Oncology and Radiation Oncology Awareness in Final Year Medical Students in Australia and New Zealand

Undergraduate oncology education in Sudanese public medical schools; a national cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Cancer was the fifth leading cause of death in Sudan general hospitals in 2020, and its incidence is increasing. Medical students' cancer education is key in cancer control. Evaluating the current education is the first step in optimizing it. The aim of this study was to assess undergraduate oncology education in Sudan public medical schools as reflected by the graduates of the year 2021-2022.

METHOD

This was a cross-sectional institution-based study. A validated online questionnaire was sent between 8 September and 11 November 2022 to graduates who were selected using a stratified random sampling technique from 17 Sudan public medical schools. The data were collected using Google Forms and analyzed using R software version 4.2.2 and Microsoft Excel 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 707 graduates completed the questionnaire. They reported generally poor exposure to oncology. Palliative and radiation oncology in addition to chemotherapy daycare units were never attended by 76.0%, 72.0%, and 72.0% of graduates, respectively. The massed oncology curriculum was associated with increased hours of lectures dictated to medical (p = 0.005), radiation (p < 0.001), and palliative oncology (0.035). It was associated with an increased likelihood of assessment in breaking bad news (p < 0.001), counseling cancer patients (p = 0.015), and oncology-related knowledge (p < 0.001). The massed curriculum was associated with a decrease in interest in pursuing an oncology career (p = 0.037). Students were generally confident in their oncology competencies, and no difference was observed in relation to the curriculum approach (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study reflected poor exposure to oncology at the undergraduate level in Sudanese public medical schools. The massed oncology curriculum was associated with formal assessment of oncology-related competencies and better exposure to some disciplines, such as radiation and palliative oncology. Nonetheless, it was associated with decreased interest in an oncology career. In spite of the poor exposure, graduates were confident in their skills in oncology-related competencies. Further objective analysis of competence is needed.

Exploring Family Physician Training Needs to Improve Cancer Patient Care

Family physicians have multifaceted roles in cancer patient care and oncology education among this group is unfortunately inadequate. This study explored the needs and perspectives of family physicians regarding their oncology training and experiences. As well, physician cancer care experiences, knowledge use, and continuing education practices were elucidated. The authors employed a qualitative approach with family physicians participating in semi-structured interviews. General practitioners in oncology were excluded. Purposeful sampling was used, with recruitment through Ontario regional primary cancer care leads and social media. Interviews were transcribed, and thematic analysis was conducted. Thirteen participants were interviewed-1.6:1 female: male, ages 30-39, practicing for an average of 9 years (0.5-30 years), with urban and suburban practices. Most trained in Canada as undergraduates and completed their residency in Ontario; 62% had participated in at least one oncology continuing medical education session. Three major themes emerged: delineation of roles, oncology knowledge and education, and palliative care. Participants reported role uncertainty after cancer diagnosis, with oncology teaching at all levels described as lacking relevance. Palliative care rotations were an avenue for oncology education and where participants returned to cancer care. Changing existing teaching, information access, and avenues of oncology experiences may be the next step to supporting successful cancer care by family physicians.

Impact of Practical Online Lessons on Chinese Medical Students' Perception of Radiation Oncology

Radiotherapy is an essential component of oncology treatment. It is imperative that clinicians and medical students have a fundamental understanding of radiotherapy. However, radiation oncology education is deficient worldwide. This study introduced an hour-long online Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) as a supplement to the basic curriculum for 8-year medical students at Peking Union Medical College and Tsinghua University in China. The students' personal opinions and comprehension of radiation oncology therapy were assessed through pre- and post-test questionnaires before and after the MOOC study. The results indicated that the percentage of students interested in radiotherapy increased, and their knowledge of radiotherapy significantly improved after the online MOOC study, suggesting that short-term MOOC study may stimulate students' interest in learning and improving their knowledge of radiation therapy. The study suggests that the combination of online and offline teaching may be a feasible way to develop radiation oncology education in the future.

Principles of oncology taught in a one-week course

BACKGROUND

Growing challenges in oncology require evolving educational methods and content. International efforts to reform oncology education are underway. Hands-on, interdisciplinary, and compact course formats have shown great effectiveness in the education of medical students. Our aim was to establish a new interdisciplinary one-week course on the principles of oncology using state-of-the-art teaching methods.

METHODS

In an initial survey, medical students of LMU Munich were questioned about their current level of knowledge on the principles of oncology. In a second two-stage survey, the increase in knowledge resulting from our recently established interdisciplinary one-week course was determined.

