Radiation Oncology Mentorship Research Articles

157 The CARO Underrepresented in Radiation Oncology Mentorship Program (CARO-UROMP)

157 The CARO Underrepresented in Radiation Oncology Mentorship Program (CARO-UROMP)

TEAMRO: Final analysis of TEAMRO (TEAching Mentorship in Radiation Oncology), a Multicenter Prospective Phase 2 Intervention Study on Teaching Mentorship Skills to Residents Working with Medical Students

TEAMRO: Final analysis of TEAMRO (TEAching Mentorship in Radiation Oncology), a Multicenter Prospective Phase 2 Intervention Study on Teaching Mentorship Skills to Residents Working with Medical Students

TEAMRO: TEAching Mentorship in Radiation Oncology, a Multicenter Prospective Phase 2 Intervention Study on Teaching Mentorship Skills to Residents Working with Medical Students

While formal curriculum on resident teaching have been associated with improved career growth and sustained positive impact on patient care, mentorship skills are rarely taught in academic medicine. We hypothesized that a formalized resident mentorship curriculum coupled with a near-peer resident-medical student mentoring program would improve resident career growth. A multi-institutional, prospective, phase 2 intervention study, approved by each participating center's institutional review board, was conducted from 4/2022-10/2022 among interested residents in the Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group Graduate Medical Education. Intervention included: 1) a 4-week mentorship curriculum (utilizing a Six Steps approach) composed of self-guided readings, didactic lecture, and 30-minute faculty check-in, and 2) a formalized 1:1 resident-medical student mentorship program during an existing radiation oncology sub-internship with weekly meetings. Resident participants completed the Mentorship Competency Assessment (MCA), a 26-item validated survey on mentorship skills in medicine scored from 0 (most unprepared) to 7 (most prepared) before and after the intervention. The primary endpoint was average change in MCA skill from pre- to post-intervention survey, with score ranges from -7 (a decrease in 7 points) to +7 (an increase of 7 points). A total of 8 residents participated and all completed pre- and post-intervention surveys. Most residents were PGY-4/5 (75%), from programs with >10 residents (68%), and did not have prior training in teaching (88%) or mentorship (88%). Residents met students on average twice weekly (range 1-3) for an average of 2 hours a week (range 1-5). After the program, most residents felt confident in being a future mentor to students (100%), their overall well-being was positively impacted (63%), and their mentorship relationships were positively impacted (50%). All 26 mentorship skills increased on MCA after intervention (average +1.3/7 per skill). Skills that showed greatest improvement were helping mentees network effectively (+2.6/7), acquire resources (+2.1/7), negotiate a path to professional independence (+2.0/7), set career goals (+1.8/7), and balance work and personal life (+1.7/7). Skills that showed least improvement were establishing a relationship based on trust (+0.4/7), identifying and accommodating different communication styles (+0.6/7), providing constructive feedback (+0.7/7), and aligning mentor-mentee expectations (+0.8/7). The formalized mentorship program improved mentorship skills among residents, translating to increased satisfaction in residents' own mentorship relations and overall well-being. Further studies are needed to assess the sustainability of these skills, as well as impact on career growth and satisfaction.

Assessment of Medical Student Research Mentorship in Radiation Oncology

Mentored medical student (MS) research opportunities in radiation oncology (RO) provide in-depth exposure to the specialty and may promote greater interest in a career in RO. Many radiation oncologists conduct research; however, the extent to which they directly engage MSs in their research is unknown. The purpose of this study was to characterize MS authorship in American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) journals. The byline and abstract of all scientific articles (ie, clinical, basic science, training/education) and case reports published from 2019 to 2021 in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, and Physics; Practical Radiation Oncology; and Advances in Radiation Oncology were reviewed. Characteristics of MSs and senior authors are reported. A total of 105 of 1785 articles (5.8%) included an MS author, among which 72 (68.6%) were clinical, 13 training/education (12.4%), 12 case reports (11.4%), and 8 basic science (7.6%). MS authors were more common for publications in Advances in Radiation Oncology (9.0%) than Practical Radiation Oncology (6.4%) or the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, and Physics (4.2%; P=.002). There were 125 unique MS authors from 72 institutions, among which 40 were first author (32.0%), 28 second author (22.4%), and 57 third (or higher) author (45.6%). There were 88 unique senior authors from 55 institutions, among which 10 (11.3%) were on 2 or more MS publications, and 57 (64.7%) shared the same institution as the MS. The median number of articles per mentor institution was 1 (interquartile range, 1-2), and the mentor institutions in the upper quartile in terms of number of MS publications accounted for 53 (50.5%) of all MS publications. Few publications in American Society for Radiation Oncology journals include MS authors with mentorship disproportionately from a small number of academic faculty at select institutions. These findings suggest that there is great potential for radiation oncologists to proactively engage more students in their work.

