A Survey of Medical Oncology Training in Australian Medical Schools: Pilot Study

Towards a Postgraduate Oncology Training Model for Family Medicine: Mixed Methods Evaluation of a Breast Oncology Rotation

Background: Family physicians have low knowledge and preparedness to manage patients with cancer. A breast oncology clinical rotation was developed for family medicine residents to address this gap in medical education. Objectives and Methods: A breast oncology rotation for family residents was evaluated using a pre-post knowledge questionnaire and semi-structured interviews comparing rotation (RRs) versus non-rotation (NRRs) residents. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected via a pre-post knowledge questionnaire and semi-structured interviews, respectively. Analysis: Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and paired t-tests to compare pre-post-rotation knowledge and preparedness. Qualitative data were coded inductively, analysed, and grouped into categories and themes. Data sets were integrated. Results: The study was terminated early due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Six RRs completed the study; 19 and 2 NRRs completed the quantitative and qualitative portions, respectively. RRs’ knowledge scores did not improve, but there was a non-significant increase in preparedness (5.3 to 8.4, p = 0.17) post-rotation. RRs described important rotation outcomes: knowledge of the patient work-up, referral process, and patient treatment trajectory; skills in risk assessment, clinical examination, and empathy, and comfort in counseling. Discussion and Conclusion: Important educational outcomes were obtained despite no change in knowledge scores. This rotation can be adapted to other training programs including an oncology primer to enable trainee integration of new information.

Mentoring Medical Students Towards Oncology: Results from a Pilot Multi-institutional Mentorship Programme

The mounting global cancer burden has generated an increasing demand for oncologists to join the workforce. Yet, students report limited oncology exposure in undergraduate medical curricula, while undergraduate oncology mentorships remain underutilised. We established an undergraduate oncology society-led mentorship programme aimed at medical students across several UK universities to increase medical student oncology exposure. We electronically recruited and paired oncologist mentors and medical student mentees and distributed a dedicated questionnaire (pre- and post-mentorship) to compare mentees' self-reported cancer specialty knowledge and oncology career motivation after undertaking a 6-week mentorship. We also determined students' interest across specialties and subspecialties and measured mentor availability via percentage programme uptake. Statistical analysis included univariate inferential tests on SPSS software. Twentynine (23.4%) of 124 oncology specialists agreed to become mentors. The mentorship was completed by 30 students across three medical schools: 16 (53.3%) Barts, 10 (33.3%) Birmingham, and 4 (13.3%) King's; 11 (36.7%) mentored by medical oncologists, 10 (33.3%) by clinical/radiation oncologists, and 9 (30%) by surgical oncologists. The mentorship generated a statically significant increase in students' knowledge of the multidisciplinary team and all oncology-related specialties including academia/research but not interest towards a career in oncology. Undergraduate oncology mentoring is an effective educational, networking and motivational tool for medical students. Student societies are a valuable asset in cultivating medical student oncology interest by connecting students to faculty and increasing mentor accessibility. Further research should focus on developing an optimal mentorship structure and evaluating long-term outcomes of such educational initiatives.

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.

Oncology Education in the Nigerian Medical Curriculum: A Cross-Sectional Review

Background

The quality of a physician is arguably related to the depth and quality of medical education received. As cancer devastates the health and economy of developing countries like Nigeria, it becomes increasingly important for physicians in these countries to be equipped with basic knowledge and skill to adequately detect, diagnose, refer and manage common cancers. This study reviewed exposure to oncology training as a component of the medical school's curriculum in Nigeria from the trainee's perspective.

Methodology

In a cross-sectional review of medical students and recent graduates of universities across Nigeria, data were collected using a predesigned tool.

Results

Entries from 228 participants were recorded and analysed. The mean age of study participants was 25.4 ± 2.9 years; 53.1% were female. Respondents were primarily in government-owned medical schools. Over half (55.7%) reported none to minimal oncology exposure during their preclinical classes, 38.6% reported oncology as a distinct clinical rotation in their medical schools and only 44.3% spent time in at least one oncology unit during clinical rotations. The mean duration spent in oncology units was 3.4 weeks.

