Training of oncologists: Results of a global survey.

Authors

null

Divyanshi Jalan

Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada

Divyanshi Jalan , Fidel Rubagumya , Wilma M. Hopman , Verna D. Vanderpuye , Gilberto Lopes , Bostjan Seruga , Christopher M. Booth , Scott R. Berry , Nazik Hammad

Organizations

Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada, Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, Rwanda, Center for Radiotherapy, Accra, Ghana, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Health System, Miami, FL, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, Department of Oncology, Cancer Center of Southeastern Ontario, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada

Research Funding

Other

Background: While several studies have highlighted the global shortages of oncologists and their workload, few have studied the characteristics of current oncology training. Methods: An online survey was distributed through a snowball method via national oncology societies and a pre-existing network of contacts to cancer care providing physicians in 57 countries. Countries were classified into low- or lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), upper-middle-income countries (UMICs), and high-income countries (HICs) based on World Bank criteria. Results: 273 physicians who trained in 57 different countries responded to the survey; 33% (90/273), 32% (87/273), and 35% (96/273) in LMICs, UMICs and HICs respectively. 60% of respondents were practicing physicians and 40% were in training. The proportion of trainees was higher in LMICs (51%; 45/89) and UMICs (42%; 37/84), than HICs (19%; 28/96; P = 0.013). A higher proportion of respondents from LMICs (37%; 27/73) self-fund their core oncology training compared to UMICs (13%; 10/77) and HICs (11%; 10/89; P < 0.001). Respondents from HICs were more likely to complete an accepted abstract, poster and publication from their research activities compared to respondents from UMICs and LMICs (abstract: 37/72 (51%) from HICs, 18/66 (27%) from UMICs, 24/65 (37%) from LMICs, P = 0.014; poster: (42/72 (58%) from HICs, 28/66 (42%) from UMICs, 13/65 (20%) from LMICs, P < 0.001; publication: 43/72 (60%) from HICs, 32/66 (49%) from UMICs, 24/65 (37%) from LMICs, P = 0.029). Respondents identified several barriers to effective training including skewed service to education ratio and burnout. With regards to preparedness for practice, mean scores on a 5-point Likert scale were low for professional tasks like supervision and mentoring of trainees, leadership and effective management of an oncology practice, and understanding of healthcare systems irrespective of country grouping. Conclusions: Investment in training by the public sector would be vital to decreasing the prevalence of self-funding in LMIC. Gaps in research training and enhancement of competencies in research dissemination in LMIC require attention. Instruction on cancer care systems and leadership need to be incorporated in training curricula in both LMICs and HICs.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2019 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Education Research and Professional Development

Track

Medical Education and Professional Development

Sub Track

Education Research

Citation

J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 10526)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.10526

Abstract #

10526

Poster Bd #

105

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts