ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2019
Fellowship Training Programs in Radiation Oncology: A Snapshot From 2005 to 2017.
Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Resident training in brachytherapy in France: A 10-year update after the first survey of SFJRO members.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2022Article
- Motivations, Well-Being, and Career Aspirations of Radiation Oncology Resident Physicians in Canada.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021Article
- An Analysis of the Residents' Research, Education, and Wellness Resources in Radiation Oncology Residency Programs in the United States.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDespite the proliferation of radiation oncology fellowship training programs over the last decade, limited data exist on their actual details. We present findings from a focused survey aiming to evaluate the experiences of fellowship-trained physicians. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A customized 23-item questionnaire was systematically distributed to 127 board-certified or eligible physicians who had completed a radiation oncology fellowship in the United States between 2005 and 2017 and whose contact information was available. The survey queried motivations for pursuing fellowship and aspects of training pertaining to expertise, mentorship, salary, employment outcome, satisfaction, and regret.
resultsA total of 92 subjects responded. Five were still in fellowship and 3 failed to complete the survey in its entirety, leaving 84 (56 male; 28 female) eligible for analysis. Graduates of US residencies comprised 62% of respondents. The desire to build a career in a particular treatment modality was most commonly cited as the primary motivation for pursuing fellowship (58%), followed by the desire to secure an academic faculty position (16%) and the desire to secure a job in a specific geographic location (14%). Subspecialty fellowships were most often done in proton therapy (27%) and brachytherapy (24%). Among the 26 people who completed proton fellowships, only 10 were currently practicing using protons (38%). The majority of fellows (52%) were compensated between $50,000 and $75,000 annually. Seventy-eight (93%) and 72 (86%) physicians were satisfied with fellowship training and their job after fellowship, respectively. Six of the 52 US graduates (12%) and 0 of the 32 international graduates (0%) reported that they would not recommend fellowship to others.
conclusionsThe motivations for pursuing radiation oncology fellowships appear to be complex, and variability exists with respect to multiple aspects of training, including those related to satisfaction and employment 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.