Beyond the Standard Student Interest Group: An Opportunity for Early Shadowing Experiences and Mentorship in Radiation Oncology

Background There has been a national decline in applicants to radiation oncology (RO) residencies in recent years, which is partly a result of limited exposure to RO during medical school [1]. Student Interest Groups (SIGs) give students early exposure to a variety of specialties. We recently revamped our RO-SIG to increase engagement, meet mentors in the field, and to grant shadowing experiences early in medical school.The purpose of this study is to determine if the RO-SIG increases interest in and knowledge about the field. Methods The RO-SIG hosted two career panels in 2022, which were attended by 41 M1-2 students. Prior to the events surveys were emailed to those who registered asking them about their interest in oncology, in RO specifically, and their perceived accessibility of mentors in oncology fields. These questions were rated on a Likert scale from 0-5 (5 highest, 0 lowest). The survey included one short response question, "what is your understanding of the role of the RO?" which was evaluated qualitatively. Additionally, all students registered for the RO-SIG were given the opportunity to sign up for shadowing in the RO clinic. These students are surveyed before and after the shadowing experience. The same survey was emailed after either event to the students who participated. The results were tabulated and matched responses were compared. Results 34 students (32 M1s, 2 M2s) completed the pre-survey and 15 (14 M1s, 1 M2) completed the post-event survey. The interest in both an oncology specialty and in RO increased from the initial to the post-SIG survey. Of the 15 matched responses, the interest in oncology increased from 3.73 pre-SIG to 4 (p=0.05) and in RO specifically from 3.4 to 4 (p=0.05). The mean perceived accessibility of faculty mentors in oncology increased from 3.2 to 3.73 (p=0.03). Prior to interacting with the RO-SIG, 3/15 students did not know anything about RO, 7 said ROs "use radiation to treat cancers, and 4 said they "work in a team of oncologists." Post-event, the answers were more detailed in the understanding of the ROs "long-term relationships with patients'' and "ability to both cure and palliate cancer patients." Discussion RO-SIGs can increase interest in oncology and RO. Medical students enjoy the opportunity to gain early exposure to this specialty and benefit from connecting with mentors. Reference: Wu et al. The Declining Residency Applicant Pool: A Multi-Institutional Medical Student Survey to Identify Precipitating Factors. Adv Radiat Oncol,2021. There has been a national decline in applicants to radiation oncology (RO) residencies in recent years, which is partly a result of limited exposure to RO during medical school [1]. Student Interest Groups (SIGs) give students early exposure to a variety of specialties. We recently revamped our RO-SIG to increase engagement, meet mentors in the field, and to grant shadowing experiences early in medical school.The purpose of this study is to determine if the RO-SIG increases interest in and knowledge about the field. The RO-SIG hosted two career panels in 2022, which were attended by 41 M1-2 students. Prior to the events surveys were emailed to those who registered asking them about their interest in oncology, in RO specifically, and their perceived accessibility of mentors in oncology fields. These questions were rated on a Likert scale from 0-5 (5 highest, 0 lowest). The survey included one short response question, "what is your understanding of the role of the RO?" which was evaluated qualitatively. Additionally, all students registered for the RO-SIG were given the opportunity to sign up for shadowing in the RO clinic. These students are surveyed before and after the shadowing experience. The same survey was emailed after either event to the students who participated. The results were tabulated and matched responses were compared. 34 students (32 M1s, 2 M2s) completed the pre-survey and 15 (14 M1s, 1 M2) completed the post-event survey. The interest in both an oncology specialty and in RO increased from the initial to the post-SIG survey. Of the 15 matched responses, the interest in oncology increased from 3.73 pre-SIG to 4 (p=0.05) and in RO specifically from 3.4 to 4 (p=0.05). The mean perceived accessibility of faculty mentors in oncology increased from 3.2 to 3.73 (p=0.03). Prior to interacting with the RO-SIG, 3/15 students did not know anything about RO, 7 said ROs "use radiation to treat cancers, and 4 said they "work in a team of oncologists." Post-event, the answers were more detailed in the understanding of the ROs "long-term relationships with patients'' and "ability to both cure and palliate cancer patients." RO-SIGs can increase interest in oncology and RO. Medical students enjoy the opportunity to gain early exposure to this specialty and benefit from connecting with mentors. Reference: Wu et al. The Declining Residency Applicant Pool: A Multi-Institutional Medical Student Survey to Identify Precipitating Factors. Adv Radiat Oncol,2021.

