Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Mentoring Medical Students Towards Oncology: Results from a Pilot Multi-institutional Mentorship Programme

Mentoring Medical Students Towards Oncology: Results from a Pilot Multi-institutional Mentorship... The mounting global cancer burden has generated an increasing demand for oncologists to join the workforce. Yet, students report limited oncology exposure in undergraduate medical curricula, while undergraduate oncology mentorships remain underutilised. We established an undergraduate oncology society–led mentorship programme aimed at medical students across several UK universities to increase medical student oncology exposure. We electronically recruited and paired oncologist mentors and medical student mentees and distributed a dedicated questionnaire (pre- and post-mentorship) to compare mentees’ self-reported cancer specialty knowledge and oncology career motivation after undertaking a 6-week mentorship. We also determined students’ interest across specialties and subspecialties and measured mentor availability via percentage programme uptake. Statistical analysis included univariate inferential tests on SPSS software. Twentynine (23.4%) of 124 oncology special- ists agreed to become mentors. The mentorship was completed by 30 students across three medical schools: 16 (53.3%) Barts, 10 (33.3%) Birmingham, and 4 (13.3%) King’s; 11 (36.7%) mentored by medical oncologists, 10 (33.3%) by clinical/radiation oncologists, and 9 (30%) by surgical oncologists. The mentorship generated a statically significant increase in students’ knowl- edge of the multidisciplinary team and all oncology-related specialties including academia/research but not interest towards a career in oncology. Undergraduate oncology mentoring is an effective educational, networking and motivational tool for medical students. Student societies are a valuable asset in cultivating medical student oncology interest by connecting students to faculty and increasing mentor accessibility. Further research should focus on developing an optimal mentorship structure and evaluating long-term outcomes of such educational initiatives. Highlights of this study � To our knowledge, this is the first UK-reported data on the value of oncology mentoring for undergraduate medical students in addition to being the first UK report of an undergraduate oncology society–led mentorship initiative. � Data collection represented several institutions throughout the UK and encompassed various different oncology specialties and subspecialties, providing valuable insight into students’ interest and the benefits of oncology mentoring in different settings. � Our mentorship programme was successful in increasing medical students’ self-reported knowledge towards all oncology specialties re- gardless of their allocated mentor’sspecialisation. � Future work should focus on generating more opportunities for medical students to be exposed to oncology specialties; forming outcome-based guidelines for structured, systematic mentoring that will enhance its benefits; and evaluating long-term outcomes of such educational initiatives. * Kathrine S. Rallis k.s.rallis@smd16.qmul.ac.uk Extended author information available on the last page of the article 1054 J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 . . . . Keywords UK medical students Mentoring Undergraduate oncology society Undergraduate medical education Undergraduate oncology teaching Surveys and questionnaires Background 2019, all known undergraduate oncology societies in UK medical schools, equivalent to student oncology interest Cancer remains a leading cause of premature death in the UK groups reported in Canadian and USA medical schools, were with one in two born after 1960 expected to be diagnosed with contacted via social media and email, and invited to set-up a cancer during their lifetime [1]. The emerging cancer burden mentorship programme at their university (September 2019). has inevitably exerted substantial strain on the United Where a medical school did not have an established under- Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) generating graduate oncology society, an undergraduate medical society an increasing demand for oncologist to join the workforce. or medical student representative was contacted instead. This growing demand for oncologists has largely exceeded supply of trainees, evident by the threefold increase in vacant Mentors clinical oncologist consultant posts in 2017 [2]. Indeed, the total number of trainees predicted to enter the workforce in the Medical, clinical/radiation and surgical oncologists who had next 5 years will not fill these vacant posts, a concerning completed their specialty training and were senior registrars, figure attesting to the necessity for further action [2, 3]. consultants or academics based at university teaching hospi- Meanwhile, studies globally report limited exposure to on- tals or research institutes were identified via online search of cology specialties in undergraduate medical education curric- NHS Trust and UK Cancer Institute staff directories, few rec- ula [4–7], student teaching dissatisfaction with their oncology ommended by personal affiliation, and contacted by email education [8] and lack of confidence with oncology care [4, 9, (Appendix 1) requesting their participation as mentors and 10]. Furthermore, although medical mentorships confer nota- outlining the potential environments (clinic, hospital and re- ble benefits for both mentors and mentees, and are an search setting) and domains (medical oncology, clinical on- established medical educational tool at trainee level [11–15], cology, surgical oncology and academic/clinical research on- mentorships for undergraduate medical students are limited cology) in which mentees and mentors could engage in. Of and predominantly restricted to surgery, general medicine those agreeing to participate, we requested their weekly time- and emergency medicine [16–18]. table availability for distribution to their allocated mentee. Notably, student interest groups, also known as undergrad- uate student societies, have been shown to offer valuable ben- Mentees efits in fostering early career interest by building student- faculty mentorship relations and encouraging field-specific Oncology societies advertised the mentorship programme research, as demonstrated by their effectiveness across several to medical students at their university via mailing list and medical specialties including oncology [16, 18–24]. social media as well as formal university channels in- Nevertheless, further work is necessary to connect medical cluding year groups and newsletter. Electronic applica- students to oncology faculty mentors [24]. tions were received over a 10-day period. Successful ap- Therefore, we aimed to increase medical students’ expo- plicants were determined by ranking according to objec- sure to oncology specialties, including medical, clinical/ tive scoring of de-identified personal statements by two radiation and surgical oncology, through a 6-week undergrad- independent student coordinators. A maximum of five uate oncology society–led mentorship programme aimed at points was allocated in each of the four domains includ- both pre-clinical and clinical year medical students across ing (a) insight into oncology career, (b) motivation, (c) several UK universities. previous experience and (d) signs of interest. Applicants with the highest sum of scores across both assessors (maximum 40 points) secured a mentor until no more places were left. The applicants who ranked lower and Methods did not secure a mentor were not accepted onto the programme. Participants Undergraduate Oncology Societies Mentorship (Intervention) Following an initial pilot mentorship programme set-up by Each mentorship cycle ran over approximately 6 weeks during Barts and The London (BL) Oncology Society in January which period mentees were instructed to meet their mentor on J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 1055 at least three occasions to attain a certificate of completion. questionnaire was disseminated to student mentees at the Mentees were required to submit an electronic pre-mentorship end of the 6-week period. Students who did not complete questionnaire prior to receiving their mentors’ contact details. the post-mentorship questionnaire were personally contacted Mentor-mentee pairing was determined by mentor availability up to three times via email to enquire why they had not done and students’ declared interest on their application. Mentees so. An extension was given to any student requiring additional were emailed their mentors’ contact information, career de- time to meet their mentor. A new allocation cycle was to scription, timetable availability and hospital location with fur- commence when students had finished their 6-week mentor- ther instructions. Students were encouraged to reflect on their ship and mentors had become once again available for alloca- experience and submit an optional reflective piece for a tion to a subsequent pool of student mentee applicants (Fig. 1). chance at winning a book-prize award. The instructions pro- videdtomentors andmentees (Appendix 1 and 2, Questionnaires (Intervention) respectively) were the same across all sites and specialties and ensured a relative uniformity of placements. These ex- Questionnaires were designed and compared with avail- plained the aim of the programme, expectations, timeline able ones in the literature. Discussions between research and offered examples of settings in which students could