Interdisciplinary Oncology Education: a National Survey of Trainees and Program Directors in the United States

Adil S. Akthar, Christopher D. Hellekson, Sabha Ganai, Olwen M. Hahn, Ronald Maggiore, Ezra E. Cohen, Mitchell C. Posner, Steven J. Chmura, Andrew R. Howard, Daniel W. Golden

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Oncologists must have a strong understanding of collaborating specialties in order to deliver optimal cancer care. The objective of this study was to quantify current interdisciplinary oncology education among oncology training programs across the USA, identify effective teaching modalities, and assess communication skills training. Web-based surveys were sent to oncology trainees and program directors (PDs) across the USA on April 1, 2013 and October 8, 2013, respectively. Question responses were Yes/No, five-point Likert scales (1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = moderately, 4 = quite, 5 = extremely), or free response. Respondents included the following (trainees/PDs): 254/55 medical oncology, 160/42 surgical oncology, 102/24 radiation oncology, and 41/20 hospice and palliative medicine (HPM). Trainees consistently reported lower rates of interdisciplinary education for each specialty compared with PDs as follows: medical oncology 57 vs. 77% (p < 0.01), surgical oncology 30 vs. 44% (p < 0.01), radiation oncology 70 vs. 89% (p < 0.01), geriatric oncology 19 vs. 30% (p < 0.01), and HPM 55 vs. 74% (p < 0.01). The predominant teaching method used (lectures vs. rotations vs. tumor board attendance vs. workshop vs. other) varied according to which discipline was being taught. The usefulness of each teaching method was rated statistically different by trainees for learning about select disciplines. Furthermore, statistically significant differences were found between PDs and trainees for the perceived usefulness of several teaching modalities. This study highlights a deficiency of interdisciplinary education among oncology training programs in the USA. Efforts to increase interdisciplinary education opportunities during training may ultimately translate into improved collaboration and quality of cancer care.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-5
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Cancer Education
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Nov 21 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Education
Teaching
Radiation Oncology
Hospices
Medical Oncology
Neoplasms
Quality of Health Care
Surveys and Questionnaires
Geriatrics
Communication
Learning
Surgical Oncology
Palliative Medicine

Keywords

  • Communication
  • Graduate Medical Education
  • Hospice care
  • Medical oncology
  • Patient care team
  • Radiation oncology
  • Surgery

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Akthar, A. S., Hellekson, C. D., Ganai, S., Hahn, O. M., Maggiore, R., Cohen, E. E., ... Golden, D. W. (Accepted/In press). Interdisciplinary Oncology Education: a National Survey of Trainees and Program Directors in the United States. Journal of Cancer Education, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-016-1139-6

Interdisciplinary Oncology Education : a National Survey of Trainees and Program Directors in the United States. / Akthar, Adil S.; Hellekson, Christopher D.; Ganai, Sabha; Hahn, Olwen M.; Maggiore, Ronald; Cohen, Ezra E.; Posner, Mitchell C.; Chmura, Steven J.; Howard, Andrew R.; Golden, Daniel W.

In: Journal of Cancer Education, 21.11.2016, p. 1-5.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Akthar, AS, Hellekson, CD, Ganai, S, Hahn, OM, Maggiore, R, Cohen, EE, Posner, MC, Chmura, SJ, Howard, AR & Golden, DW 2016, 'Interdisciplinary Oncology Education: a National Survey of Trainees and Program Directors in the United States', Journal of Cancer Education, pp. 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-016-1139-6
Akthar, Adil S. ; Hellekson, Christopher D. ; Ganai, Sabha ; Hahn, Olwen M. ; Maggiore, Ronald ; Cohen, Ezra E. ; Posner, Mitchell C. ; Chmura, Steven J. ; Howard, Andrew R. ; Golden, Daniel W. / Interdisciplinary Oncology Education : a National Survey of Trainees and Program Directors in the United States. In: Journal of Cancer Education. 2016 ; pp. 1-5.
@article{3a603f62102c43a89cd65705440c1391,
title = "Interdisciplinary Oncology Education: a National Survey of Trainees and Program Directors in the United States",
abstract = "Oncologists must have a strong understanding of collaborating specialties in order to deliver optimal cancer care. The objective of this study was to quantify current interdisciplinary oncology education among oncology training programs across the USA, identify effective teaching modalities, and assess communication skills training. Web-based surveys were sent to oncology trainees and program directors (PDs) across the USA on April 1, 2013 and October 8, 2013, respectively. Question responses were Yes/No, five-point Likert scales (1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = moderately, 4 = quite, 5 = extremely), or free response. Respondents included the following (trainees/PDs): 254/55 medical oncology, 160/42 surgical oncology, 102/24 radiation oncology, and 41/20 hospice and palliative medicine (HPM). Trainees consistently reported lower rates of interdisciplinary education for each specialty compared with PDs as follows: medical oncology 57 vs. 77{\%} (p < 0.01), surgical oncology 30 vs. 44{\%} (p < 0.01), radiation oncology 70 vs. 89{\%} (p < 0.01), geriatric oncology 19 vs. 30{\%} (p < 0.01), and HPM 55 vs. 74{\%} (p < 0.01). The predominant teaching method used (lectures vs. rotations vs. tumor board attendance vs. workshop vs. other) varied according to which discipline was being taught. The usefulness of each teaching method was rated statistically different by trainees for learning about select disciplines. Furthermore, statistically significant differences were found between PDs and trainees for the perceived usefulness of several teaching modalities. This study highlights a deficiency of interdisciplinary education among oncology training programs in the USA. Efforts to increase interdisciplinary education opportunities during training may ultimately translate into improved collaboration and quality of cancer care.",
keywords = "Communication, Graduate Medical Education, Hospice care, Medical oncology, Patient care team, Radiation oncology, Surgery",
author = "Akthar, {Adil S.} and Hellekson, {Christopher D.} and Sabha Ganai and Hahn, {Olwen M.} and Ronald Maggiore and Cohen, {Ezra E.} and Posner, {Mitchell C.} and Chmura, {Steven J.} and Howard, {Andrew R.} and Golden, {Daniel W.}",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "21",
doi = "10.1007/s13187-016-1139-6",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--5",
journal = "Journal of Cancer Education",
issn = "0885-8195",
publisher = "Springer Publishing Company",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interdisciplinary Oncology Education

