ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2018
Introductory Radiation Oncology Curriculum: Report of a National Needs Assessment and Multi-institutional Pilot Implementation.
Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- ONC-Call: A Hands-On Workshop of Emergent Spine Radiation Therapy for Multidisciplinary Trainees.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Implementing a resident-led transition-specific bootcamp curriculum during pediatric residency training: Our 3-year experience.Paediatrics & child health · 2024Article
- Advancing Resident Education: Experiential Success in the Creation of a Comprehensive Clinical Didactic Series in Radiation Oncology.Advances in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Challenges in the transition to independent radiation oncology practice and targeted interventions for improvement.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2022Article
- Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group Annual Spring Symposium: Initial Impact and Feedback.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2022Review
- Qualitative Study of Interprofessional Collaboration in Radiation Oncology Clinics: Is There a Need for Further Education?International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2021Article
- Learning radiotherapy: the state of the art.BMC medical education · 2020Review
- Prospective International Pilot Study Evaluating the Efficacy of a Self-Guided Contouring Teaching Module With Integrated Feedback for Transitioning From 2D to 3D Treatment Planning.Journal of global oncology · 2019Article
- The Novel Use of a Commercially Available Video-Conference Platform to Facilitate Multidisciplinary Target Volume Review and Delineation for Skull-Base Radiation Therapy During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
- Improving Diversity and Inclusion in the Post-Coronavirus Disease 2019 Era Through a Radiation Oncology Intensive Shadowing Experience (RISE).Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the optimal structure of an introductory curriculum (IC) for radiation oncology residents, including the perceived utility of a 2-day off-site "boot camp," and evaluate the success of a pilot introductory radiation oncology curriculum (IROC) based on these initial data. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In the first phase, anonymous, web-based surveys were sent to US radiation oncology program directors and residents. Likert-type scores (1, not at all; 5, extremely) are reported as the median and interquartile range. Using the phase 1 results, IROC was developed, piloted, and evaluated.
resultsOf the 89 program directors and 697 residents, 47 (53%) and 165 (24%) responded, respectively. Of the 89 program directors, 37 (79%) reported offering a formal IC. However, only 83 residents (50%) reported having a formal IC. Program directors reported resident preparation for clinical training as "moderate" (median 3, interquartile range 2-3) on entering residency and "moderate" (median 3, interquartile range 3-4) after IC completion (P = .03). However, residents only believed they were "slightly" prepared (median 2, interquartile range 1-2) on entering residency and "moderately" (median 3, interquartile range 2-3) prepared after IC completion (P < .01). Program directors believed an off-site boot camp would be of "moderate" utility (median 3, interquartile range 3-4) with participation limited by funding (57%). Residents without an IC reported that having an IC would be "quite" beneficial (median 4, interquartile range 3-5). Residents preferred instruction before the clinical training (49%) and over 1 week (40%). Both program directors and residents rated lectures on radiation emergencies and simulation highly. Using these data, IROC was developed and piloted with incoming residents at 4 institutions. After IROC, residents reported improvement in overall preparedness for clinical training (before: median 1, interquartile range 1-2; vs after: median 3, interquartile range 2-3; P < .01) and among specific practice domains.
conclusionsBeginning radiation oncology residents frequently lack structured introductory curricula but desire instruction before the clinical training with a focus on practical aspects (emergency management, contouring). Program directors recognize the value of both off-site and on-site boot camps. An on-site IC could mitigate funding barriers. A standardized IC, IROC, piloted at 4 programs, showed promising outcomes.
Indexed as
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.