shad- team members contributed to the final questionnaire com- ow mentors. There was no strict curriculum as we ponents and design. The pre- and post-mentorship ques- endeavoured to allow flexibility for students to direct their tionnaires (Appendix 3 and 4, respectively) assessed stu- learning according to their interests and aimed to tailor oppor- dents’ responses in two domains including their perceived tunities across the different sites. This primarily depended on oncology-related interest and knowledge, while a third mentor allocation and local facilities. The post-mentorship and fourth section focused on reflection and feedback. Fig. 1 Structured model for setting up a student mentorship programme through a student interest group outlining the process of mentor recruitment and the student allocation cycle 1056 J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 The pre-mentorship questionnaire compromised of nine Statistical Analysis questions: six on a five-point Likert scale, two multiple choice and one free text response; whereas the post- Statistical analysis was completed on IBM SPSS Statistics mentorship questionnaire compromised of 17 questions: software for Mac, Version 26. Descriptive statistics were used seven on a five-point Likert scale: six identical to pre- to analyse demographics, student interest and feedback. mentorship questionnaires, four multiple choice and six Following assessment of data distributions, we used free text response. The sign-up application (Appendix 2) Wilcoxon signed-rank (WSR) test for paired associations sup- gathered information pertaining to students’ demo- plemented by Mann-Whitney U (MWU) test for ineffectively graphics, including their year of study, as well as their paired groups as determined by Spearman correlation coeffi- oncological specialty and subject of interest using multi- cient (one-tailed). p value less than 0.05 was considered as ple choice and free response questions. statistically significant. Comparisons Results We compared responses across student demographics includ- Demographics ing gender, medical school and year of study. We also com- pared responses across different specialty of interest (i.e. med- Undergraduate Oncology Societies ical, clinical/radiation or surgical oncology) and subject (e.g. gastrointestinal, gynaecological, haematological cancers etc.) Forty-two medical schools, including 20 undergraduate on- of mentoring placement. Finally, we compared students’ per- cology societies, were contacted for joining the study ceived oncology-related interest and knowledge pre- and post- (Supplementary Table 1). In addition to BL, five undergradu- mentorship. ate oncology societies agreed to participate, though only two successfully established a mentorship programme including Kings College London (KCL) and University of Outcomes Birmingham Medical School (UBMS) Oncology Societies. The three societies that did not succeed in establishing a The effectiveness of the mentorship programme as an educa- mentor programme either withdrew interest due to time tional, networking and motivational tool was measured by restraints of committee members, postponed the pro- assessing for a significant change (p < 0.05) in students’ gramme for the next academic year or cancelled the pro- pre-/post-mentorship responses to Likert scale questions in gramme before it began due to coronavirus disease 2019 addition to evaluating free text responses. (COVID-19) lockdown measures and concerns. Three mentorship allocation cycles were carried out successfully at BL, one at KCL and one at UBMS. Procedures to Minimize Bias Mentors Questionnaires were piloted in a small group of medical stu- dents before being reviewed and launched to ensure questions Out of a total of 124 potential mentors contacted and asked to were unambiguous and phrasing did not generate responder participate in the mentorship programme across all three NHS bias. Foundation Trusts, only 29 (23.4%) agreed to participate. Table 1 shows a breakdown of mentors’ specialties, subspe- cialties and NHS Trust affiliation. Data Collection Mentees All surveys were conducted via a standardised, web- based, data collection form (Google Form, Google, We received 79 applications out of which 43 (54%) students Alphabet Inc.). Responses were saved to a password- were accepted onto the programme by ranking high enough to protected Excel file. Regarding free text responses (qual- secure a mentor, completing the pre-mentorship question- itative data), K.R. proceeded to a pilot thematic analysis; naire, and 30 (70%) successfully completed the mentorship, this resulted in discrete thematic axes. These thematic responding to the post-mentorship questionnaire. Table 2 axes were revised by the senior author of the study to summarises students’ demographics. Eleven (36.7%) students ensure data accuracy and any discrepancy was resolved were mentored by medical oncologists, 10 (33.3%) were mentored by clinical/radiation oncologists and 9 (30%) by through discussion. J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 1057 Table 1 NHS Trust affiliation, a a Contacted Mentors Confirmed Mentors specialty and subspecialty of all contacted (n =124) and NHS Foundation Trust confirmed (n =29) mentors Barts Health 36 (29.0) 12 (41.4) University Hospitals Birmingham 49 (39.5) 13 (44.8) King’s College Hospital 39 (31.5) 4 (13.8) Specialty Medical Oncology 56 (45.5) 11 (37.9) Clinical/Radiation Oncology 29 (23.6) 8 (27.6) Surgical Oncology 31 (24.4) 10 (34.5) Other* 7 (5.7) – Subspecialty Bone cancer 1 (0.8) – Brain cancer 5 (4.0) 2 (6.9) Breast cancer 40 (32.3) 7 (24.1) Colorectal cancer 13 (10.5) 6 (20.7) Gastrointestinal cancer 21 (16.9) 4 (13.8) Germ cell tumours 3 (2.4) – Gynaecological cancer 15 (12.1) 3 (10.4) Haematological cancer 7 (5.7) 1 (3.5) Head and neck cancer 8 (6.5) – Hepatobiliary cancer 8 (6.5) 1 (3.5) Lung cancer 26 (21.0) 6 (20.7) Lymphoma 11 (8.9) 3 (10.4) Melanoma 4 (3.2) 2 (6.9) Neuroendrocine cancer 5 (4.0) 2 (6.9) Neurological cancer 4 (3.2) – Paediatric cancer 2 (1.6) 1 (3.5) Sarcoma 9 (7.3) 5 (17.2) Skin cancer 9 (7.3) 3 (10.4) Teenager and young adult cancer 2 (1.6) – Urological cancer 31 (25.0) 8 (27.6) Data given as number of mentors (%) One or more subspecialties per mentor Other specialties included cardiology (n = 1), haematology (n = 3), palliative medicine (n =2) and pneumonology (n = 1) cancer specialists surgical oncologists. Most students met with their mentor on Impact of Mentorship Programme three occasions which was also the median number of mentor- mentee meetings (IQR = 2). The mentorship programme generated a statistically significant improvement in students’ knowledge of the multidisciplinary team (3.2 vs. 4.0/5, p < 0.001) as well as the role of medical Student Interest (3.1 vs. 4.0/5, p < 0.001), surgical (2.8 vs. 3.4/5, p = 0.006) and clinical oncologists (2.9 vs. 3.8/5, p < 0.001) and their involve- Table 3 captures students’ self-reported interest in different ment in academia/research (3.2 vs. 4.0/5, p = 0.001) (Table 4). oncology sub-specialties and fields. Most students were Mentees’ interest in oncology remained unchanged. interested in medical oncology (78.5%) and academia/ research (68.4%) followed by surgical (64.6%) and Other Student-Reported Benefits (Qualitative clinical/radiation (57%) oncology. The most popular fields Feedback) of interest were haematological (81%), lung (72.2%) and gastrointestinal cancers (70.9%), while urological cancers Mentees reported several additional benefits from the mentor- (43.0%) gathered the least interest. ship programme in free text responses. We categorised those 1058 J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 Table 2 University affiliation, year of study and gender of all applicants all oncology specialties, the multidisciplinary team and cancer (n = 79) and mentees who completed the mentorship (n =30) research regardless of their allocated mentor’s specialization. a a Mentees report gaining valuable clinical experience and commu- Total applicants Mentees nication skills by observing the doctor-patient relationship and University the breaking of bad news. They also learned more about the Barts and the London 50 (63.3) 16 (53.3) management of cancer patients and became inspired and moti- Birmingham University 14 (17.7) 10 (33.3) vated to pursue a career in oncology. Clearly, there is no lack of King’s College London 15 (19.0) 4 (13.3) interest amongst students who are evidently drawn to all oncol- Year of study ogy specialties including academia and research, and are willing Year 1 28 (35.4) 7 (23.3) to engage in extracurricular teaching amongst their busy sched- Year 2 21 (26.6) 8 (26.7) ules. No increase in student interest in oncology was observed Year 3 19(24.1) 10(33.3) post-mentorship as students who applied for the programme al- Year 4 7 (8.9) 4 (13.3) ready had a strong interest in oncology from the start. Poor men- Intercalating 4 (5.1) 1 (3.3) tor, and placement, availability are significant factors that limit Gender undergraduate medical students’ exposure to oncology as dem- Male 24 (30.4) 10 (33.3) onstrated by low mentor uptake (23.4%) to participate in this Female 55 (69.6) 20 (66.7) programme which was most pronounced at KCL where only four out of 39 contacted professionals agreed to become mentors. Data given as number of students (%) Differences in mentor availability across insitutions could poten- tially be explained by the variation in service demands in geo- into certain thematic axes stated on Table 5. Moreover, 28 graphical regions, with physicians based at high-demand oncol- (93.3%) students