Journal of Cancer Education最新文献

Oropharyngeal human papillomavirus (HPV) cancers are prevalent, but HPV education in dental clinics is uncommon. The purpose of this study was to evaluate dental provider and patient knowledge from, attitudes towards, and preferences for HPV education, then assess perceptions of existing HPV educational materials for use at dental visits. Appalachian Ohio dental patients (n = 13) and general/pediatric dental providers (n = 10) completed an initial, close-ended survey on current HPV knowledge and HPV educational attitudes, participation, and resource preferences. Select individuals reviewed existing HPV educational videos and toolkits via virtual focus groups (n = 9) or independent review surveys (n = 6). Using a discussion guide, participants responded to overall, visual, auditory, and content satisfaction statements, orally (focus groups) or with Likert scales (independent reviews). Surveys were summarized with frequencies/percentages; transcripts were qualitatively coded to identify potential material modifications. Dental providers and patients were more comfortable with HPV and oral cancer education (87% and 96%, respectively) and screening (96%) than with HPV vaccine education (74%) and referrals (61%) during dental visits. Providers were neither sharing HPV educational materials (80%) nor initiating educational conversations with dental patients (100%). The American Cancer Society videos and the "Team Maureen" toolkit were the most liked resources (i.e., fewer negative/disagree statements) by all participant groups. Findings indicate that future dental HPV educational efforts should be informed by currently available materials. Additional interventions are needed to promote dental provider discussions and sharing of educational materials with patients to increase education and promotion of the HPV vaccine and reduce oropharyngeal cancers.

Purpose: In recent years, there has been a national decline in applicants to radiation oncology (RO) residencies, partly due to limited exposure to RO during medical school. Student Interest Groups (SIGs) give students early exposure to a variety of specialties. This study investigates the efficacy of a RO-SIG to increase knowledge and interest in the field.

Methodology: First and second-year medical students attending an RO-SIG event or shadowing experience completed surveys both prior and following participation. Students ranked their interest in oncology, in RO, and their perceived accessibility of mentors in oncology. Questions were rated on a Likert scale from 0 to 5 (5 highest, 0 lowest). The survey included one short response question about the understanding of the role of the RO, which was evaluated qualitatively.

Results: 44 students (42 M1s, 2 M2s) completed the pre-survey and 18 (41%, 17 M1s, 1 M2) completed the post-survey. Of the 18 matched responses, interest in oncology increased from 3.67 pre-SIG to 3.89 (p = 0.19) and in RO specifically from 3.17 to 3.89 (p < 0.01). The mean perceived accessibility of faculty mentors in oncology increased from 3.18 to 3.72 (p < 0.01). After interacting with the RO-SIG, the short response answers were more detailed in the understanding of the role of RO.

Conclusions: RO-SIGs can increase interest in RO through early exposure to the field. In a time where RO has seen a decline in student interest, RO-SIGs are an option to increase engagement, develop interest, and form relationships with mentors in pre-clinical years.

Radiation therapy (RT) is a critical component of multidisciplinary cancer care, but has inconsistent curricular exposure. We characterize the radiation oncology (RO) content on the standardized undergraduate medical examinations by comparing its context and prevalence with other domains in oncology. National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) self-assessments and sample questions for the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Steps 1-3 and NBME clinical science shelf examinations were accessed (n = 3878). Questions were inductively analyzed for content pertaining to oncology and treatment modalities of RT, systemic therapy (ST), and surgical intervention (SI). Questions were coded using USMLE Physician Tasks/Competencies and thematic analysis. Descriptive statistics and analyses using the Kruskal-Wallis test are reported. A total of 337 questions (8.6%) within the USMLE and shelf exams included oncology content, with 101 questions (2.6%) referencing at least one cancer treatment modality (n = 35 RT, 45 ST, 57 SI). Treatment questions were more common on USMLE Step 2 CK (n = 35/101, 32%) compared to Step 1 (n = 23/101, 23%) and Step 3 (n = 8/101, 8%) (p < 0.001). RT was significantly less likely to be the correct answer (2/35, 6%) compared to ST (4/45, 9%) and SI (18/57, 32%) (p = 0.003). Therapeutic oncology questions are uncommon on the examination material, with an under-representation of radiation-related content, and contextual bias favoring surgical approaches. We advocate for greater RO involvement in the content creation of such examinations to help trainees better understand multidisciplinary cancer care.

