ArticleCMAJ open
Developing Canadian oncology education goals and objectives for medical students: a national modified Delphi study.
Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a Canadian artificial intelligence medical curriculum using a Delphi study.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Undergraduate oncology education in Sudanese public medical schools; a national cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Mapping the Current State of Canadian Medical School Oncology Interest Groups.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2022Article
- Oncology education for family medicine residents: a national needs assessment survey.BMC medical education · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies have shown that there is a deficiency in focused oncology teaching during medical school in Canada. This study aimed to develop oncology education goals and objectives for medical students through consensus of oncology educators from across Canada.
methodsIn 2014 we created a comprehensive list of oncology education objectives using existing resources. Experts in oncology education and undergraduate medical education from all 17 Canadian medical schools were invited to participate in a 3-round modified Delphi process. In round 1, the participants scored the objectives on a 9-point Likert scale according to the degree to which they agreed an objective should be taught to medical students. Objectives with a mean score of 7.0 or greater were retained, those with a mean score of 1.0-3.9 were excluded, and those with a mean score of 4.0-6.9 were discussed at a round 2 Web meeting. In round 3, the participants voted on inclusion and exclusion of the round 2 objectives.
resultsThirty-four (92%) of the 37 invited oncology educators, representing 14 medical schools, participated in the study. They included oncologists, family physicians, members of undergraduate medical education curriculum committees and a psychologist. Of the 214 objectives reviewed in round 1, 146 received a mean score of 7.0 or greater, and 68 were scored 4.0-6.9; no objective received a mean score below 4.0. Nine new objectives were suggested. The main themes of participants' comments were to minimize the number of objectives and to aim objectives at the knowledge level required for family physicians. In round 2, the participants were able to combine 28 of the objectives with other existing objectives. In round 3, 7 of the 49 objectives received consensus of at least 75% for inclusion. The final Canadian Oncology Goals and Objectives for Medical Students contained 10 goals and 153 objectives.
interpretationThrough a systematic process, we created a comprehensive, consensus-based set of oncology goals and objectives to facilitate the design of undergraduate medical education curricula and improve oncology education for medical students.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.