believed that this programme has made them ogy centres less likely to be able to dedicate time to this type of a better medical student or future doctor and 29 (96.7%) re- extracurricular teaching. ported that they would have chosen to do it again. Significance of Findings Discussion The growing global demand for oncologists to join the workforce underscores the necessity of early undergraduate oncology teach- Findings ing. Nationally, students advocate for more clinical exposure to oncology, increased teaching hours, more diverse coverage of The mentorship aimed to increase medical students’ exposure of cancer topics and more clinical skills teaching focusing on break- oncology specialties. Results demonstrate a statistically signifi- ing bad news and communicating with terminally ill patients. cant increase in students’ self-reported knowledge surrounding Our findings address these issues and are consistent with previ- ous research showing that early mentorships significantly impact Table 3 Declared specialty and field of interest of all applicants (n =79) and mentees who completed the mentorship (n =30) career selection, career success, research productivity and student wellbeing whilst improving academic inclusivity of students a a Total applicants Mentees from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds and narrowing the sex gap [16, 17, 25–32]. We also demonstrate the effective- Specialty of interest ness of student-led societies in increasing student accessibility to Medical oncology 62 (78.5) 25 (83.3) mentors, ultimately serving as an important motivational, net- Clinical/radiation oncology 45 (57.0) 18 (60.0) working and educational resource. Surgical oncology 51 (64.6) 16 (53.3) Academia/research in oncology 54 (68.4) 24 (80.0) Recommendations Field of interest Breast cancers 52 (65.8) 17 (56.7) Our findings testify to the value of undergraduate societies in Gastrointestinal cancers 56 (70.9) 22 (73.3) creating student to faculty connections which in turn improve Gynaecological cancers 43 (54.4) 14 (46.7) students’ career prospectus, research productivity, but also their Haematological cancers 64 (81.0) 23 (76.7) wellbeing, since effective communication skills have been Head and neck cancers 44 (55.7) 14 (46.7) shown to be a cost effective way of preventing physician burnout Lung cancers 57 (72.2) 22 (73.3) [33–35]. Increasing students’ oncology exposure is a compelling Urological cancers 34 (43.0) 15 (50.0) strategy to prevent specialty attrition by inspiring a future gener- Data given as number of students (%) ation of holistically qualified oncologists who are interested in One or more selected by students spearheading laboratory and clinical research innovations J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 1059 Table 4 Comparison of mentees’ Question Pre- Post- p value responses from pre- and post- a a mentorship mentorship mentorship questionnaires (n = 30) Rate your interest in oncology 4.7 ± 0.5 4.7 ± 0.5 0.738 Rate your knowledge of the following: Members of the multidisciplinary team in oncology 3.2 ± 0.6 4.0 ± 0.8 < 0.001* services The role of medical oncologists 3.1 ± 0.8 4.0 ± 0.8 < 0.001* The role of surgical oncologists 2.8 ± 0.9 3.4 ± 1.1 0.006 The role of clinical oncologists 2.9 ± 0.7 3.8 ± 1.1 < 0.001 The involvement of oncologists in academia/research 3.2 ± 0.8 4.0 ± 0.8 0.001* Data is reported as the mean value of the Likert score ± standard deviation p value obtained from WSR test analysis between pre- and post-mentorship questionnaires *Inneffective pairing as determined by Spearman correlation coefficient (one-tailed); p value confirmed on MWU test analysis between pre- and post-mentorship questionnaires [36–38]. Hence, we advocate for more widespread adoption and students in addition to being the first UK report of an under- proactive use of student-led oncology societies in UK medical graduate oncology society–led mentorship initiative. The schools. Agarwal et al. at Boston University School of Medicine, strengths of this study include the multi-institutional provides a detailed model for other medical schools to initiate representability of findings across several medical schools, their own student oncology societies [24]. Further to this, our and the variety of oncological specialties and subspecialties report provides a structured model for setting up mentorship examined, providing valuable insight into students’ interests programmes through student interest groups (Fig. 1). and the benefits of oncology mentoring in different settings. Limitations Strengths Limitations to this study include limited sample size, largely To our knowledge, this is the first UK-reported data on the due to restricted mentor availability. Also, those are results value of oncology mentoring for undergraduate medical from a pilot study where questionnaire validation was not possible. Increases in students’ self-reported knowledge of oncology post mentorship, albeit corroborated by qualitative Table 5 Mentees’ free text responses to qualitative feedback in post- feedback to open response questions, was not validated by an mentorship questionnaire (n =30) objective method of assessment and therefore positive chang- Question Mentees es could have been influenced by response acquiescence or acceptance bias which lead students to provide a higher esti- What is the most important thing you gained from this programme? mate of their knowledge in the post-mentorship questionnaire. Clinical experience 10 (33.3) Communication skills 9 (30.0) Future Endeaveours Learn about cancer patient management 5 (16.7) Connect with mentors 4 (13.3) We plan to introduce this mentorship programme nationally Familiarise with breaking bad news 4 (13.3) across all UK universities. This would allow a larger sample Insight into multidisciplinary team 4 (13.3) size and increase the amplitude of our results, allowing sub- Insight into research (including clinical trials) 4 (13.3) group analysis by university, allocated mentorship specialty Inspired and motivated 3 (10.0) and subspecialty. Organising 3 mentorship cycles per academ- Observe doctor-patient relationship 3 (10.0) ic year at each university would also aid in increasing mentee Research opportunity 3 (10.0) capacity. Enabling students to rotate on several specialties Academic, research or career advice 3 (10.0) would provide a more holistic experience, while providing Insight into oncologists’ work 2 (6.7) students with an outcome-based logbook would benefit them Confirm career aspiration 1 (3.3) in structuring their learning. Extending students’ placement is Consolidate textbook learning 1 (3.3) also desirable according to mentees’ feedback in free text re- Data given as number of students (%) sponses. Measuring students’ knowledge by an objective assess- One or more responses per student ment, such as a multiple-choice question test, before and after the 1060 J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 Ethical Approval This study did not require ethical approval as it was programme would have been a better means to assess improve- held as part of an extracurricular teaching programme organised by un- ments in oncology knowledge. Long-term effects of such men- dergraduate oncology societies of UK medical schools. torship programmes on influencing students’ specialty selection can be investigated by following up mentees’ specialty training Code Availability Not applicable. pathway in the future. Further research into understanding the motivations of mentors, their reasons for participating in the pro- Consent to Participate Not applicable. gramme as well as any issues that may discourage their partici- Consent to Publish Not applicable pation may help address the obstacles faced with mentor recruit- ment and allow for broadening of the programme if more men- tors can be recruited. Appendix 1 Template email for mentor recruitment Conclusion Dear Dr. [insert potential mentor’sname], In summary, findings herein demonstrate the effectiveness of I am contacting you on behalf of [insert oncology society undergraduate oncology mentoring as an educational, network- name], a student-led society for medical students at [insert ing and motivational tool with medical student mentees reporting medical school name]. Our aim is to help medical students a statistically significant increase in self-reported knowledge in engage with oncology and increase awareness of the opportu- all areas of oncology examined. Students’ interest and desire to nities for research and clinical practice in this field. engage in oncology research and clinical exposure is largely We are organising a mentorship scheme to allow medical unmet by restricted mentor, and placement, availability. Further students to gain more exposure and insight into oncology from efforts should be made to increase oncology-related placement an early stage in their training. Students will be able to shadow availability, teaching exposure and research opportunities for oncologists in clinic, hospital and research settings with aim to medical students within undergraduate medical curricula and ex- cover the following four domains: tracurricular settings. Student societies are a valuable asset in cultivating student interest in oncology due to their ability to & Medical oncology connect students to faculty members thus increasing students’ & Clinical oncology accessibility to mentors. Further research should focus on devel- & Surgical oncology oping an optimal structure for mentorships and evaluating the & Academic/clinical research oncology long-term outcomes of such educational