Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Do Radiation Oncology Residents Have a Preferred Radiation Treatment Planning Review Format?
Kriegler, Conley; Al Balushi, Mustafa; Zhu, Yiming Michael; Hill, Jordan; Beruar, Ananya; Ghosh, Sunita; Fairchild, Alysa; Severin, Diane.
Afiliação
  • Kriegler C; Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, 11560 University Ave, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1Z2, Canada. kriegler@ualberta.ca.
  • Al Balushi M; Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, 11560 University Ave, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1Z2, Canada.
  • Zhu YM; Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, 11560 University Ave, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1Z2, Canada.
  • Hill J; Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, 11560 University Ave, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1Z2, Canada.
  • Beruar A; Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, 11560 University Ave, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1Z2, Canada.
  • Ghosh S; Division of Experimental Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
  • Fairchild A; Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, 11560 University Ave, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1Z2, Canada.
  • Severin D; Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, 11560 University Ave, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1Z2, Canada.
J Cancer Educ ; 38(4): 1338-1343, 2023 08.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36735173
In an era of increasing virtual communication, we aimed to investigate current formats used by radiation oncology residents for reviewing radiation treatment plans with attendings, preferences for formats, and reasons contributing to preferences. Residents enrolled in Canadian radiation oncology programs received questionnaires examining training level, typical review formats, preferred format, and reasons for preference. Analysis excluded PGY-1s due to insufficient exposure. Fifty-two residents participated. National response rate was 55%. Overall, hybrid review was the most used format (77%). Virtual review was the most preferred format (44%). Preference for virtual review was most common among junior residents (57%), while in-person review was most preferred by senior residents (45.4%). Few residents typically use their preferred format (35%). Reasons for preference varied between groups in convenience (p < 0.01), interactivity (p < 0.01), and teaching quality (p = 0.04). The persistence of e-learning suggests that virtual treatment planning education will continue to some degree. Junior residents prefer virtual review, while a clearly preferred review format was less apparent among senior residents. Preferences are multifactorial, and the trends seen in reasons for preference between formats may reflect advantages inherent to each. Progress is still needed in optimizing treatment planning education, as suggested by few residents using their preferred format. Residents and staff should collectively decide which educational format for treatment planning best meets educational needs.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Radioterapia (Especialidade) / Internato e Residência Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Radioterapia (Especialidade) / Internato e Residência Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article