| Title |
Evaluation of the Theoretical Teaching of Postgraduate Radiation Oncology Medical Residents in France: a Cross-Sectional Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Cancer Education, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13187-017-1170-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jean-Christophe Faivre, Jean-Emmanuel Bibault, Thomas Leroy, Mikaël Agopiantz, Julia Salleron, Maxime Wack, Guillaume Janoray, Henri Roché, Stéphane Culine, Sofia Rivera |
| Abstract |
This study's purpose was to have residents evaluate Radiation Oncology (RO) theoretical teaching practices in France. An anonymous electronically cross-functional survey on theoretical teaching practices in the RO residents was conducted by (i) collecting data from residents in the medical faculties in France, (ii) comparing the data across practices when possible and (iii) suggesting means of improvement. A total of 103 out of 140 RO residents responded to the survey (73.5% response rate). National, inter-university, university and internships courses do not exist in 0% (0), 16.5% (17), 53.4% (55) and 40.8% (42) of residents, respectively. Residents need additional training due to the shortage of specialised postgraduate degree training (49.5% (51)), CV enhancement to obtain a post-internship position (49.5% (51)) or as part of a career plan (47.6% (49)). The topics covered in teaching to be improved were the following: basic concept 61.2% (63), advanced concept 61.2 (63) and discussion of frequent clinical cases 50.5% (52). The topics not covered in teaching to be improved were the following: the development of career (66.0% (68)), medical English (56.3% (58)), the organisation of RO speciality (49.5% (51)) and the hospital management of RO department (38.8% (40)). This is the first national assessment of theoretical teaching of RO residents in France. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 17% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 11% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 6% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 February 2017.
All research outputs
#12,902,092
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Education
#424
of 1,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,529
of 420,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Education
#12
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,151 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,064 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.