initiatives. Students will apply formally for this scheme, applications Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary will be screened, and students will be assigned to mentors material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01919-7. based on compatibility of interests. We would like to ask if you would be willing to take on 1–2 Availability of Data and Materials The questionnaires used and analysed students as your mentees for a period of 6 weeks sometime during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. between [insert months and year over which mentorship cycle with take place]. Mentees and mentors may choose to main- Authors’ Contributions K.R. has contributed in the conception and de- tain their working relationship after this 6-week period. We sign of the work, data collection, data analysis and interpretation, drafting hope interested students may even get the opportunity to par- the article and final approval of the version to be published. A.W. has ticipate in research. contributed in data collection and final approval of the version to be published. S.H. has contributed in data collection and final approval of If you are interested in being a mentor, please reply to this the version to be published. A.S. has contributed in data collection and email and I can forward you further details. We will need your final approval of the version to be published. C.C. has contributed in data timetable availability for a 6-week period and a contact num- collection and final approval of the version to be published. M.S. has ber for students to get in touch with you. contributed in data collection and final approval of the version to be published. T.F.W. has contributed in data collection and final approval We would be very grateful for your help in this project. of the version to be published. A.A.C. has contributed in data collection Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any and final approval of the version to be published. S.P./A.P./M.C.S. have questions. contributed equally in the design of the work, data interpretation, drafting Kind regards, the article and final approval of the version to be published. [insert full name of committee member mentorship coordinator]. Compliance with Ethical Standards [insert role of committee member in named oncology Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing society] interests. J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 1061 Appendix 2 Mentorship sign-up student application 6 1062 J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 Appendix 3 Pre-mentorship questionnaire J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 1063 Appendix 4 Post-mentorship questionnaire. 1064 J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 References 1. Ahmad AS, Ormiston-Smith N, Sasieni PD (2015) Trends in the lifetime risk of developing cancer in Great Britain: comparison of risk for those born from 1930 to 1960. Br J Cancer 112:943–947 2. Clinical oncology UK workforce census 2017. Clin Oncol 2017:41 3. Erikson C, Salsberg E, Forte G, Bruinooge S, Goldstein M (2007) Future supply and demand for oncologists: challenges to assuring access to oncology services. J Oncol Pract 3:79–86 4. Mattes MD, Patel KR, Burt LM, Hirsch AE (2016) A nationwide medical student assessment of oncology education. J Cancer Educ Off J Am Assoc Cancer Educ 31:679–686 5. Dennis KEB, Duncan G (2010) Radiation oncology in undergrad- uate medical education: a literature review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 76:649–655 6. Barton MB, Bell P, Sabesan S, Koczwara B (2006) What should doctors know about cancer? Undergraduate medical education from a societal perspective. Lancet Oncol 7:596–601 7. Haagedoorn EM, De Vries J, Robinson E (2000) The UICC/WHO- CCCE Cancer Education project: a different approach. J Cancer Educ Off J Am Assoc Cancer Educ 15:204–208 8. George M, Mandaliya H, Prawira A (2017) A survey of medical oncology training in Australian medical schools: pilot study. JMIR Med Educ 3:e23 9. Neeley BC, Golden DW, Brower JV, Braunstein SE, Hirsch AE, Mattes MD (2019) Student perspectives on oncology curricula at United States medical schools. J Cancer Educ Off J Am Assoc Cancer Educ 34:56–58 10. Oskvarek J, Braunstein S, Farnan J, Ferguson MK, Hahn O, Henderson T, Hong S, Levine S, Rosenberg CA, Golden DW (2016) Medical student knowledge of oncology and related disci- plines: a targeted needs assessment. J Cancer Educ Off J Am Assoc Cancer Educ 31:529–532 11. Mann MP (1992) Faculty mentors for medical students: a critical review. Med Teach 14:311–319 12. Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marušić A (2006) Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA 296:1103–1115 13. Luckhaupt SE, Chin MH, Mangione CM, Phillips RS, Bell D, Leonard AC, Tsevat J (2005) Mentorship in academic general in- ternal medicine. J Gen Intern Med 20:1014–1018 14. Illes J, Glover GH, Wexler L, Leung ANC, Glazer GM (2000) A model for faculty mentoring in academic radiology. Acad Radiol 7: 717–724 15. Ramondetta LM, Bodurka DC, Tortolero-Luna G, Gordinier M, Wolf JK, Gershenson DM et al (2003) Mentorship and productivity among gynecologic oncology fellows. J Cancer Educ Off J Am Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary AssocCancer Educ18:15–19 material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01919-7. 16. DeNunzio N, Parekh A, Hirsch AE (2010) Mentoring medical stu- dents in radiation oncology. J Am Coll Radiol 7:722–728 17. Holliday EB, Jagsi R, Thomas CR, Wilson LD, Fuller CD (2014) Standing on the shoulders of giants: results from the radiation on- Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons cology academic development and mentorship assessment project Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, (ROADMAP). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 88:18–24 adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the 18. Hirsch AE, Agarwal A, Rand AE, DeNunzio NJ, Patel KR, Truong source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if MT et al (2015) Medical student mentorship in radiation oncology changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article at a single academic institution: a 10-year analysis. Pract Radiat are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated Oncol 5:e163–e168 otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the 19. McKee ND, McKague MA, Ramsden VR, Poole RE (2007) article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not Cultivating interest in family medicine. Can Fam Physician 53: permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will 661–665 need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a 20. Peota C (2014) Internal medicine incubator. An internal medicine copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. interest group helps students explore career possibilities. Minn Med 97:8–9 21. Jalalat SZ, Hunter-Ellul L, Wagner RF (2013) Medical student dermatology interest groups. Clin Dermatol 31:656–660 J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 1065 22. Li R, Buxey K, Ashrafi A, Drummond KJ (2013) Assessment of the at US academic institutions: a benchmark analysis. J Cancer Educ Off J Am Assoc Cancer Educ 28:541–546 role of a student-led surgical interest Group in Surgical Education. J Surg Educ 70:55–58 33. Leal-Costa C, Díaz-Agea JL, Tirado-González S, Rodríguez-Marín 23. Sanderson B, Funston G (2015) A novel international initiative to J, van-der Hofstadt CJ (2015) Communication skills: a preventive promote academic oncology amongst medical students. Med Teach factor in burnout syndrome in health professionals. An Sist Sanit 37:98–98 Navar 38:213–223 24. Agarwal A, Shah A, Byler S, Hirsch AE (2017) Cultivating interest 34. Rodríguez-Rey R, Palacios A, Alonso-Tapia J (2019) Training in in oncology through a medical student oncology society. J Cancer communication skills, end-of-life care, and coping strategies as the Educ Off J Am Assoc Cancer Educ 32:31–34 key to preventing burnout in clinicians. Aust Crit Care Off J Confed 25. Stamm M, Buddeberg-Fischer B (2011) The impact of mentoring Aust Crit Care Nurses 32:277–278 during postgraduate training on doctors’ career success. Med Educ 35. Darban F, Balouchi A, Narouipour A, Safarzaei E, Shahdadi H 45:488–496 (2016) Effect of communication skills training on the burnout of 26. Frei E, Stamm M, Buddeberg-Fischer B (2010) Mentoring pro- nurses: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Diagn Res JCDR 10:IC01– grams for medical students - a review of the PubMed literature IC04 2000–2008. BMC Med Educ 10:32 36. Theodoulou I, Sideris M, Lawal K, Nicolaides M, Dedeilia A, Emin 27. Thakur A, Fedorka P, Ko C, Buchmiller-Crair TL, Atkinson JB, EI, Tsoulfas G, Papalois V, Velmahos G, Papalois A (2020) Fonkalsrud EW (2001) Impact of mentor guidance in surgical ca- Retrospective qualitative study evaluating the application of IG4 reer selection. J Pediatr Surg 36:1802–1804 curriculum: an adaptable concept for holistic surgical education. 