RESULTS

The medical students' knowledge of clinically important oncological topics, such as the diagnostic workup and interdisciplinary treatment options, showed a need for improvement. Knowledge of the major oncological entities was also in an expandable state. By attending the one-week course on the principles of oncology, students improved their expertise in all areas of the clinical workup in oncology and had the opportunity to close previous knowledge gaps. In addition, students were able to gain more in-depth clinical knowledge on the most common oncological entities.

CONCLUSION

The interdisciplinary one-week course on the principles of oncology proved to be an effective teaching method to expand the knowledge of the future physicians to an appropriate level. With its innovative and interdisciplinary approach, the one-week course could be used as a showcase project for the ongoing development of medical education in Germany.

Clinical Objectives of the Canadian Licensing Examination: Exploring the Representation of Oncology

Every physician should be comfortable caring for cancer patients, yet medical education in oncology is known as inadequate. Our study explored this issue from an assessment perspective, by determining the representation of oncology and other health priorities in the clinical learning objectives for the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination Part 1 (MCCQE Part 1). The Medical Council of Canada lists objectives for the MCCQE Part 1, based on CanMEDS roles for medical graduate competency. These objectives guide exam question development and can be used as a study guide for learners. Our study focused on the Medical Expert role and mapped the clinical objectives for oncologic, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and chronic lower respiratory disease. The clinical objectives contained 190 topics under the Medical Expert role. Oncology content was found in 57 (30%), cardiovascular disease in 56 (29.5%), cerebrovascular disease in 21 (11%) and chronic lower respiratory disease in 7 (3.7%). In objectives with oncology content, gastrointestinal cancer (16, 28%), non-specific indicators of cancer (7, 12%) and genitourinary/musculoskeletal cancers (6, 10.5%) were most frequent. Content coding had inter-rater agreement greater than 99%, with kappas from 0.73 to 1.00. Oncology was highly represented in the clinical objectives listed for the MCCQE Part 1. With existing research showing limited oncology content on examinations and in medical curricula, our results were unexpected. This finding could signal the efficacy of initiatives seeking to improve oncology education and emphasizes the importance of continuing improvements in oncology education to meet patient and healthcare system needs.

Medical Student Perspectives on Undergraduate Oncology Education in the UK

AIMS

The British Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies (BONUS) surveyed students who attended an oncology revision day to determine their views on the current quantity, quality and type of curriculum-based oncology teaching they have experienced.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Students attending two BONUS revision days received a questionnaire assessing their experience of oncology teaching within the medical curriculum and interest in pursuing a future career in oncology using a 10-point Likert scale. Data were collected with informed consent to be anonymised and used for research. Student demographics and qualitative and quantitative data about experiences of oncology education were analysed.

RESULTS

In total, 451 students registered to attend the revision days. After removal of duplicates, non-responders and non-UK participants, responses from 153 students studying across years 1-6 at 22 UK medical schools were analysed. The mean quantity of oncology lectures students reported receiving was 8.9 hours and the mean quantity of clinic/ward-based oncology teaching was 7.5 hours. Ninety (62.1%) of the 145 students who responded to the relevant question reported that they had received dedicated teaching in oncology. Students who had received dedicated oncology teaching reported a statistically significantly higher mean quality 6.1 (95% confidence interval 5.6-6.5) versus 5.0 (95% confidence interval 4.3-5.5; P = 0.003) and quantity 5.2 (95% confidence interval 4.7-5.6) versus 4.3 (95% confidence interval 3.7-4.9; P = 0.03) of oncology teaching compared with those who had not received this.

CONCLUSION

Appropriate oncology education is essential for all medical students due to the high prevalence of cancer. All future doctors need the appropriate knowledge and communication skills to care for cancer patients. Our analysis provides quantitative evidence to support the value of specialist oncology teaching within the medical school curriculum in improving student-reported experience. National student-led revision days and events may widen interest in a future career in oncology and aid collaboration between oncology societies. It is important for the general undergraduate medical curriculum to integrate specialty content. An integrated curriculum should facilitate a holistic approach that spans prevention, screening, treatment and palliation rather than being split by subspeciality.