Breast cancer remains a significant global health challenge, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where disparities in healthcare exacerbate the disease burden. The Breast Cancer Comprehensive Center at the National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, has implemented integrated patient navigation and education programs aimed at enhancing patient outcomes and healthcare quality. This study evaluated the effectiveness of these programs involving 2202 participants over 12 months. The methodology included systematic data collection, material preparation, and the application of tailored educational strategies to facilitate the patient's journey from diagnosis to treatment. The study utilized three-phased patient navigation assistance to provide comprehensive support. The programs significantly improved patient satisfaction, with over 90% of participants reporting high levels of contentment with the services received. Key improvements included enhanced understanding of breast cancer (including risk factors, symptoms, importance of seeking early care, and treatment options), reduction in patient anxiety, improved treatment adherence, and streamlined diagnostic and treatment processes. Notably, the use of audio-visual educational tools effectively bridged the literacy gap among patients. The integration of patient navigation and education systems at BCCC-NCI has proven to be a highly effective model for improving breast cancer care. This model not only enhances patient understanding and treatment compliance but also facilitates a more efficient healthcare process. The study underscores the potential for replicating this approach in similar healthcare settings globally, suggesting that such integrations can significantly improve cancer care outcomes.

Delays in research protocol development may be a single factor that hinders the career progression of academic faculty. Structured educational guidance during this phase proves crucial in mitigating setbacks in Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and expediting trial implementation. To address this, the Protocol-in-a-Day (PIAD) workshop, a comprehensive 1-day event involving members from six critical facets of RO clinical trial implementation, was established, offering significant input to individual protocols. Efficacy and satisfaction of the PIAD workshop were assessed through a 5-question survey and the average time from submission to IRB initial approval. The normality of the data was analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk Test. Nonparametric data was analyzed using a Mann-Whitney U test for significance. A total of 18 protocols that went through the PIAD workshop were activated. The mean time to IRB approval for protocols that went through PIAD was 39.8 days compared to 58.4 days for those that did not go through the PIAD workshop. Based on survey results, 100% of PIAD participants said the PIAD workshop was useful and 94% of participants stated that the PIAD workshop improved the overall quality of their protocol. Participant surveys further highlighted substantial improvements in trial quality, language, and statistical design and revealed that all participants found the workshop helpful. Therefore, both junior and senior faculty benefitted from this educational program during protocol development, as both groups demonstrated shorter times to IRB approval than non-participants. This acceleration not only fosters efficient trial implementation but also supports academic faculty in their career development.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening continues to be underutilized in the USA despite the availability of multiple effective, guideline-recommended screening options. Provider recommendation has been consistently shown to improve screening completion. Understanding how patient-provider communication influences CRC screening can inform interventions to improve screening completion. We developed a behavioral theory-informed survey to identify patient-provider communication factors associated with multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) screening completion. The survey was administered by RTI International between 03/2022 and 06/2022 to a sample of US adults ages 45-75 who received a valid order for mt-sDNA screening with a shipping date between 5/2021 and 9/2021. Respondents completed an electronic or paper survey. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify patient-provider communication factors associated with mt-sDNA test completion. A total of 2973 participants completed the survey (response rate, 21.7%) and 81.6% of them (n = 2427) reported having had a conversation with provider about mt-sDNA testing before the test was ordered. Having a conversation with the provider about the test, including discussions about costs, the need for follow-up testing and test instructions were associated with higher odds of test completion and being "very likely" to use the test in the future. Lack of discussion about advantages and disadvantages of available CRC screening options and lack of patient involvement in CRC screening decision-making were associated with reduced odds of test completion and likelihood of future use. Healthcare providers play a key role in patient adherence to CRC screening and must be appropriately prepared and resourced to educate and to engage patients in shared decision-making about CRC screening.