28. Debenham B, Banerjee R, Fairchild A, Dundas G, Trotter T, Yee D BMJ Open 10:e033181 (2012) 2009 Canadian radiation oncology resident survey. Int J 37. Sideris M, Papalois A, Theodoraki K, Dimitropoulos I, Johnson Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:1326–1331 EO, Georgopoulou E-M et al (2017) Promoting undergraduate sur- 29. Steiner JF, Lanphear BP, Curtis P, Vu KO (2002) Indicators of gical education: current evidence and students’ views on ESMSC early research productivity among primary care fellows. J Gen international wet lab course. J Investig Surg Off J Acad Surg Res Intern Med 17:854–860 30:71–77 30. Dorrance KA, Denton GD, Proemba J, La Rochelle J, Nasir J, 38. Sideris M, Nicolaides M, Theodoulou I, Emin EI, Hanrahan JG, Argyros G et al (2008) An internal medicine interest group research Dedeilia A et al (2020) Student views on a novel holistic surgical program can improve scholarly productivity of medical students education curriculum (iG4): a multi-national survey in a changing and foster mentoring relationships with internists. Teach Learn landscape. Vivo Athens Greece 34:1063–1069 Med 20:163–167 31. Zier K, Friedman E, Smith L (2006) Supportive programs increase medical students’ research interest and productivity. J Investig Med Publisher’sNote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris- Off Publ Am Fed Clin Res 54:201–207 dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 32. Rana S, Holliday EB, Jagsi R, Wilson LD, Choi M, Thomas CR et al (2013) Scholastic activity among radiation oncology residents Affiliations 1,2 1,2 1,2 2 3 3 Kathrine S. Rallis & Anna Wozniak & Sara Hui & Adam Stammer & Cigdem Cinar & Min Sun & 3 4 5 6 7 Taylor Fulton-Ward & Alison A. Clarke & Savvas Papagrigoriadis & Apostolos Papalois & Michail Ch. Sideris 1 4 Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Guy’s, King’s and St Thomas’ School of Medicine, King’sCollege London, UK London, London, UK 2 5 Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen International Society for Pelvic Surgery, Athens, Greece Mary University of London, London, UK Experimental Educational and Research Centre ELPEN, Birmingham Medical School, University of Birmingham, Athens, Greece Birmingham, UK Women’s Health Research Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Cancer Education Springer Journals

Mentoring Medical Students Towards Oncology: Results from a Pilot Multi-institutional Mentorship Programme

Download PDF
13 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/mentoring-medical-students-towards-oncology-results-from-a-pilot-multi-vAYeurIs80

References (43)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020
ISSN
0885-8195
eISSN
1543-0154
DOI
10.1007/s13187-020-01919-7
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The mounting global cancer burden has generated an increasing demand for oncologists to join the workforce. Yet, students report limited oncology exposure in undergraduate medical curricula, while undergraduate oncology mentorships remain underutilised. We established an undergraduate oncology society–led mentorship programme aimed at medical students across several UK universities to increase medical student oncology exposure. We electronically recruited and paired oncologist mentors and medical student mentees and distributed a dedicated questionnaire (pre- and post-mentorship) to compare mentees’ self-reported cancer specialty knowledge and oncology career motivation after undertaking a 6-week mentorship. We also determined students’ interest across specialties and subspecialties and measured mentor availability via percentage programme uptake. Statistical analysis included univariate inferential tests on SPSS software. Twentynine (23.4%) of 124 oncology special- ists agreed to become mentors. The mentorship was completed by 30 students across three medical schools: 16 (53.3%) Barts, 10 (33.3%) Birmingham, and 4 (13.3%) King’s; 11 (36.7%) mentored by medical oncologists, 10 (33.3%) by clinical/radiation oncologists, and 9 (30%) by surgical oncologists. The mentorship generated a statically significant increase in students’ knowl- edge of the multidisciplinary team and all oncology-related specialties including academia/research but not interest towards a career in oncology. Undergraduate oncology mentoring is an effective educational, networking and motivational tool for medical students. Student societies are a valuable asset in cultivating medical student oncology interest by connecting students to faculty and increasing mentor accessibility. Further research should focus on developing an optimal mentorship structure and evaluating long-term outcomes of such educational initiatives. Highlights of this study � To our knowledge, this is the first UK-reported data on the value of oncology mentoring for undergraduate medical students in addition to being the first UK report of an undergraduate oncology society–led mentorship initiative. � Data collection represented several institutions throughout the UK and encompassed various different oncology specialties and subspecialties, providing valuable insight into students’ interest and the benefits of oncology mentoring in different settings. � Our mentorship programme was successful in increasing medical students’ self-reported knowledge towards all oncology specialties re- gardless of their allocated mentor’sspecialisation. � Future work should focus on generating more opportunities for medical students to be exposed to oncology specialties; forming outcome-based guidelines for structured, systematic mentoring that will enhance its benefits; and evaluating long-term outcomes of such educational initiatives. * Kathrine S. Rallis k.s.rallis@smd16.qmul.ac.uk Extended author information available on the last page of the article 1054 J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 . . . . Keywords UK medical students Mentoring Undergraduate oncology society Undergraduate medical education Undergraduate oncology teaching Surveys and questionnaires Background 2019, all known undergraduate oncology societies in UK medical schools, equivalent to student oncology interest Cancer remains a leading cause of premature death in the UK groups reported in Canadian and USA medical schools, were with one in two born after 1960 expected to be diagnosed with contacted via social media and email, and invited to set-up a cancer during their lifetime [1]. The emerging cancer burden mentorship programme at their university (September 2019). has inevitably exerted substantial strain on the United Where a medical school did not have an established under- Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) generating graduate oncology society, an undergraduate medical society an increasing demand for oncologist to join the workforce. or medical student representative was contacted instead. This growing demand for oncologists has largely exceeded supply of trainees, evident by the threefold increase in vacant Mentors clinical oncologist consultant posts in 2017 [2]. Indeed, the total number of trainees predicted to enter the workforce in the Medical, clinical/radiation and surgical oncologists who had next 5 years will not fill these vacant posts, a concerning completed their specialty training and were senior registrars, figure attesting to the necessity for further action [2, 3]. consultants or academics based at university teaching hospi- Meanwhile, studies globally report limited exposure to on- tals or research institutes were identified via online search of cology specialties in undergraduate medical education curric- NHS Trust and UK Cancer Institute staff directories, few rec- ula [4–7], student teaching dissatisfaction with their oncology ommended by personal affiliation, and contacted by email education [8] and lack of confidence with oncology care [4, 9, (Appendix 1) requesting their participation as mentors and 10]. Furthermore, although medical mentorships confer nota- outlining the potential environments (clinic, hospital and re- ble benefits for both mentors and mentees, and are an search setting) and domains (medical oncology, clinical on- established medical educational tool at trainee level [11–15], cology, surgical oncology and academic/clinical research on- mentorships for undergraduate medical students are limited cology) in which mentees and mentors could engage in. Of and predominantly restricted to surgery, general medicine those agreeing to participate, we requested their weekly time- and emergency medicine [16–18]. table availability for distribution to their allocated mentee. Notably, student interest groups, also known as undergrad- uate student societies, have been shown to offer valuable ben- Mentees efits in fostering early career interest by building student- faculty mentorship relations and encouraging field-specific Oncology societies advertised the mentorship programme research, as demonstrated by their effectiveness across several to medical students at their university via mailing list and medical specialties including oncology [16, 18–24]. social media as well as formal university channels in- Nevertheless, further work is necessary to connect medical cluding year groups and newsletter. Electronic applica- students to oncology faculty mentors [24]. tions were received over a 10-day period. Successful ap- Therefore, we aimed to increase medical students’ expo- plicants were determined by ranking according to objec- sure to oncology specialties, including medical, clinical/ tive scoring of de-identified personal statements by two radiation and surgical oncology, through a 6-week undergrad- independent student coordinators. A maximum of five uate oncology society–led mentorship programme aimed at points was allocated in each of the four domains includ- both pre-clinical and clinical year medical students across ing (a) insight into oncology career, (b) motivation, (c) several UK universities. previous experience and (d) signs of interest. Applicants with the highest sum of scores across both assessors (maximum 40 points) secured a mentor until no more places were left. The applicants who ranked lower and Methods did not secure a