Radiation oncology teaching provision and practice prior to and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in medical schools in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland: a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

Radiotherapy is a key cancer treatment modality but is poorly understood by doctors. We sought to evaluate radiation oncology (RO) teaching in medical schools within the United Kingdom (UK) and Republic of Ireland (RoI), as well as any impacts on RO teaching delivery from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

METHODS

A bespoke online survey instrument was developed, piloted and distributed to oncology teaching leads at all UK and RoI medical schools. Questions were designed to capture information on the structure, format, content and faculty for RO teaching, as well as both the actual and the predicted short- and long-term impacts of COVID-19.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 29/41 (71%) UK and 5/6 (83%) RoI medical schools. Pre-clinical and clinical oncology teaching was delivered over a median of 2 weeks (IQR 1-6), although only 9 (27%) of 34 responding medical schools had a standalone RO module. RO teaching was most commonly delivered in clinics or wards (n = 26 and 25 respectively). Few medical schools provided teaching on the biological basis for radiotherapy (n = 11) or the RO career pathway (n = 8), and few provide teaching delivered by non-medical RO multidisciplinary team members. There was evidence of short- and long-term disruption to RO teaching from COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

RO teaching in the UK and RoI is limited with minimal coverage of relevant theoretical principles and little exposure to radiotherapy departments and their non-medical team members. The COVID-19 pandemic risks exacerbating trainee doctors' already constrained exposure to radiotherapy.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This study provides the first analysis of radiotherapy-related teaching in the UK and RoI, and the first to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on radiationoncology teaching.

Integrating Radiation Oncology Into Undergraduate Medical Education

Cancer is one of the most important public health problems. However, medical education has not advanced at the same rate when it comes to cancer education. Currently, the United States Medical Licensing Examination subject examinations do not cover radiation oncology, prevention, and survivorship planning in its assessment model. Incorporating medical oncology and radiation oncology training into the undergraduate medical education curriculum can have a significant benefit in training future physicians. In this paper, we review current literature and propose some ideas that can help incorporate oncology, and specifically radiation oncology, into undergraduate medical education.

Junior Doctor Evaluation of Radiation Oncology Education and Training in Medical Schools and Prevocational Training in Australia

The purpose of this study is to evaluate radiation oncology (RO)-specific education, confidence and knowledge of junior doctors in Australian teaching hospitals. A 38-item web-based survey was emailed to prevocational junior doctors working in Australian hospitals in New South Wales (NSW), Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and Queensland (QLD) between November 2017 and January 2018. The survey evaluated RO educational and clinical exposure of participants during medical school, and prevocational training and their confidence and knowledge of the specialty. A total of 183 respondents across 17 Australian hospital networks completed the survey. During medical school, 53.4% had RO incorporated into their formal curriculum, 19.5% had no formal lectures and 51.7% had never visited a RO department. As a junior doctor, 73.8% of respondents did not receive any formal RO education. When compared with other oncology specialties, fewer junior doctors were confident in consulting the RO team (21.0%) compared with medical oncology (42.0%), palliative care (75.2%) and haematology (40.1%). Majority of respondents (61.6%) showed limited understanding of radiation safety. On multivariate sub-group analysis, both confidence and knowledge in RO improved when RO was incorporated into the formal medical school curriculum. This survey highlights the current low confidence and poor knowledge standard amongst Australian junior doctors on RO due to inadequate teaching during medical school and prevocational training and suggests improvement through standardisation of formal RO curriculum teaching within medical school and prevocational training.

Non-oncologist Physician Knowledge of Radiation Therapy at an Urban Community Hospital

Radiation therapy (RT) is a crucial part of cancer care, but previous work suggests that many non-radiation oncologist physicians are uncomfortable referring for RT. To evaluate training and understanding of RT, the authors sent invitations to complete an online questionnaire to all physicians at a community hospital in Bronx, NY, which asked about oncology training and self-rated and objective knowledge of RT. Out of 247 invited participants, 87 responded (35%). Among responders, 19 were attending physicians (22%) and 66 (76%) were residents. Seventy-two percent of respondents reported caring for > 5 cancer patients in the past month, but 54% reported never referring patients for RT. Sixty-nine percent of respondents stated they received no radiation oncology training in medical school, and 36% reported no general oncology training. Approximately half believed themselves to be "somewhat knowledgeable" about RT indications (48%), benefits (53%), and side effects (55%). Objective assessment mean score was 6.2/12 (median 7) for all respondents; Respondents with internal medicine specialization scored higher than others (mean 7.7 vs 3.5; p < 0.01). Scores did not differ between attending and resident physicians, resident post-graduate levels, or receiving oncology training in medical school. The factors most commonly cited as affecting RT referral decisions were type of cancer, patient wishes, family wishes, poor functional status, and life expectancy. Many physicians are unaware of RT effectiveness or indications, which may affect referral patterns. Previous oncology training was not associated with higher knowledge scores.