TEAching Mentoring in Radiation Oncology (TEAMRO): a ROECSG GME multi-institutional pilot study on teaching mentorship skills to residents

Background Mentorship plays a critical role in the training and career development of medical trainees. Formalized mentorship curricula and programs have been associated with increased satisfaction in mentor-mentee experiences and earlier development of preceptor skills in the mentee. However, an apparent lack of formalized mentorship exists in radiation oncolog. Teaching-the-teacher workshops for residents can translate to positive long-term impact including higher job satisfaction and improved patient communication skill. Further, near-peer mentorship, such as between senior to junior residents, has been associated with increased satisfaction and experience, particularly among mentees of underrepresented minorities. We hypothesize that a mentorship curriculum for residents will lead to successful resident-student mentorship as well as positive impact on residents' own mentor relationships and career development. Methods A prospective pilot study will utilize the ROECSG Graduate Medical Education working group to enroll radiation oncology residents who interact with medical students during sub-internship rotations. In phase I, residents will undergo a self-administered didactic curriculum on core components of mentorship. This curriculum will include curated literature, a 60-minute didactic lecture on best practices of mentorship for medical students rotating in radiation oncology, and informal feedback sessions with faculty mentors. In phase II, a formalized mentorship program will involve a resident mentor and medical student mentee during an existing 3-4 week clinical sub-internship rotation in radiation oncology. This program will build on existing resident-medical student interactions in addition to weekly 60-minute mentorship sessions. Weekly mentorship sessions will include resident-led teaching of principles of radiation oncology, evaluation of evidence-based medicine, preparation of grand rounds presentation, and career counseling for medical student mentees. At the end of the rotation, residents will follow up with medical students at 1, 3, and 6 months after the rotation for continued career development among other interests. Results Primary endpoint will be positive change in the previously validated Mentorship Competency Assessment (MCA) before and after the proposed intervention to assess their comfort in mentorship skills (5). Secondary endpoints will assess change in pre- and post-survey assessments of perceived impacts on their own faculty-resident mentorship relationships, impact on career development, and overall well-being and experience of the program. Discussion Formalized mentorship curricula and programs may improve mentorship in radiation oncology. This multi-institutional study will investigate the potential of formalizing mentorship in existing resident-student interactions, which may serve to empower radiation oncology residents in their own mentorship relationships and overall career development. Mentorship plays a critical role in the training and career development of medical trainees. Formalized mentorship curricula and programs have been associated with increased satisfaction in mentor-mentee experiences and earlier development of preceptor skills in the mentee. However, an apparent lack of formalized mentorship exists in radiation oncolog. Teaching-the-teacher workshops for residents can translate to positive long-term impact including higher job satisfaction and improved patient communication skill. Further, near-peer mentorship, such as between senior to junior residents, has been associated with increased satisfaction and experience, particularly among mentees of underrepresented minorities. We hypothesize that a mentorship curriculum for residents will lead to successful resident-student mentorship as well as positive impact on residents' own mentor relationships and career development. A prospective pilot study will utilize the ROECSG Graduate Medical Education working group to enroll radiation oncology residents who interact with medical students during sub-internship rotations. In phase I, residents will undergo a self-administered didactic curriculum on core components of mentorship. This curriculum will include curated literature, a 60-minute didactic lecture on best practices of mentorship for medical students rotating in radiation oncology, and informal feedback sessions with faculty mentors. In phase II, a formalized mentorship program will involve a resident mentor and medical student mentee during an existing 3-4 week clinical sub-internship rotation in radiation oncology. This program will build on existing resident-medical student interactions in addition to weekly 60-minute mentorship sessions. Weekly mentorship sessions will include resident-led teaching of principles of radiation oncology, evaluation of evidence-based medicine, preparation of grand rounds presentation, and career counseling for medical student mentees. At the end of the rotation, residents will follow up with medical students at 1, 3, and 6 months after the rotation for continued career development among other interests. Primary endpoint will be positive change in the previously validated Mentorship Competency Assessment (MCA) before and after the proposed intervention to assess their comfort in mentorship skills (5). Secondary endpoints will assess change in pre- and post-survey assessments of perceived impacts on their own faculty-resident mentorship relationships, impact on career development, and overall well-being and experience of the program. Formalized mentorship curricula and programs may improve mentorship in radiation oncology. This multi-institutional study will investigate the potential of formalizing mentorship in existing resident-student interactions, which may serve to empower radiation oncology residents in their own mentorship relationships and overall career development.