mentor were not accepted onto the programme. Participants Undergraduate Oncology Societies Mentorship (Intervention) Following an initial pilot mentorship programme set-up by Each mentorship cycle ran over approximately 6 weeks during Barts and The London (BL) Oncology Society in January which period mentees were instructed to meet their mentor on J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 1055 at least three occasions to attain a certificate of completion. questionnaire was disseminated to student mentees at the Mentees were required to submit an electronic pre-mentorship end of the 6-week period. Students who did not complete questionnaire prior to receiving their mentors’ contact details. the post-mentorship questionnaire were personally contacted Mentor-mentee pairing was determined by mentor availability up to three times via email to enquire why they had not done and students’ declared interest on their application. Mentees so. An extension was given to any student requiring additional were emailed their mentors’ contact information, career de- time to meet their mentor. A new allocation cycle was to scription, timetable availability and hospital location with fur- commence when students had finished their 6-week mentor- ther instructions. Students were encouraged to reflect on their ship and mentors had become once again available for alloca- experience and submit an optional reflective piece for a tion to a subsequent pool of student mentee applicants (Fig. 1). chance at winning a book-prize award. The instructions pro- videdtomentors andmentees (Appendix 1 and 2, Questionnaires (Intervention) respectively) were the same across all sites and specialties and ensured a relative uniformity of placements. These ex- Questionnaires were designed and compared with avail- plained the aim of the programme, expectations, timeline able ones in the literature. Discussions between research and offered examples of settings in which students could shad- team members contributed to the final questionnaire com- ow mentors. There was no strict curriculum as we ponents and design. The pre- and post-mentorship ques- endeavoured to allow flexibility for students to direct their tionnaires (Appendix 3 and 4, respectively) assessed stu- learning according to their interests and aimed to tailor oppor- dents’ responses in two domains including their perceived tunities across the different sites. This primarily depended on oncology-related interest and knowledge, while a third mentor allocation and local facilities. The post-mentorship and fourth section focused on reflection and feedback. Fig. 1 Structured model for setting up a student mentorship programme through a student interest group outlining the process of mentor recruitment and the student allocation cycle 1056 J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 The pre-mentorship questionnaire compromised of nine Statistical Analysis questions: six on a five-point Likert scale, two multiple choice and one free text response; whereas the post- Statistical analysis was completed on IBM SPSS Statistics mentorship questionnaire compromised of 17 questions: software for Mac, Version 26. Descriptive statistics were used seven on a five-point Likert scale: six identical to pre- to analyse demographics, student interest and feedback. mentorship questionnaires, four multiple choice and six Following assessment of data distributions, we used free text response. The sign-up application (Appendix 2) Wilcoxon signed-rank (WSR) test for paired associations sup- gathered information pertaining to students’ demo- plemented by Mann-Whitney U (MWU) test for ineffectively graphics, including their year of study, as well as their paired groups as determined by Spearman correlation coeffi- oncological specialty and subject of interest using multi- cient (one-tailed). p value less than 0.05 was considered as ple choice and free response questions. statistically significant. Comparisons Results We compared responses across student demographics includ- Demographics ing gender, medical school and year of study. We also com- pared responses across different specialty of interest (i.e. med- Undergraduate Oncology Societies ical, clinical/radiation or surgical oncology) and subject (e.g. gastrointestinal, gynaecological, haematological cancers etc.) Forty-two medical schools, including 20 undergraduate on- of mentoring placement. Finally, we compared students’ per- cology societies, were contacted for joining the study ceived oncology-related interest and knowledge pre- and post- (Supplementary Table 1). In addition to BL, five undergradu- mentorship. ate oncology societies agreed to participate, though only two successfully established a mentorship programme including Kings College London (KCL) and University of Outcomes Birmingham Medical School (UBMS) Oncology Societies. The three societies that did not succeed in establishing a The effectiveness of the mentorship programme as an educa- mentor programme either withdrew interest due to time tional, networking and motivational tool was measured by restraints of committee members, postponed the pro- assessing for a significant change (p < 0.05) in students’ gramme for the next academic year or cancelled the pro- pre-/post-mentorship responses to Likert scale questions in gramme before it began due to coronavirus disease 2019 addition to evaluating free text responses. (COVID-19) lockdown measures and concerns. Three mentorship allocation cycles were carried out successfully at BL, one at KCL and one at UBMS. Procedures to Minimize Bias Mentors Questionnaires were piloted in a small group of medical stu- dents before being reviewed and launched to ensure questions Out of a total of 124 potential mentors contacted and asked to were unambiguous and phrasing did not generate responder participate in the mentorship programme across all three NHS bias. Foundation Trusts, only 29 (23.4%) agreed to participate. Table 1 shows a breakdown of mentors’ specialties, subspe- cialties and NHS Trust affiliation. Data Collection Mentees All surveys were conducted via a standardised, web- based, data collection form (Google Form, Google, We received 79 applications out of which 43 (54%) students Alphabet Inc.). Responses were saved to a password- were accepted onto the programme by ranking high enough to protected Excel file. Regarding free text responses (qual- secure a mentor, completing the pre-mentorship question- itative data), K.R. proceeded to a pilot thematic analysis; naire, and 30 (70%) successfully completed the mentorship, this resulted in discrete thematic axes. These thematic responding to the post-mentorship questionnaire. Table 2 axes were revised by the senior author of the study to summarises students’ demographics. Eleven (36.7%) students ensure data accuracy and any discrepancy was resolved were mentored by medical oncologists, 10 (33.3%) were mentored by clinical/radiation oncologists and 9 (30%) by through discussion. J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 1057 Table 1 NHS Trust affiliation, a a Contacted Mentors Confirmed Mentors specialty and subspecialty of all contacted (n =124) and NHS Foundation Trust confirmed (n =29) mentors Barts Health 36 (29.0) 12 (41.4) University Hospitals Birmingham 49 (39.5) 13 (44.8) King’s College Hospital 39 (31.5) 4 (13.8) Specialty Medical Oncology 56 (45.5) 11 (37.9) Clinical/Radiation Oncology 29 (23.6) 8 (27.6) Surgical Oncology 31 (24.4) 10 (34.5) Other* 7 (5.7) – Subspecialty Bone cancer 1 (0.8) – Brain cancer 5 (4.0) 2 (6.9) Breast cancer 40 (32.3) 7 (24.1) Colorectal cancer 13 (10.5) 6 (20.7) Gastrointestinal cancer 21 (16.9) 4 (13.8) Germ cell tumours 3 (2.4) – Gynaecological cancer 15 (12.1) 3 (10.4) Haematological cancer 7 (5.7) 1 (3.5) Head and neck cancer 8 (6.5) – Hepatobiliary cancer 8 (6.5) 1 (3.5) Lung cancer 26 (21.0) 6 (20.7) Lymphoma 11 (8.9) 3 (10.4) Melanoma 4 (3.2) 2 (6.9) Neuroendrocine cancer 5 (4.0) 2 (6.9) Neurological cancer 4 (3.2) – Paediatric cancer 2 (1.6) 1 (3.5) Sarcoma 9 (7.3) 5 (17.2) Skin cancer 9 (7.3) 3 (10.4) Teenager and young adult cancer 2 (1.6) – Urological cancer 31 (25.0) 8 (27.6) Data given as number of mentors (%) One or more subspecialties per mentor Other specialties included cardiology (n = 1), haematology (n = 3), palliative medicine (n =2) and pneumonology (n = 1) cancer specialists surgical oncologists. Most students met with their mentor on Impact of Mentorship Programme three occasions which was also the median number of mentor- mentee meetings (IQR = 2). The mentorship programme generated a statistically significant improvement in students’ knowledge of the multidisciplinary team (3.2 vs. 4.0/5, p < 0.001) as well as the role of medical Student Interest (3.1 vs. 4.0/5, p < 0.001), surgical (2.8 vs. 3.4/5, p = 0.006) and clinical oncologists (2.9 vs. 3.8/5, p < 0.001) and their involve- Table 3 captures students’ self-reported interest in different ment in academia/research (3.2 vs. 4.0/5, p = 0.001) (Table 4). oncology sub-specialties and fields. Most students were Mentees’ interest in oncology remained unchanged. interested in medical oncology (78.5%) and academia/ research (68.4%) followed by surgical (64.6%) and Other Student-Reported Benefits (Qualitative clinical/radiation (57%) oncology. The most popular fields Feedback) of interest were haematological (81%), lung (72.2%) and gastrointestinal cancers (70.9%), while urological cancers Mentees reported several additional benefits from the mentor- (43.0%) gathered the least interest. ship programme in free text responses. We categorised those 1058 