全球老年放射肿瘤学教育的现状:范围审查

Lucinda Morris , Sandra Turner , Jane L. Phillips , Anamika Parmar , Meera Agar
{"title":"全球老年放射肿瘤学教育的现状:范围审查","authors":"Lucinda Morris ,&nbsp;Sandra Turner ,&nbsp;Jane L. Phillips ,&nbsp;Anamika Parmar ,&nbsp;Meera Agar","doi":"10.1016/j.tipsro.2024.100288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To identify potential gaps in geriatric radiation oncology (RO) education worldwide, as measured by geriatric oncology (GO) content within postgraduate RO training program (TP) curricula across 8 focus countries.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and materials</h3><div>The need for improved education around GO is internationally recognized and is a key strategic priority of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG).</div><div>Two reviewers undertook a systematic scoping review from March to September 2023. Focus countries were selected using predefined selection criteria based on national radiation therapy (RT) service provision, RT access and post-graduate specialty training standards. This review is in accordance with evidence-based curriculum design methodology and represents the initial phase i.e., problem identification and needs assessment.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Overall RO TP and curriculum elements varied by jurisdiction. Common elements included length of training, summative assessments and prerequisite requirements. Considerable variability exists across TPs around identified learning outcomes, content, TP organization, training networks and accreditation.</div><div>Across 6 TPs, only 2 had any documented GO curriculum content. Of these, only one contained geriatric RO content scoring moderate to high based on accepted quality benchmarks. Outside official RO TPs, there is considerable GO online education content, including face to face courses, peer-reviewed articles, learning materials and resources relevant to RO postgraduate training worldwide. However accessibility to these learning interventions may be region specific and content is not standardized.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>As expected, this systematic scoping review has identified significant gaps in GO education within RO TPs worldwide. These findings represent an essential step in the development of evidence-based recommendations for updating standards for GO training within RO training programs and establishing a globally accepted, standardized benchmarks for minimal geriatric RO education. In turn, this will ensure future radiation oncologists are able to deliver a high standard of care to and improve outcomes for older people with cancer.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36328,"journal":{"name":"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The status quo of global geriatric radiation oncology education: A scoping review\",\"authors\":\"Lucinda Morris ,&nbsp;Sandra Turner ,&nbsp;Jane L. Phillips ,&nbsp;Anamika Parmar ,&nbsp;Meera Agar\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tipsro.2024.100288\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To identify potential gaps in geriatric radiation oncology (RO) education worldwide, as measured by geriatric oncology (GO) content within postgraduate RO training program (TP) curricula across 8 focus countries.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and materials</h3><div>The need for improved education around GO is internationally recognized and is a key strategic priority of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG).</div><div>Two reviewers undertook a systematic scoping review from March to September 2023. Focus countries were selected using predefined selection criteria based on national radiation therapy (RT) service provision, RT access and post-graduate specialty training standards. This review is in accordance with evidence-based curriculum design methodology and represents the initial phase i.e., problem identification and needs assessment.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Overall RO TP and curriculum elements varied by jurisdiction. Common elements included length of training, summative assessments and prerequisite requirements. Considerable variability exists across TPs around identified learning outcomes, content, TP organization, training networks and accreditation.</div><div>Across 6 TPs, only 2 had any documented GO curriculum content. Of these, only one contained geriatric RO content scoring moderate to high based on accepted quality benchmarks. Outside official RO TPs, there is considerable GO online education content, including face to face courses, peer-reviewed articles, learning materials and resources relevant to RO postgraduate training worldwide. However accessibility to these learning interventions may be region specific and content is not standardized.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>As expected, this systematic scoping review has identified significant gaps in GO education within RO TPs worldwide. These findings represent an essential step in the development of evidence-based recommendations for updating standards for GO training within RO training programs and establishing a globally accepted, standardized benchmarks for minimal geriatric RO education. In turn, this will ensure future radiation oncologists are able to deliver a high standard of care to and improve outcomes for older people with cancer.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36328,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405632424000556\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405632424000556","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的根据8个重点国家的放射肿瘤学研究生培训计划(TP)课程中的老年肿瘤学(GO)内容,确定全球老年放射肿瘤学(RO)教育的潜在差距。方法和材料围绕老年肿瘤学改进教育的必要性已得到国际公认,并且是国际老年肿瘤学会(SIOG)的一项关键战略重点。根据国家放射治疗(RT)服务提供情况、放射治疗普及率和研究生专业培训标准,采用预定义的选择标准选定了重点国家。本次审查符合循证课程设计方法,是问题识别和需求评估的初始阶段。共同要素包括培训时间、终结性评估和前提要求。在 6 个培训方案中,只有 2 个有记录的全球老年医学课程内容。在 6 个培训课程中,只有 2 个有记录的 GO 课程内容,其中只有一个包含老年 RO 内容,根据公认的质量基准,得分在中等到高等之间。在官方的 RO 培训课程之外,还有大量的 GO 在线教育内容,包括面对面课程、同行评审文章、学习材料以及与全球 RO 研究生培训相关的资源。然而,这些学习干预措施的可及性可能因地区而异,而且内容也没有标准化。这些发现代表了在制定循证建议方面迈出的重要一步,这些建议旨在更新区域放射治疗培训计划中的全球放射治疗培训标准,并为最低限度的老年区域放射治疗教育建立全球公认的标准化基准。反过来,这将确保未来的放射肿瘤学家能够为老年癌症患者提供高标准的治疗,并改善治疗效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The status quo of global geriatric radiation oncology education: A scoping review

Purpose

To identify potential gaps in geriatric radiation oncology (RO) education worldwide, as measured by geriatric oncology (GO) content within postgraduate RO training program (TP) curricula across 8 focus countries.

Methods and materials

The need for improved education around GO is internationally recognized and is a key strategic priority of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG).
Two reviewers undertook a systematic scoping review from March to September 2023. Focus countries were selected using predefined selection criteria based on national radiation therapy (RT) service provision, RT access and post-graduate specialty training standards. This review is in accordance with evidence-based curriculum design methodology and represents the initial phase i.e., problem identification and needs assessment.

Results

Overall RO TP and curriculum elements varied by jurisdiction. Common elements included length of training, summative assessments and prerequisite requirements. Considerable variability exists across TPs around identified learning outcomes, content, TP organization, training networks and accreditation.
Across 6 TPs, only 2 had any documented GO curriculum content. Of these, only one contained geriatric RO content scoring moderate to high based on accepted quality benchmarks. Outside official RO TPs, there is considerable GO online education content, including face to face courses, peer-reviewed articles, learning materials and resources relevant to RO postgraduate training worldwide. However accessibility to these learning interventions may be region specific and content is not standardized.

Conclusions

As expected, this systematic scoping review has identified significant gaps in GO education within RO TPs worldwide. These findings represent an essential step in the development of evidence-based recommendations for updating standards for GO training within RO training programs and establishing a globally accepted, standardized benchmarks for minimal geriatric RO education. In turn, this will ensure future radiation oncologists are able to deliver a high standard of care to and improve outcomes for older people with cancer.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
审稿时长
67 days
期刊最新文献
The status quo of global geriatric radiation oncology education: A scoping review A systematic review of prostate bed motion and anisotropic margins in post-prostatectomy external beam radiotherapy International virtual radiation therapy professional development: Reflections on a twinning collaboration between a low/middle and high income country A code orange for traffic-light-protocols as a communication mechanism in IGRT On the trail of CBCT-guided adaptive rectal boost radiotherapy, does daily delineation require a radiation oncologist?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1