Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jun;33(3):622-626.
doi: 10.1007/s13187-016-1139-6.

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

Adil S Akthar  1 , Christopher D Hellekson  2 , Sabha Ganai  3 , Olwen M Hahn  4 , Ronald J Maggiore  5 , Ezra E Cohen  6 , Mitchell C Posner  7 , Steven J Chmura  1 , Andrew R Howard  1 , Daniel W Golden  8
Affiliations

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

Adil S Akthar et al. J Cancer Educ. 2018 Jun.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81 - PubMed
    1. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Nov 1;78(3):787-92 - PubMed
    1. JAMA. 1990 May 2;263(17):2335-40 - PubMed
    1. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Jan-Feb;66(1):7-30 - PubMed
    1. JAMA. 1988 Aug 26;260(8):1059 - PubMed

Publication types