J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 Table 2 University affiliation, year of study and gender of all applicants all oncology specialties, the multidisciplinary team and cancer (n = 79) and mentees who completed the mentorship (n =30) research regardless of their allocated mentor’s specialization. a a Mentees report gaining valuable clinical experience and commu- Total applicants Mentees nication skills by observing the doctor-patient relationship and University the breaking of bad news. They also learned more about the Barts and the London 50 (63.3) 16 (53.3) management of cancer patients and became inspired and moti- Birmingham University 14 (17.7) 10 (33.3) vated to pursue a career in oncology. Clearly, there is no lack of King’s College London 15 (19.0) 4 (13.3) interest amongst students who are evidently drawn to all oncol- Year of study ogy specialties including academia and research, and are willing Year 1 28 (35.4) 7 (23.3) to engage in extracurricular teaching amongst their busy sched- Year 2 21 (26.6) 8 (26.7) ules. No increase in student interest in oncology was observed Year 3 19(24.1) 10(33.3) post-mentorship as students who applied for the programme al- Year 4 7 (8.9) 4 (13.3) ready had a strong interest in oncology from the start. Poor men- Intercalating 4 (5.1) 1 (3.3) tor, and placement, availability are significant factors that limit Gender undergraduate medical students’ exposure to oncology as dem- Male 24 (30.4) 10 (33.3) onstrated by low mentor uptake (23.4%) to participate in this Female 55 (69.6) 20 (66.7) programme which was most pronounced at KCL where only four out of 39 contacted professionals agreed to become mentors. Data given as number of students (%) Differences in mentor availability across insitutions could poten- tially be explained by the variation in service demands in geo- into certain thematic axes stated on Table 5. Moreover, 28 graphical regions, with physicians based at high-demand oncol- (93.3%) students believed that this programme has made them ogy centres less likely to be able to dedicate time to this type of a better medical student or future doctor and 29 (96.7%) re- extracurricular teaching. ported that they would have chosen to do it again. Significance of Findings Discussion The growing global demand for oncologists to join the workforce underscores the necessity of early undergraduate oncology teach- Findings ing. Nationally, students advocate for more clinical exposure to oncology, increased teaching hours, more diverse coverage of The mentorship aimed to increase medical students’ exposure of cancer topics and more clinical skills teaching focusing on break- oncology specialties. Results demonstrate a statistically signifi- ing bad news and communicating with terminally ill patients. cant increase in students’ self-reported knowledge surrounding Our findings address these issues and are consistent with previ- ous research showing that early mentorships significantly impact Table 3 Declared specialty and field of interest of all applicants (n =79) and mentees who completed the mentorship (n =30) career selection, career success, research productivity and student wellbeing whilst improving academic inclusivity of students a a Total applicants Mentees from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds and narrowing the sex gap [16, 17, 25–32]. We also demonstrate the effective- Specialty of interest ness of student-led societies in increasing student accessibility to Medical oncology 62 (78.5) 25 (83.3) mentors, ultimately serving as an important motivational, net- Clinical/radiation oncology 45 (57.0) 18 (60.0) working and educational resource. Surgical oncology 51 (64.6) 16 (53.3) Academia/research in oncology 54 (68.4) 24 (80.0) Recommendations Field of interest Breast cancers 52 (65.8) 17 (56.7) Our findings testify to the value of undergraduate societies in Gastrointestinal cancers 56 (70.9) 22 (73.3) creating student to faculty connections which in turn improve Gynaecological cancers 43 (54.4) 14 (46.7) students’ career prospectus, research productivity, but also their Haematological cancers 64 (81.0) 23 (76.7) wellbeing, since effective communication skills have been Head and neck cancers 44 (55.7) 14 (46.7) shown to be a cost effective way of preventing physician burnout Lung cancers 57 (72.2) 22 (73.3) [33–35]. Increasing students’ oncology exposure is a compelling Urological cancers 34 (43.0) 15 (50.0) strategy to prevent specialty attrition by inspiring a future gener- Data given as number of students (%) ation of holistically qualified oncologists who are interested in One or more selected by students spearheading laboratory and clinical research innovations J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 1059 Table 4 Comparison of mentees’ Question Pre- Post- p value responses from pre- and post- a a mentorship mentorship mentorship questionnaires (n = 30) Rate your interest in oncology 4.7 ± 0.5 4.7 ± 0.5 0.738 Rate your knowledge of the following: Members of the multidisciplinary team in oncology 3.2 ± 0.6 4.0 ± 0.8 < 0.001* services The role of medical oncologists 3.1 ± 0.8 4.0 ± 0.8 < 0.001* The role of surgical oncologists 2.8 ± 0.9 3.4 ± 1.1 0.006 The role of clinical oncologists 2.9 ± 0.7 3.8 ± 1.1 < 0.001 The involvement of oncologists in academia/research 3.2 ± 0.8 4.0 ± 0.8 0.001* Data is reported as the mean value of the Likert score ± standard deviation p value obtained from WSR test analysis between pre- and post-mentorship questionnaires *Inneffective pairing as determined by Spearman correlation coefficient (one-tailed); p value confirmed on MWU test analysis between pre- and post-mentorship questionnaires [36–38]. Hence, we advocate for more widespread adoption and students in addition to being the first UK report of an under- proactive use of student-led oncology societies in UK medical graduate oncology society–led mentorship initiative. The schools. Agarwal et al. at Boston University School of Medicine, strengths of this study include the multi-institutional provides a detailed model for other medical schools to initiate representability of findings across several medical schools, their own student oncology societies [24]. Further to this, our and the variety of oncological specialties and subspecialties report provides a structured model for setting up mentorship examined, providing valuable insight into students’ interests programmes through student interest groups (Fig. 1). and the benefits of oncology mentoring in different settings. Limitations Strengths Limitations to this study include limited sample size, largely To our knowledge, this is the first UK-reported data on the due to restricted mentor availability. Also, those are results value of oncology mentoring for undergraduate medical from a pilot study where questionnaire validation was not possible. Increases in students’ self-reported knowledge of oncology post mentorship, albeit corroborated by qualitative Table 5 Mentees’ free text responses to qualitative feedback in post- feedback to open response questions, was not validated by an mentorship questionnaire (n =30) objective method of assessment and therefore positive chang- Question Mentees es could have been influenced by response acquiescence or acceptance bias which lead students to provide a higher esti- What is the most important thing you gained from this programme? mate of their knowledge in the post-mentorship questionnaire. Clinical experience 10 (33.3) Communication skills 9 (30.0) Future Endeaveours Learn about cancer patient management 5 (16.7) Connect with mentors 4 (13.3) We plan to introduce this mentorship programme nationally Familiarise with breaking bad news 4 (13.3) across all UK universities. This would allow a larger sample Insight into multidisciplinary team 4 (13.3) size and increase the amplitude of our results, allowing sub- Insight into research (including clinical trials) 4 (13.3) group analysis by university, allocated mentorship specialty Inspired and motivated 3 (10.0) and subspecialty. Organising 3 mentorship cycles per academ- Observe doctor-patient relationship 3 (10.0) ic year at each university would also aid in increasing mentee Research opportunity 3 (10.0) capacity. Enabling students to rotate on several specialties Academic, research or career advice 3 (10.0) would provide a more holistic experience, while providing Insight into oncologists’ work 2 (6.7) students with an outcome-based logbook would benefit them Confirm career aspiration 1 (3.3) in structuring their learning. Extending students’ placement is Consolidate textbook learning 1 (3.3) also desirable according to mentees’ feedback in free text re- Data given as number of students (%) sponses. Measuring students’ knowledge by an objective assess- One or more responses per student ment, such as a multiple-choice question test, before and after the 1060 J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 Ethical Approval This study did not require ethical approval as it was programme would have been a better means to assess improve- held as part of an extracurricular teaching programme organised by un- ments in oncology knowledge. Long-term effects of such men- dergraduate oncology societies of UK medical schools. torship programmes on influencing students’ specialty selection can be investigated by following up mentees’ specialty training Code Availability Not applicable. pathway in the future. Further research into understanding the motivations of mentors, their reasons for participating in the pro- Consent to Participate Not applicable. gramme as well as any issues