Does a mentorship award in radiation oncology inspire medical students to pursue the specialty? A survey analysis of medical students, resident mentors, and research project supervisors

Background Radiation oncology (RO) residencies vary in popularity year-to-year. Many North American regions are experiencing increasing demand for radiation oncologists with a shortage in physician supply while numbers of radiotherapy cases are rising. This study aims to determine the impact of a national Medical Student Research and Mentorship Award on student exposure and interest in RO research and RO as a career, as well as its impact on mentorship and teaching in the perspective of RO residents and research supervisors. Methods Three separate surveys were created: one for medical student mentees, one for resident mentors, and one for staff physician research supervisors. These surveys were developed using best practice strategies for medical education surveys and circulated for peer-review amongst experts in oncology medical education. The surveys were sent to the 7 students, 7 residents, and 7 supervisors who participated in the award program. After anonymization, quantitative answers were analyzed using descriptive statistics and narrative responses were evaluated using a grounded theory approach. Results There was a 100% survey response rate. For the medical student mentees, the award maintained or increased interest in pursuing a career in RO for all respondents. It increased interest in 17% and maintained interest for 83%. According to these students, the most important aspects of the research award was conference registration costs and mentorship with an RO resident. Through the mentorship program, 50% of students felt they attained valuable information about a career in RO, 33% gained insight into RO residency, and 33% received helpful residency matching advice. From the perspective of the resident mentors, all respondents felt the program either maintained or increased motivation to mentor students in RO. Research project supervisors unanimously enjoyed their role in this program and would participate in this program again. Discussion This study characterized how a national research and mentorship award in RO impacted medical students, resident mentors, and research supervisors. Medical students greatly appreciated the opportunity to be mentored by RO residents and to present at a national conference with registration costs covered, motivating all to continue pursuing research and a potential career in RO. The program also enhanced mentorship skills in residents and staff physicians, which will encourage further mentorship in RO for the next generation of students. Further research can be done with future iterations of the award and with potential expansion of this type of award at other research conferences. Radiation oncology (RO) residencies vary in popularity year-to-year. Many North American regions are experiencing increasing demand for radiation oncologists with a shortage in physician supply while numbers of radiotherapy cases are rising. This study aims to determine the impact of a national Medical Student Research and Mentorship Award on student exposure and interest in RO research and RO as a career, as well as its impact on mentorship and teaching in the perspective of RO residents and research supervisors. Three separate surveys were created: one for medical student mentees, one for resident mentors, and one for staff physician research supervisors. These surveys were developed using best practice strategies for medical education surveys and circulated for peer-review amongst experts in oncology medical education. The surveys were sent to the 7 students, 7 residents, and 7 supervisors who participated in the award program. After anonymization, quantitative answers were analyzed using descriptive statistics and narrative responses were evaluated using a grounded theory approach. There was a 100% survey response rate. For the medical student mentees, the award maintained or increased interest in pursuing a career in RO for all respondents. It increased interest in 17% and maintained interest for 83%. According to these students, the most important aspects of the research award was conference registration costs and mentorship with an RO resident. Through the mentorship program, 50% of students felt they attained valuable information about a career in RO, 33% gained insight into RO residency, and 33% received helpful residency matching advice. From the perspective of the resident mentors, all respondents felt the program either maintained or increased motivation to mentor students in RO. Research project supervisors unanimously enjoyed their role in this program and would participate in this program again. This study characterized how a national research and mentorship award in RO impacted medical students, resident mentors, and research supervisors. Medical students greatly appreciated the opportunity to be mentored by RO residents and to present at a national conference with registration costs covered, motivating all to continue pursuing research and a potential career in RO. The program also enhanced mentorship skills in residents and staff physicians, which will encourage further mentorship in RO for the next generation of students. Further research can be done with future iterations of the award and with potential expansion of this type of award at other research conferences.

Formalized Mentorship in Radiation Oncology in the COVID Era: American College of Radiation Oncology Experience

Formalized Mentorship in Radiation Oncology in the COVID Era: American College of Radiation Oncology Experience

Formalized Mentorship in Radiation Oncology: Bridging Existing Gaps in Mentorship