Conclusion

Doubtless, Nigeria needs more oncology specialists but, it is just as important for even general practitioners to have basic oncology knowledge. This study shows slow exposure to oncology training for medical students, which has contributed to the lack of confidence in treating common cancers seen in Nigeria and low desire among medical students to specialize in oncology. As cancer incidence rises, the need for oncology knowledge in the general physician community is increasingly evident.

Inspiring the future generation of oncologists: a UK-wide study of medical students' views towards oncology

BACKGROUND

One in 2 people born in the UK after 1960 are expected to require oncology input in their lifetime. However, only 36% of UK medical schools provide dedicated oncology placements and teaching indicating a discordance between public health impact and training. We designed a UK-wide survey to capture medical students' views on current oncology teaching and the potential role of a national undergraduate oncology symposium as an educational, networking and motivational tool.

METHODS

We undertook a national cross-sectional survey of UK medical students' views in oncology and satisfaction with teaching using pre-designed questionnaires. We also distributed a dedicated survey (pre and post-conference) to compare medical students' motivation towards a career in oncology after attending the national symposium. This study was prospectively approved by QMUL Ethics Committee (Reference number QMREC2348). Statistical analysis included univariate inferential tests on SPSS and GraphPad software.

RESULTS

The national survey was completed by 166 students representing 22 UK medical schools. Students reported limited interest, knowledge and exposure to oncology, lack of confidence in skills, and teaching dissatisfaction. Oncology was perceived as a challenging specialty (mean 4.5/5 ± 0.7), yet most students estimate receiving only 1-2 weeks of dedicated oncology teaching. The national symposium generated a statically significant increase in students' interest, knowledge, and confidence in skills surrounding oncology, improving students' perceived ability to cope with the emotional challenges in this field.

CONCLUSION

Students' views towards oncology alongside their teaching dissatisfaction underpin the need to revisit and strive to improve current undergraduate oncology curricula. Increasing medical student oncology exposure by proposing outcome-based guidelines and adopting a standardised undergraduate oncology curriculum should be the foremost priority in inspiring future oncologists to ensure excellent cancer patient care.

A Thorough Analysis of the Current State of Cancer Education in Medical Schools and Application of Experimental Teaching Techniques and Their Efficacy

Newly diagnosed cases of cancer are expected to double by the year 2040. Although many different oncology teaching initiatives have been implemented, many students continue to report uncertainty when dealing with patients with cancer. Through this review, we aim to find the most effective teaching methods to better prepare future physicians. Papers studying different methods of teaching oncology were identified through a thorough review of specific electronic databases. Each study was analyzed and sorted into one of ten unique categories created by the authors specifically for this review. If portions of the study fit into multiple categories, relevant results would be analyzed in all applicable areas. Additionally, papers were separated and analyzed by country of origin, preclinical or clinical interventional basis, and quantitative versus qualitative form of statistical analysis. A total of 115 papers from 26 different countries and regions were included in the final analysis. 91.4% of papers analyzing Lecture and Small Group Discussions indicated a positive impact. 97.1% of papers analyzing Clinical Practice and Simulation indicated a positive impact. 100% of papers analyzing Early Experience and Mentorship, Summer Programs and Voluntary Electives, use of Multidisciplinary Teams, and Role Play stated that these methods had a positive impact. 50% of papers analyzing Computer/Web Based Programs indicated a positive impact. Clinical Practice and Simulation, Role Play, Summer/Elective Programs and interventions involving Multidisciplinary Team Work all appeared to be most effective. Intensive Block Programs, Didactic Lectures/Small Group Discussions, and Computer/Web Based Education tools as a whole were variable. General Review papers showed continued variability in domestic and international oncology curricula. Incorporation of effective teaching interventions should be highly considered in the future creation of standardized oncology curricula in order to best prepare the next generation of physicians. Future studies could explore the differing efficacies of teaching interventions in the postgraduate versus graduate realms.