The teaching of clinical oncology in Italian medical schools. A survey among teachers and students

Cellerino, R; Graziano, Francesco; Piga, Andrea; Ghetti, V.

doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.annonc.a058654

Cited by 14 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of these prior studies concluded that medical students were exposed to insufficient numbers of cancer patients during their training and ultimately lacked basic knowledge about cancer. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] These inadequacies in oncology education inevitably resulted in physicians who felt poorly prepared to handle cancer patients in their routine practice. 10 The current study confirms these previous findings, but it is the first to address the quality of oncology education in several other health disciplines.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oncology Education in Canadian Undergraduate and Postgraduate Training Programs

Cheung

Fishman

Verma³

2009

J. of Cancer Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oncology Education in Canadian Undergraduate and Postgraduate Training Programs

Cheung

Fishman

Verma³

2009

J. of Cancer Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Surveys in Europe (Haagedoorn, 1985;Bender et al, 1993;Cellerino et al, 1993;Ramakrishnan et al 1993), the USA (Bakemeier, 1981), and Australia (Tattersall et al, 1993;Barton and Simons, 1999) have all identified problems with undergraduate oncology teaching including inadequate coordination, insufficient resources, and variability in the curriculum (UICC, 1994). Several methods for teaching students about oncology have been evaluated (Gaffan et al, 2006), but there is little published evidence to guide the choice of content.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical student teaching in the UK: how well are newly qualified doctors prepared for their role caring for patients with cancer in hospital?

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of studies have identified problems with undergraduate oncology teaching. We have investigated how well prepared newly qualified doctors (first foundation year, or FY1 doctors) are for treating patients with cancer. Twenty-five FY1 doctors and 15 senior doctors participated in interviews. We turned the emergent themes into a questionnaire for all 5143 UK FY1 doctors in 2005. The response rate was 43% (2062 responses). Sixty-one percent of FY1 doctors had received oncology teaching at medical school, but 31% recalled seeing fewer than 10 patients with cancer. Forty percent of FY1 doctors felt prepared for looking after patients with cancer. Sixty-five percent felt prepared for diagnosing cancer, 15% felt they knew enough about chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and 11% felt prepared for dealing with oncological emergencies. Respondents believed medical students should learn about symptom control (71%) and communication skills (41%). Respondents who had received oncology teaching were more likely to feel prepared for looking after patients with cancer (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.14 -2.04). Preparedness also correlated with exposure to patients with cancer (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.22 -1.79). We have found worryingly low levels of exposure of medical students to patients with cancer. First foundation year doctors lack knowledge about cancer care and symptom control. Oncologists should maintain involvement in undergraduate teaching, and encourage greater involvement of patients in this teaching.

show abstract

“…41,42 Clinical practice was preferred to more innovative teaching methods such as problem-based sessions and computer aided learning, with students showing significantly higher interview and clinical skills scores using the former. 25,27,34,36 Kissane et al reported a similar relationship with lectures and pre-planned classroom time as well. 26 Structured clinical experience was also rated more highly (92%) than both lectures (80%) and small group discussions (72%) on similar topics.…”

mentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Cellerino et al observed that these traditional teaching methods were preferred over more innovative approaches, such as problem-solving case discussions and web-based learning. 27 These combined sessions significantly improved test averages by 43% (P < 0.001) and 11% (P < 0.05) respectively as well as increased basic knowledge of dermatologic cancers. 28,29 Liu et al did not observe this with more advanced topics such as staging.…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

<p>A Thorough Analysis of the Current State of Cancer Education in Medical Schools and Application of Experimental Teaching Techniques and Their Efficacy</p>

Klufas¹,

Shin²,

Raphael³

et al. 2020

AMEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Newly diagnosed cases of cancer are expected to double by the year 2040. Although many different oncology teaching initiatives have been implemented, many students continue to report uncertainty when dealing with patients with cancer. Through this review, we aim to find the most effective teaching methods to better prepare future physicians. Papers studying different methods of teaching oncology were identified through a thorough review of specific electronic databases. Each study was analyzed and sorted into one of ten unique categories created by the authors specifically for this review. If portions of the study fit into multiple categories, relevant results would be analyzed in all applicable areas. Additionally, papers were separated and analyzed by country of origin, preclinical or clinical interventional basis, and quantitative versus qualitative form of statistical analysis. A total of 115 papers from 26 different countries and regions were included in the final analysis. 91.4% of papers analyzing Lecture and Small Group Discussions indicated a positive impact. 97.1% of papers analyzing Clinical Practice and Simulation indicated a positive impact. 100% of papers analyzing Early Experience and Mentorship, Summer Programs and Voluntary Electives, use of Multidisciplinary Teams, and Role Play stated that these methods had a positive impact. 50% of papers analyzing Computer/Web Based Programs indicated a positive impact. Clinical Practice and Simulation, Role Play, Summer/Elective Programs and interventions involving Multidisciplinary Team Work all appeared to be most effective. Intensive Block Programs, Didactic Lectures/Small Group Discussions, and Computer/Web Based Education tools as a whole were variable. General Review papers showed continued variability in domestic and international oncology curricula. Incorporation of effective teaching interventions should be highly considered in the future creation of standardized oncology curricula in order to best prepare the next generation of physicians. Future studies could explore the differing efficacies of teaching interventions in the postgraduate versus graduate realms.

show abstract

The teaching of clinical oncology in Italian medical schools. A survey among teachers and students

Abstract: This survey emphasizes the dualism between students' expectations and teachers' ideas about cancer teaching. Doctor/patient relationships and poor attention to practical clinical problems seem the most critical issues for clinical oncology training in Italian medical schools.

Cited by 14 publications

References 20 publications

Oncology Education in Canadian Undergraduate and Postgraduate Training Programs

Oncology Education in Canadian Undergraduate and Postgraduate Training Programs

Medical student teaching in the UK: how well are newly qualified doctors prepared for their role caring for patients with cancer in hospital?

<p>A Thorough Analysis of the Current State of Cancer Education in Medical Schools and Application of Experimental Teaching Techniques and Their Efficacy</p>

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About