<h3>Purpose/Objective(s)</h3> The American College of Radiation Oncology (ACRO) Resident Committee offers a mentorship program to medical students, residents, and new practitioners. This program provides a unique opportunity to develop formal mentorship on a national level to bridge existing mentorship gaps. This abstract examined the perceived benefits of a formal mentorship program. <h3>Materials/Methods</h3> All applicants provided demographic information and specific mentorship need requests. Pairings occurred periodically based on a personalized pairing process. This year, due to COVID-19, all sessions were held virtually. A questionnaire was designed in Google Forms based on the Society for Women in Radiation Oncology (SWRO) annual survey to evaluate the mentorship program. Data were collected and analysis was conducted using JMP version 15(SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC). <h3>Results</h3> Since June 2020, 78 individuals enrolled: 28 to become a mentor, 38 to become a mentee; 12 were interested in both. The mentor group consisted of radiation oncology residents (47.5%), academic faculty (40%) and private practice physicians (12.5%). 57.5% of the mentors were males and 4% associated with the LGBTQI+ community. Geographic distribution of mentors: 40% Midwest, 27.5% South/Southeast, 15% Northeast, 12.5% West Coast and 5% international. Among resident mentors, 58% were Junior (PGY1-3) and 42% were senior (PGY4-5) residents. Among mentees, 50% were residents, followed by medical students (46%) and new practitioners (4%). There were equal number of males and females. The geographic distribution was: 32% Midwest, 22% South/Southeast, 36% Northeast, 2% West Coast, and 8% international. The distribution across residency training years was: 57% Junior (PGY1-3) and 43% Senior (PGY4-5). The survey was sent out in January 2021 and we currently have 29/78, 37% response rate. This survey showed the most common method of communication was email (59%), followed by video call (52%) and phone (48%). 62% had at least 2 interactions since being paired. Both parties set up the interactions in 59% of pairs, followed by mentees being responsible in 24%. Mentors reported experiencing mutual respect (94%), a personal connection (67%), clear expectations (44%), and shared values (44%). Mentees similarly reported mutual respect (94%), shared values (76%), a personal connection (59%) and clear expectations (47%). 96% had mentor/mentee relationship outside ACRO program; however, 62% felt that a formal program is more beneficial than informal opportunities. <h3>Conclusion</h3> The results of our mentorship program highlight the continued interest and need for formal radiation oncology mentorship programs. The major strength of the program has been the high rates of interaction which is based on mutual respect, shared values and personal connection. Areas of future focus includes recruiting more new practitioners and private practice radiation oncologists to help enrich and diversify the mentorship program.

Formal Research Mentorship of Medical Students in Radiation Oncology: A 15-Year Experience

<h3>Purpose/Objective(s)</h3> At our institution, students receive formal research mentorship by radiation oncology faculty mentors through structured research programs, such as the Medical Student Summer Research Program (MSSRP) and radiation oncology research elective, as well as in extracurricular research time. In this analysis, we report the research productivity of students who engaged in formal radiation oncology mentorship over the past 15 years. <h3>Materials/Methods</h3> We compiled a database of all publications, consisting of abstracts (including oral and poster presentations) and manuscripts, co-authored by 58 students from 2005 to 2020. We searched radiation oncology faculty curriculum vitae as well as PubMed to identify publications with student authors. The means, medians, ranges, and interquartile ranges (IQR) of co-authorships and first authorships were calculated for the overall cohort and compared for male versus female students as well as students who matched into radiation oncology and those who matched into other fields. <h3>Results</h3> Among all 58 students, 106 unique abstracts and 70 unique manuscripts were identified. Of the 58 students, 54 (93.1%) published at least one abstract or manuscript. The mean number of abstract co-authorships per student was 3.07 (median 2, range 0-25, IQR 0-4), and the mean number of manuscript co-authorships per student was 2.22 (median 1, range 0-18, IQR 1-3). There were no significant differences in research output between male and female students. However, the students who matched into radiation oncology published more co-author manuscripts (mean 3.67, median 3, IQR 1-5) than those who matched into other fields (mean 1.63, median 1, IQR 1-2), <i>P</i> = 0.014. They also published more first-author manuscripts (mean 1.62, median 2, IQR 0-3) than those who matched into other fields (mean 0.53, median 0, IQR 0-1), <i>P</i> = 0.006. Among the 51 students who have graduated, the top three specialties that students matched into were radiation oncology with 21 (41.2%) students, internal medicine with 9 (17.6%) students, and radiology with 6 (11.8%) students. <h3>Conclusion</h3> In this 15-year analysis, students mentored by radiation oncology faculty are successful with high research productivity. The results of this analysis lay the groundwork for further implementation of formal medical student research mentorship programs, which will in turn allow for more research on the benefits of mentorship. Further research is warranted to assess whether skills gained from student-directed research translate into residency and beyond.

Longitudinal Outcomes of Medical Student Research Mentorship: a 15-Year Analysis of the Radiation Oncology Mentorship Initiative.

