate a trend toward improved performance on the objective knowledge assessment at approximately 6 months after curriculum exposure (70.5% vs 65.6%, P = .11). CONCLUSIONS: Objective evaluation of a structured didactic curriculum for the radiation oncology clerkship at early and late time points demonstrated significant improvement in radiation oncology knowledge. Students who completed clerkships at ROECSG institutions performed objectively better than students who completed clerkships at non-ROECSG institutions. These results support including a structured didactic curriculum as a standard component of the radiation oncology clerkship.
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: 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: 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: 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: Michael Oertel; Martina Schmitz; Jan Carl Becker; Hans Theodor Eich; Anna Schober Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2019-07-15 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Baho U Sidiqi; Erin F Gillespie; Kaitlyn Lapen; C Jillian Tsai; Melissa Dawson; Abraham J Wu Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Olivia A Schultz; Robert S Hight; Stanley Gutiontov; Ravi Chandra; Jeanne Farnan; Daniel W Golden Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David M Rosenberg; Steve E Braunstein; Emma C Fields; Erin F Gillespie; Jillian R Gunther; Rachel B Jimenez; Raphael L Yechieli; Daniel W Golden Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 1.771
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
Authors: Malcolm D Mattes; Jason C Ye; Gabrielle W Peters; Faryal Rizvi; Tarita O Thomas; Ravi A Chandra; Elisabeth Weiss; Stanley I Gutiontov; Sabin B Motwani Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 2.037