IntroductionThe ability to understand treatment plan dosimetry and apply this understanding clinically is fundamental to the role of the radiation therapist. This study evaluates whether or not the Virtual Environment for Radiotherapy Training (VERT) contributes to teaching treatment planning concepts to a cohort of first‐year radiation therapy students.MethodsWe directly compared a custom‐developed VERT teaching module with a standard teaching module with respect to the understanding of treatment planning concepts using a cross‐over design. Students self‐reported their understanding of specific concepts before and after delivery of the VERT and standard teaching modules and evaluated aspects of VERT as a learning experience. In addition, teaching staff participated in a semi‐structured interview discussing the modules from an educational perspective.ResultsBoth the standard teaching module and VERT teaching module enhanced conceptual understanding and level of confidence in the student cohort after both teaching periods. The proportion of students reporting a perceived increase in knowledge/confidence was similar for the VERT teaching module for all but two scenarios. We propose that an integrated approach, providing a strong theoretical conceptual framework, followed by VERT to situate this framework in the (simulated) clinical environment combines the best of both teaching approaches.ConclusionThis study has established for the first time a clear role for a tailored VERT teaching module in teaching RT planning concepts because of its ability to visualise conceptual information within a simulated clinical environment.

Simulation has a long history in medical and health science training and education. The literature describing this history is extensive. The role simulation plays in many health disciplines has evolved, as has the focus of the literature around it. The Virtual Environment for Radiotherapy Training (VERT) system is a relative newcomer to radiation therapy education and, similar to the literature around radiation therapy (RT) education, is still in its infancy. This narrative review sets the scene of simulation‐based education within the health sciences and considers the lessons learned from published work on VERT to date. The evidence suggests that future inquiry involving VERT should explore different ways in which VERT can be used to contribute to the skillset required by the radiation therapist of tomorrow.

This study evaluates the training and support provided for facilitators who deliver the Living Well programme. This education and support programme, offered by the Cancer Society of New Zealand since 1991, aims to demystify cancer and its treatments, and develop self-efficacy of cancer patients and their supporters. A purposeful sample of 17 facilitators from five regions across New Zealand participated in semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data on demographics, qualifications and history with the programme were subjected to a frequency analysis. A thematic content analysis was conducted on qualitative data regarding the experiences of the facilitators with the training programme and the level and quality of subsequent support. Facilitators (aged 35-65, 16 of whom were women), came from a variety of socio-economic and educational backgrounds with a significant number having health-related roles and qualifications. Facilitator training was seen as relevant, thorough, effective and good preparation for the demands of the role. The pairing of more experienced staff and volunteers to co-facilitate was a particularly successful aspect of the programme. The main drawbacks were limited access to support, lack of supervision and a perceived lack of appreciation from the organisation for the volunteer facilitators.

No abstract

Support programmes often benefit cancer patients and their families. This study evaluates how the Living Well Cancer Education Programme (LWCEP), from the Cancer Society of New Zealand, meets the needs of its clients. A purposeful sample of 21 participants representing the normal range of demographic characteristics (age, gender, diagnosis and geographical location) for the programme, participated in semi-structured interviews. Demographic data were subjected to a frequency analysis. Main data were collected and analysed using a constructivist grounded theory approach regarding the experiences of the participants with being on the programme and recommendations for future development. Of the 21 participants, 14 were cancer patients (eight women and six men) and seven were support people (five women and two men). The LWCEP was described as a safe, supportive and stimulating environment, provided a powerful sense of belonging, empowered participants to gain perspective, enhance their confidence and communication skills and make increasingly informed choices. Consistent with a previous evaluation focussing on the facilitators of the LWCEP, there was a strong desire for better promotion of the programme to the wider community, establishment of a better referral pathway and the potential to offer two separate programmes depending on the stage of a patient's journey.