Special report: results of the 2000–2002 association of residents in radiation oncology (arro) surveys

Jagsi, Reshma; Chronowski, Gregory M.; Buck, David A.; Kang, Sung-Jun; Palermo, James

doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2003.12.025

Cited by 18 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The recent American workforce survey had a 29% response rate among radiation oncologists and trainees . Similar surveys in the United States, United Kingdom and Canada have had response rates of around 50% and as low as 12% …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…6,7 Similar surveys in the United States, United Kingdom and Canada have had response rates of around 50% and as low as 12%. [8][9][10][11][12] The data revealed 439 active members (fellows, life members, educational affiliates and retired members) on the RANZCR database compared with 396 in 2010. 4 The demographic data revealed the proportion of women in the workforce is increasing with them representing 37.5% of fellows.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Faculty of Radiation Oncology 2014 workforce census

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThis paper reports the key findings of the Faculty of Radiation Oncology 2014 workforce census and compares the results with earlier surveys.MethodsThe census was conducted in mid‐2014 with distribution to all radiation oncologists, educational affiliates and trainees listed on the college database. There were six email reminders and responses were anonymous. The overall response rate was 76.1%.ResultsThe age range of fellows was 32–96 (mean = 49 years, median = 47 years). The majority of the radiation oncologists were male (n = 263, 63%). The minority of radiation oncologists were of Asian descent (n = 43, 13.4%). Radiation oncologists graduated from medical school on average 23 years ago (median = 22 years). A minority of fellows (n = 66, 20%) held another postgraduate qualification. Most radiation oncologists worked, on average, at two practices (median = 2, range 1–7). Practising radiation oncologists worked predominantly in the public sector (n = 131, 49%), but many worked in both the public and private sectors (n = 94, 37%), and a minority worked in the private sector only (n = 38, 14%). The largest proportion of the workforce was from New South Wales accounting for 29% of radiation oncologists. Radiation oncologists worked an average of 43 h/week (median = 43 h, range 6–80). Radiation oncologists who worked in the private sector worked less hours than their public sector or public/private sector colleagues. (38.3 vs. 42.9 vs. 44.3 h, P = 0.042). Victorians worked the fewest average hours per week at 38 h and West Australians the most at 46 h/week. Radiation oncologists averaged 48 min for each new case, 17 min per follow up and 11 min for a treatment review. Radiation oncologists averaged 246 new patients per year (median = 250, range = 20–600) with men (average = 268), Western Australians (average = 354) and those in private practice seeing more (average = 275). Most radiation oncologists considered themselves as specialists (n = 151, 60%), but nearly all those from South Australia were generalists (n = 15, 94%) as were three‐quarters of those from private practice. A minority of radiation oncologist respondents (10%) intended to retire within 5 years with a further 16% within 10 years.There was a stabilisation of trainee numbers in Australia and New Zealand with no increase compared with 2010 (142 in 2014 vs. 143 in 2010). The most common age bracket for trainees remained 31–35 years. One‐third of trainees were of Asian descent and nearly half held other degrees. The majority of trainees were satisfied with their career, but 30% were not entirely satisfied. Nearly half of trainee respondents would have reconsidered their choice of specialty had they known about the possible oversupply in the workforce with 12.4% undecided about continuing their career in radiation oncology. There were still 16% of trainees with no protected time during the working week, and a further 21% with only 1 h. Only one trainee respondent preferred to work in private practice, and job availability remained a c...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Faculty of Radiation Oncology 2014 workforce census

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The survey was open for participation for just over five weeks, a much shorter period than similar international surveys where answers were collected for up to six months . It was thought appropriate to close the survey after this time as very few responses to several email reminders were received.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Faculty of Radiation Oncology 2012 trainee survey

Leung¹,

Turner

et al. 2013

J Med Imag Rad Onc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whilst most radiotherapy learning (RL) facets vary widely, exposure to plan evaluation is reported as difficult to acquire in most jurisdictions [17][18][19][20][21]. National surveys have demonstrated that perceptions of training fluctuate with time spent in training [22][23][24][25] and this pattern was observed in relation to less common tumour sites and emerging radiation techniques in particular. Such trends are likely to be explained by factors including survey learning amongst trainers, expanding access to radiotherapy technology, and organisational changes in postgraduate training nationally including hours rostered.…”

Section: Variation In Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning radiotherapy: the state of the art

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The last two decades have seen revolutionary developments in both radiotherapy technology and postgraduate medical training. Trainees are expected to attain competencies using a mix of experiential learning, formal postgraduate teaching, self-directed learning and peer education. Radiation (Clinical) Oncology is a recognised 'craft specialty' where the apprenticeship model of training is applicable. This scoping review examines the evidence in relation to how medical trainees learn radiotherapy. Methods: A systematic search of MEDINE and EMBASE was undertaken to identify studies of trainee and/or trainer experience of radiotherapy learning published 1999-2018. Results pertaining to Medical Oncology, workforce trends, undergraduate radiotherapy exposure, academic training, global health, non-medical staff, health service infrastructure and recruitment to training programmes were not included. Results: A total of 146 publications were included in the synthesis. Five themes were apparent through careful iterative analysis representing broadly interrelated issues. Most articles studied radiotherapy training from the perspective of the trainee doctor. Most literature reports results of observational, local or national surveys with a tightly defined scope. Considerable variation exists within hospitals, within countries, over time and between different curricular areas. Conclusions: Medical education has not kept pace with changes in the field of radiotherapy and large differences are demonstrated in experience between trainees in different hospitals, countries and training stages. Interpersonal relationships, departmental organisation, and national curricula impact on training quality. Qualitative and quantitative research examining modern radiotherapy learning has been uncommon and uncoordinated, until recently. To date no single study has been designed to comprehensively assess a department's training scheme.

show abstract

Special report: results of the 2000–2002 association of residents in radiation oncology (arro) surveys

Cited by 18 publications

References 15 publications

Faculty of Radiation Oncology 2014 workforce census

Faculty of Radiation Oncology 2014 workforce census

Faculty of Radiation Oncology 2012 trainee survey

Learning radiotherapy: the state of the art

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About