↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Resident satisfaction with radiation oncology training

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Radiation Oncology , March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Resident satisfaction with radiation oncology training
Published in
Advances in Radiation Oncology , March 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.adro.2018.03.003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Awad A. Ahmed, Stephen J. Ramey, Mary K. Dean, Stella K. Yoo, Emma Holliday, Curtiland Deville, Cristiane Takita, Neha Vapiwala, Lynn D. Wilson, Reshma Jagsi, Charles R. Thomas, Raphael Yechieli

Abstract

Residency training environments can differ significantly; therefore, resident satisfaction may vary widely among programs. Here, we sought to examine several variables in program satisfaction through a survey of radiation oncology (RO) trainees in the United States. An anonymous, institutional review board-approved, internet-based survey was developed and distributed to U.S. residents in RO in September 2016. This email-based survey assessed program-specific factors with regard to workload, work-life balance, and education as well as resident-specific factors such as marital status and postgraduate year. Binomial multivariable regression assessed the correlations between these factors and the endpoint of resident-reported likelihood of selecting an alternative RO residency program if given the choice again. A total of 215 residents completed the required survey sections, representing 29.3% of U.S. RO residents. When asked whether residency allowed for an adequate balance between work and personal life, the majority of residents (75.6%) agreed or strongly agreed, but a minority (9.3%) did not feel that residency allowed for sufficient time for personal life. The majority of residents (69.7%) indicated that they would choose the same residency program again, but 12.2% would have made a different choice. Almost three-fourths of residents (73.0%) felt that faculty and staff cared about the educational success of residents, but 9.27% did not. Binomial multivariable regression revealed that senior residents (odds ratio: 6.70; 95% confidence interval, 2.20-22.4) were more likely to desire a different residency program. In contrast, residents who reported constructive feedback use by the residency program (odds ratio:0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.91) were more satisfied with their program choice. Most RO residents reported satisfaction with their choice of residency program, but seniors had higher rates of dissatisfaction. Possible interventions to improve professional satisfaction include incorporating constructive resident feedback to enhance the program. The potential impact of job market pressures on seniors should be further explored.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 7 22%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 16%
Other 4 13%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 12 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 31 July 2018.
All research outputs
#2,327,015
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Radiation Oncology
#91
of 885 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,083
of 348,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Radiation Oncology
#2
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 885 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 348,083 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.