At our institution, students can be mentored by radiation oncology faculty through structured research programs, such as the Medical Student Summer Research Program (MSSRP). The purpose of this study is to report the research productivity of students who engaged in radiation oncology research mentorship, whether through the MSSRP or other avenues of research mentorship. We compiled a database of abstracts and manuscripts co-authored by 58 students who conducted research with radiation oncology faculty from 2005 to 2020. The means, medians, ranges, and interquartile ranges (IQR) of co-authorships and first authorships were calculated for the overall cohort and compared for MSSRP and non-MSSRP students, who matched into radiation oncology and those who did not, and male versus female students. Among all 58 students, 106 abstracts and 70 manuscripts were identified. Of those students, 54 (93.1%) published at least one abstract or manuscript. The mean number of abstract co-authorships per student was 3.07 (median 2, range 0-25, IQR 0-4), and the mean number of manuscript co-authorships per student was 2.22 (median 1, range 0-18, IQR 1-3). There were no significant differences in research output between MSSRP and non-MSSRP students or male and female students. However, the students who matched into radiation oncology published more co-author (3.67 vs. 1.63, p = 0.01) and first-author (1.62 vs. 0.53, p = 0.006) manuscripts than those who did not. Further research is warranted to assess whether skills gained from student-directed research translate into residency and beyond.

Teaching Mentoring: Utilizing a Resident-Student Peer Mentorship Program as a Tool to Educate Residents About the Core Components of Mentoring

Mentorship plays a critical role in the career development of trainees in medicine. Previous formalized radiation oncology (RO) mentorship programs have led to increased satisfaction in mentor-mentee experiences and earlier development of preceptor skills in the mentee, such as higher promotion and grant acquisition rates. 1 Efstathiou J.A. Drumm M.R. Paly J.P. et al. Long-term impact of a faculty mentoring program in academic medicine. PloS One. 2018; 13 (Article e0207634) Crossref PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar However, there is an observed lack of clinical mentorship in RO and limited formal education to teach residents how to become effective mentors. 2 Garman K.A. Wingard D.L. Reznik V. Development of junior faculty's self-efficacy: Outcomes of a national center of leadership in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2001; 76: S74-S76 Crossref PubMed Scopus (37) Google Scholar ,3 John A. Marsiglio MS et al. Mentorship Initiatives in Radiation Oncology: A Scoping Review of the Literature. IJROBP, 2021 Google Scholar Common reasons for dissatisfaction in mentorship experiences among RO residents includes difficulty identifying a mentor, time commitment of a mentor, and inexperience of selected mentors. 3 John A. Marsiglio MS et al. Mentorship Initiatives in Radiation Oncology: A Scoping Review of the Literature. IJROBP, 2021 Google Scholar We hypothesize that a formalized resident-medical student mentorship program would improve residents' mentorship skills, expectations, and confidence while further developing a mentorship culture in RO residency.

Remote Mentorship in Radiation Oncology: Lessons to Share

Mentorship is a key factor in promoting and maintaining fulfillment in medical practice. Invariably, physician success stories usually have a common thread: an important mentor, or mentors, whose guidance proved invaluable. Finding mentors has been noted as a challenge for women in radiation oncology given low representation in the field.1 In 2019, women comprised only 17.4% of department chairs and program directors and 30.7% of faculty.2 Digital, or remote, mentorship seems an ideal solution to connect women mentors and mentees, especially given findings that over a quarter of female residents train in programs with less than or equal to 2 female faculty.

Mentorship Initiatives in Radiation Oncology: A Scoping Review of the Literature

Although mentorship is described extensively in academic medical literature, there are few descriptions of mentorship specific to radiation oncology. The goal of the current study was to investigate the state of mentorship in radiation oncology through a scoping review of the literature. A search protocol was defined according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Predefined search terms and medical subject headings were used to search PubMed for English language articles published after January 1, 1990, on mentorship in radiation oncology. Additionally, in-press articles from major radiation oncology and medical education journals were searched. Three reviewers determined article eligibility. Included articles were classified based on predefined evaluation criteria. Fourteen publications from 2008 to 2019 met inclusion criteria. The most commonly described form of mentorship was the dyad (64.3%), followed by team (14.3%) and peer (7.1%); 2 articles did not specify mentorship type (14.3%). The most commonly mentored participants were residents (35.7%), followed by medical students (35.7%) and attendings (21.4%); 1 study included participants of all levels (7.1%). Thirteen studies (92.9%) identified an experimental study design, most of which were cross-sectional (42.9%), followed by cohort studies (28.6%) and before/after (21.4%). Median sample size, reported in 12 of 13 experimental studies, was 132 (coefficient of variation, 1.06). Although outcomes varied widely, the majority described successful implementation of mentorship initiatives with high levels of participant satisfaction. Although few initiatives are currently reported, the present study suggests that these initiatives are successful in promoting career development and increasing professional satisfaction. The interventions overwhelmingly described mentorship dyads; other forms of mentorship are either less common or understudied. Limitations included interventions not being evaluated in a controlled setting, and many were assessed using surveys with low response rates. This review highlights rich opportunities for future scholarship to develop, evaluate, and disseminate radiation oncology mentorship initiatives.

