A multicenter analysis evaluating educational resources utilized by hematology/oncology fellows (HOF).
Ronak Mistry,Inas Abuali,Karine Tawagi,Daniel Hausrath,Samantha Ann Armstrong,Victoria Chung,Madeline Campbell Fitzpatrick,Kyle Kidwell,Ankoor Biswas,Fadi Taza,Maya Abdallah,Moriah Forster,Ahmad Marwan Nassar,Shivang Danak,Vivek Patel
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.9003
IF: 45.3
2024-06-01
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:9003 Background: Hematology/oncology (HO) is a complex, fast-paced specialty. Similarly, the approach to medical education continues to evolve, with a shift to electronic educational resources, which was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Limited studies exist to evaluate what resources trainees utilize to learn HO topics. Here, we evaluate how HOF utilize supplemental resources for self-directed education and clinical decision making. Methods: We included HOF from 27 HO fellowship programs in the US from September to October, 2023. Each fellow received an invitation from a local site coordinator to complete an optional anonymous survey via REDCAP. The survey contained a series of questions to better understand the HOF baseline knowledge of various HO topics, how they utilize supplemental resources when approaching new disease topics, and how they rate these resources for clinical decision-making using a 7-point Likert scale (“1-extremely unhelpful”, “4-neutral”, “7-extremely helpful”). Pairwise chi-squared analysis was used to assess differences by PGY status. Results: A total of 222 HOF completed the survey (53% response rate) including 82 PGY4 (37%), 72 PGY5 (32%), and 68 PGY6 and above (31%), The most utilized resources were reference websites (92%), such as UpToDate and Medscape, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines (92%). The majority also utilized question banks (q-banks, 72%), faculty lecture slides (66%), and online review series videos (videos, 65%). Over half integrated journal articles (60%) and podcasts (55%). The least utilized platforms include textbooks (25%), social media (23%), and online discussion boards (5%). Upper year HOF used videos and q-banks more than PGY4 (p<0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in utilization of other resources by PGY status. Amongst HOF who trialed each resource for clinical decision-making at any time, the most helpful resources (Likert mean ± SD) were reference websites (6.2 ± 0.9), NCCN guidelines (6.1 ± 1.0), videos (5.8 ± 1.1), and q-banks (5.8 ± 1.1). HOF found journal articles (5.4 ± 1.2), podcasts (5.2 ± 1.3), and faculty lecture slides (5.1 ± 1.3) moderately helpful. HOF found little utility in textbooks (4.2 ± 1.4), social media (Twitter, 4.0 ± 1.6), and discussion boards (3.8 ± 1.4). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale analysis to identify what resources HOF use to study and aid in clinical decision making. Reference websites and NCCN guidelines are frequently used to study by HOF and are most helpful for clinical decision-making. The least utilized and least helpful resources are social media sites and online discussion boards. Prospective multi-institutional randomized research studies in medical education are necessary to assess effective and preferred learning modalities and identify ways to improve and standardize educational opportunities for all trainees.
oncology