ArticleBMC medical education2026
An international survey of undergraduate trainees' interests and expected teaching strategies in geriatric oncology.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAge is a critical driver of the worldwide increasing cancer incidence rates, and with the growing number of older adults diagnosed with cancer, there is a rising need for specialized care. However, geriatric oncology (GO) education remains underrepresented in medical curricula. The gap between demand and adequately trained providers requires the development of more robust GO training programs. This study examined the current state of GO education, and the areas of interest within GO and the expected teaching methods for this specialized content.
methodsA multi-center international online survey aimed at assessing the awareness and perceived significance of GO among early-career medical students and nursing trainees was conducted.
resultsAmong 158 participants, only 36.5% had oncology training and 19.6% geriatrics training. Despite this, GO was consistently rated as highly important, with no difference by prior GO training (p = 0.853). Participants expressed strongest interest in mental health, palliative care, and quality-of-care topics, while satisfaction with current training was moderate. Teaching was predominantly lecture-based, although more interactive approaches such as seminars and bedside teaching were preferred. Over half of participants were willing to contribute to improving GO education through feedback or volunteering.
conclusionGO remains underrepresented in current training despite its high perceived importance among trainees. Participants preferred interactive teaching formats, particularly seminars and bedside teaching, and showed strong interest in mental health and palliative care topics. These findings support integrating geriatric oncology into curricula using more practice-oriented teaching strategies.
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.