Radiation oncology education and experience in the undergraduate medical setting

ABSTRACT The goal of this study was to determine the impact and experience of radiation oncology (RO) education in the undergraduate medical experience in the USA. A list of American medical schools was complied from various sources including the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM) in the summer of 2019. Data was extracted through institution website review, individual phone calls and email distribution. A total of 198 programs (155 allopathic and 43 osteopathic medical schools) were included. Every medical school curriculum had oncology lecture during MS year 1 and 2, although a minimal amount (4%) had a RO-specific lecture during MS year 1 and 2. There were significant differences in the RO education and experience in allopathic (MD) versus osteopathic (DO) programs. Home radiation oncology programs and career advising were associated with a radiation oncology elective during year 3 and 4. Furthermore, RO career advisors and older schools were associated with having one student match into radiation oncology. RO education during the didactic portion of the undergraduate medical experience remains extremely limited. This limitation is even more pronounced in medical schools without RO mentorship and in osteopathic medical schools. This lack of RO exposure perpetuates itself by bringing less students into the field. These issues require attention both on a national and medical-school-specific level.

Mentorship in Radiation Oncology: Role of Gender Diversity in Abstract Presenting and Senior Author Dyads on Subsequent High-Impact Publications

PurposeTo generate insights regarding the role of gender in research mentorship, we analyzed characteristics of abstracts selected for oral and poster discussion presentations at the American Society for Radiation Oncology annual meeting and subsequent high-impact publications. Methods and MaterialsClinical radiation oncology abstracts selected for oral and poster discussion presentations at the American Society for Radiation Oncology annual meetings in 2014 and 2015 were reviewed. A multivariable logistic regression model evaluated factors associated with subsequent higher-impact publications among abstracts that led to manuscript publications. The primary independent variable was the presenting–senior (last) author gender dyad (divided into 4 groups based on gender of presenting and senior authors, respectively; eg, “MF” indicates male presenting and female senior). Dyads were classified as MF, FM, MM, or FF. ResultsData were derived from 390 oral and 142 poster discussions. Presenting and senior author pairings were MM for 286 (53.8%), FF for 67 (12.6%), MF for 84 (15.8%), and FM for 94 (17.7%) abstracts. Overall, 403 abstracts led to subsequent publications, of which 52.1% (210) were in a higher-impact journal. Eventual publication in a higher-impact journal was significantly associated with senior author H-index (odds ratio [OR] 3.30 for H ≥ 41 vs < 17; group P = .007), grant support for the study (OR 2.09 for funded vs not, P = .0261), and with the presenting and senior author gender pairing (group P = .0107). Specifically, FM pairings (OR 2.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-4.66) and MF pairings (OR 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-4.77) had higher odds of high-impact publication than MM pairings, whereas there was no significant difference in this outcome between FF and MM pairings. ConclusionsAlthough unmeasured confounding remains possible, MF and FM dyads of presenting and senior authors were more likely than MM dyads to obtain journal publication in a higher-impact journal. Institutions and the profession should support the development and maintenance of respectful, collaborative cross-gender mentorship.

Mentorship in Radiation Oncology: Role of Gender Diversity in ASTRO Abstract Presenting and Senior Author Dyads on Subsequent High-Impact Publications

Mentorship in Radiation Oncology: Role of Gender Diversity in ASTRO Abstract Presenting and Senior Author Dyads on Subsequent High-Impact Publications

The Radiation Oncology Mentorship Initiative: Analysis of a Formal Mentoring Initiative for Medical Students Interested in Radiation Oncology.