T2 - a National Survey of Trainees and Program Directors in the United States

AU - Akthar, Adil S.

AU - Hellekson, Christopher D.

AU - Ganai, Sabha

AU - Hahn, Olwen M.

AU - Maggiore, Ronald

AU - Cohen, Ezra E.

AU - Posner, Mitchell C.

AU - Chmura, Steven J.

AU - Howard, Andrew R.

AU - Golden, Daniel W.

PY - 2016/11/21

Y1 - 2016/11/21

N2 - Oncologists must have a strong understanding of collaborating specialties in order to deliver optimal cancer care. The objective of this study was to quantify current interdisciplinary oncology education among oncology training programs across the USA, identify effective teaching modalities, and assess communication skills training. Web-based surveys were sent to oncology trainees and program directors (PDs) across the USA on April 1, 2013 and October 8, 2013, respectively. Question responses were Yes/No, five-point Likert scales (1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = moderately, 4 = quite, 5 = extremely), or free response. Respondents included the following (trainees/PDs): 254/55 medical oncology, 160/42 surgical oncology, 102/24 radiation oncology, and 41/20 hospice and palliative medicine (HPM). Trainees consistently reported lower rates of interdisciplinary education for each specialty compared with PDs as follows: medical oncology 57 vs. 77% (p < 0.01), surgical oncology 30 vs. 44% (p < 0.01), radiation oncology 70 vs. 89% (p < 0.01), geriatric oncology 19 vs. 30% (p < 0.01), and HPM 55 vs. 74% (p < 0.01). The predominant teaching method used (lectures vs. rotations vs. tumor board attendance vs. workshop vs. other) varied according to which discipline was being taught. The usefulness of each teaching method was rated statistically different by trainees for learning about select disciplines. Furthermore, statistically significant differences were found between PDs and trainees for the perceived usefulness of several teaching modalities. This study highlights a deficiency of interdisciplinary education among oncology training programs in the USA. Efforts to increase interdisciplinary education opportunities during training may ultimately translate into improved collaboration and quality of cancer care.

AB - Oncologists must have a strong understanding of collaborating specialties in order to deliver optimal cancer care. The objective of this study was to quantify current interdisciplinary oncology education among oncology training programs across the USA, identify effective teaching modalities, and assess communication skills training. Web-based surveys were sent to oncology trainees and program directors (PDs) across the USA on April 1, 2013 and October 8, 2013, respectively. Question responses were Yes/No, five-point Likert scales (1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = moderately, 4 = quite, 5 = extremely), or free response. Respondents included the following (trainees/PDs): 254/55 medical oncology, 160/42 surgical oncology, 102/24 radiation oncology, and 41/20 hospice and palliative medicine (HPM). Trainees consistently reported lower rates of interdisciplinary education for each specialty compared with PDs as follows: medical oncology 57 vs. 77% (p < 0.01), surgical oncology 30 vs. 44% (p < 0.01), radiation oncology 70 vs. 89% (p < 0.01), geriatric oncology 19 vs. 30% (p < 0.01), and HPM 55 vs. 74% (p < 0.01). The predominant teaching method used (lectures vs. rotations vs. tumor board attendance vs. workshop vs. other) varied according to which discipline was being taught. The usefulness of each teaching method was rated statistically different by trainees for learning about select disciplines. Furthermore, statistically significant differences were found between PDs and trainees for the perceived usefulness of several teaching modalities. This study highlights a deficiency of interdisciplinary education among oncology training programs in the USA. Efforts to increase interdisciplinary education opportunities during training may ultimately translate into improved collaboration and quality of cancer care.

KW - Communication

KW - Graduate Medical Education

KW - Hospice care

KW - Medical oncology

KW - Patient care team

KW - Radiation oncology

KW - Surgery

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84996552031&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84996552031&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s13187-016-1139-6

DO - 10.1007/s13187-016-1139-6

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84996552031

SP - 1

EP - 5

JO - Journal of Cancer Education

JF - Journal of Cancer Education

SN - 0885-8195

ER -