The importance of mentorship in medicine and its impact on academic and professional development has been widely studied. However, mentorship for medical students in the field of radiation oncology is limited. Our radiation oncology department developed a formal medical student mentorship program in 2004. This program included both clinical and research mentoring pathways. Our study aims to gain feedback and perspective from former medical student participants who subsequently entered into a radiation oncology residency program. An anonymous survey was sent to 22 former students in the mentorship program from 2005 to 2016 who entered a radiation oncology residency program. The survey included Likert scales (1-5), multiple choice, strength category rankings, and free responses. Data was compiled and analyzed with Qualtrics data software. The survey response rate was 100%. Seventeen (77.3%) participants reported that the mentorship program strongly affected their career choice and a majority reported that their research experience strongly (45.5%) or moderately affected (31.8%) their career choice. Fourteen (63.6%) respondents reported that the mentorship program was very effective and 8 (36.4%) reported it as being effective. Eighteen (81.8%) respondents reported that mentorship was extremely important to their career. Students participating in the research pathway also reported improvement in valuable skills such as presentations, abstract writing, manuscript writing, statistical analysis, and coordination with colleagues. A total of 66.7% of attending radiation oncologists who previously participated in this program now practice in an academic setting. Our institution successfully developed a formalized mentorship program for medical students interested in radiation oncology. Participants in this program reported high levels of satisfaction and emphasized the importance of mentorship in the development of valuable research competencies and on their overall career path. This program can serve as a model for future mentorship initiative in medical school.

The Resident Individual Development Plan as a Guide for Radiation Oncology Mentorship

Individual development plans (IDPs) have long been a facet of graduate science education to formalize and address a trainee’s career goals at regular intervals. Despite the similarities of physician and scientist training, the community of graduate medical education at large currently does not employ this technique. At our institution, we have assessed a pilot of a resident IDP (rIDP) for resident physician trainees. We instituted the rIDP within the 8-resident radiation oncology-training program. Participants were given an 18-question pre-test survey addressing aspects of strengths, weaknesses, as well as a 1-, 2-, and 5- year plan, answered on a Likert scale. Afterwards, each participant underwent an online self-assessment of their radiation oncology-specific skills and goals, which served to guide a one-on-one discussion with a faculty member. The same 18 questions were given as a post-test survey. From 2016-2017, a total of 9 residents participated. Three out of nine (33.3 %) participants had not previously heard of an IDP. In general, participants expressed confidence with most areas of clinical training (e.g., treatment planning, and managing toxicities), but felt deficient in the areas of billing, coding, and negotiating insurance. After individual discussion with faculty, participants were statistically more likely to “agree” or “strongly agree” in the areas of: formal career goals, confidence in the 1-year plan, and the strength of the mentor-mentee relationship. We report the first use of an IDP in a radiation oncology residency-training program. Our initial results appear to document positive changes in the likelihood that participants have a specific career plan in place. Additionally, areas where residents self-identified as “less comfortable”, as in billing and coding, were used to update the resident curriculum. Future directions include the long-term follow up to assess the effects of the IDP in early career radiation oncologists.

Assessment of a Dedicated Preclinical Oncology Module from the Perspective of Future Radiation Oncologists

Preclinical medical education is widely acknowledged to lack adequate exposure to the field of radiation oncology. Our institution implemented a radiation oncologist-led, dedicated oncology module into the preclinical medical education curriculum in 2009. The module included introductory lectures on radiation oncology and the opportunity for an observership within the radiation oncology department. This survey assessed the attitudes of students applying into radiation oncology from our institution’s Radiation Oncology Mentorship Initiative (ROMI) toward the preclinical oncology exposure provided by the module. A Qualtrics internet-based survey was sent to all 19 current and former students who matched into or are applying for radiation oncology from our medical school between 2011 and 2018. Responses varied between those on a Likert scale (1-5) and those written as free responses. Data were analyzed using Qualtrics software. The survey response yield was 100%. 57.9% (11 of 19) of students were satisfied or very satisfied with the preclinical oncology module (Likert average=3.79, “neutral” to “satisfied”). 36.8% (7 of 19) of students reported the school did a “good” to “excellent” job in introducing radiation oncology in the preclinical curriculum (Likert average=2.21, “fair” to “good”). 68.4% (13 of 19) students reported that the oncology module had an impact on their decision to apply for radiation oncology. 31.6% (6 of 19) of these students reported the module had “quite a bit” to “an extreme amount” of influence on their decision (Likert average=2.15, “some” to “quite a bit”). Free text responses asking what could be done to improve radiation oncology education at the medical school yielded answers desiring increased exposure in the preclinical years from 15.8% (3 of 19) students. Future radiation oncologists reported that a radiation oncologist-led, dedicated oncology module was a useful addition to the preclinical curriculum at one institution. Students who applied to radiation oncology were overall satisfied with the module and a majority reported that it influenced their career choice; with almost one-third reporting, it had a strong impact on their decision. This finding is important, as it shows the considerable effect a preclinical curriculum can have on attracting students to radiation oncology, a field often underrepresented in medical education. Increased radiation oncology didactic sessions are warranted in this module to provide a more thorough introduction to the field. With the success of this module, nationwide implementation of preclinical oncology curricula with early exposure to radiation oncology should be explored.