that may discourage their partici- Consent to Publish Not applicable pation may help address the obstacles faced with mentor recruit- ment and allow for broadening of the programme if more men- tors can be recruited. Appendix 1 Template email for mentor recruitment Conclusion Dear Dr. [insert potential mentor’sname], In summary, findings herein demonstrate the effectiveness of I am contacting you on behalf of [insert oncology society undergraduate oncology mentoring as an educational, network- name], a student-led society for medical students at [insert ing and motivational tool with medical student mentees reporting medical school name]. Our aim is to help medical students a statistically significant increase in self-reported knowledge in engage with oncology and increase awareness of the opportu- all areas of oncology examined. Students’ interest and desire to nities for research and clinical practice in this field. engage in oncology research and clinical exposure is largely We are organising a mentorship scheme to allow medical unmet by restricted mentor, and placement, availability. Further students to gain more exposure and insight into oncology from efforts should be made to increase oncology-related placement an early stage in their training. Students will be able to shadow availability, teaching exposure and research opportunities for oncologists in clinic, hospital and research settings with aim to medical students within undergraduate medical curricula and ex- cover the following four domains: tracurricular settings. Student societies are a valuable asset in cultivating student interest in oncology due to their ability to & Medical oncology connect students to faculty members thus increasing students’ & Clinical oncology accessibility to mentors. Further research should focus on devel- & Surgical oncology oping an optimal structure for mentorships and evaluating the & Academic/clinical research oncology long-term outcomes of such educational initiatives. Students will apply formally for this scheme, applications Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary will be screened, and students will be assigned to mentors material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01919-7. based on compatibility of interests. We would like to ask if you would be willing to take on 1–2 Availability of Data and Materials The questionnaires used and analysed students as your mentees for a period of 6 weeks sometime during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. between [insert months and year over which mentorship cycle with take place]. Mentees and mentors may choose to main- Authors’ Contributions K.R. has contributed in the conception and de- tain their working relationship after this 6-week period. We sign of the work, data collection, data analysis and interpretation, drafting hope interested students may even get the opportunity to par- the article and final approval of the version to be published. A.W. has ticipate in research. contributed in data collection and final approval of the version to be published. S.H. has contributed in data collection and final approval of If you are interested in being a mentor, please reply to this the version to be published. A.S. has contributed in data collection and email and I can forward you further details. We will need your final approval of the version to be published. C.C. has contributed in data timetable availability for a 6-week period and a contact num- collection and final approval of the version to be published. M.S. has ber for students to get in touch with you. contributed in data collection and final approval of the version to be published. T.F.W. has contributed in data collection and final approval We would be very grateful for your help in this project. of the version to be published. A.A.C. has contributed in data collection Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any and final approval of the version to be published. S.P./A.P./M.C.S. have questions. contributed equally in the design of the work, data interpretation, drafting Kind regards, the article and final approval of the version to be published. [insert full name of committee member mentorship coordinator]. Compliance with Ethical Standards [insert role of committee member in named oncology Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing society] interests. J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 1061 Appendix 2 Mentorship sign-up student application 6 1062 J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 Appendix 3 Pre-mentorship questionnaire J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 1063 Appendix 4 Post-mentorship questionnaire. 1064 J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 References 1. Ahmad AS, Ormiston-Smith N, Sasieni PD (2015) Trends in the lifetime risk of developing cancer in Great Britain: comparison of risk for those born from 1930 to 1960. Br J Cancer 112:943–947 2. Clinical oncology UK workforce census 2017. Clin Oncol 2017:41 3. Erikson C, Salsberg E, Forte G, Bruinooge S, Goldstein M (2007) Future supply and demand for oncologists: challenges to assuring access to oncology services. J Oncol Pract 3:79–86 4. Mattes MD, Patel KR, Burt LM, Hirsch AE (2016) A nationwide medical student assessment of oncology education. J Cancer Educ Off J Am Assoc Cancer Educ 31:679–686 5. Dennis KEB, Duncan G (2010) Radiation oncology in undergrad- uate medical education: a literature review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 76:649–655 6. Barton MB, Bell P, Sabesan S, Koczwara B (2006) What should doctors know about cancer? Undergraduate medical education from a societal perspective. Lancet Oncol 7:596–601 7. Haagedoorn EM, De Vries J, Robinson E (2000) The UICC/WHO- CCCE Cancer Education project: a different approach. J Cancer Educ Off J Am Assoc Cancer Educ 15:204–208 8. George M, Mandaliya H, Prawira A (2017) A survey of medical oncology training in Australian medical schools: pilot study. JMIR Med Educ 3:e23 9. Neeley BC, Golden DW, Brower JV, Braunstein SE, Hirsch AE, Mattes MD (2019) Student perspectives on oncology curricula at United States medical schools. J Cancer Educ Off J Am Assoc Cancer Educ 34:56–58 10. Oskvarek J, Braunstein S, Farnan J, Ferguson MK, Hahn O, Henderson T, Hong S, Levine S, Rosenberg CA, Golden DW (2016) Medical student knowledge of oncology and related disci- plines: a targeted needs assessment. J Cancer Educ Off J Am Assoc Cancer Educ 31:529–532 11. Mann MP (1992) Faculty mentors for medical students: a critical review. Med Teach 14:311–319 12. Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marušić A (2006) Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA 296:1103–1115 13. Luckhaupt SE, Chin MH, Mangione CM, Phillips RS, Bell D, Leonard AC, Tsevat J (2005) Mentorship in academic general in- ternal medicine. J Gen Intern Med 20:1014–1018 14. Illes J, Glover GH, Wexler L, Leung ANC, Glazer GM (2000) A model for faculty mentoring in academic radiology. Acad Radiol 7: 717–724 15. Ramondetta LM, Bodurka DC, Tortolero-Luna G, Gordinier M, Wolf JK, Gershenson DM et al (2003) Mentorship and productivity among gynecologic oncology fellows. J Cancer Educ Off J Am Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary AssocCancer Educ18:15–19 material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01919-7. 16. DeNunzio N, Parekh A, Hirsch AE (2010) Mentoring medical stu- dents in radiation oncology. J Am Coll Radiol 7:722–728 17. Holliday EB, Jagsi R, Thomas CR, Wilson LD, Fuller CD (2014) Standing on the shoulders of giants: results from the radiation on- Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons cology academic development and mentorship assessment project Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, (ROADMAP). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 88:18–24 adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the 18. Hirsch AE, Agarwal A, Rand AE, DeNunzio NJ, Patel KR, Truong source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if MT et al (2015) Medical student mentorship in radiation oncology changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article at a single academic institution: a 10-year analysis. Pract Radiat are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated Oncol 5:e163–e168 otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the 19. McKee ND, McKague MA, Ramsden VR, Poole RE (2007) article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not Cultivating interest in family medicine. Can Fam Physician 53: permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will 661–665 need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a 20. Peota C (2014) Internal medicine incubator. An internal medicine copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. interest group helps students explore career possibilities. Minn Med 97:8–9 21. Jalalat SZ, Hunter-Ellul L, Wagner RF (2013) Medical student dermatology interest groups. Clin Dermatol 31:656–660 J Canc Educ (2022) 37:1053–1065 1065 22. Li R, Buxey K, Ashrafi A, Drummond KJ (2013) Assessment of the at US academic institutions: a benchmark analysis. J Cancer Educ Off J Am Assoc Cancer Educ 28:541–546 role of a student-led surgical interest Group in Surgical Education. J Surg Educ 70:55–58 33. Leal-Costa C, Díaz-Agea JL, Tirado-González S, Rodríguez-Marín 23. Sanderson B, Funston G (2015) A novel international initiative to J, van-der Hofstadt CJ (2015) Communication skills: a preventive promote academic oncology amongst medical students. Med Teach factor in burnout syndrome in health professionals. An Sist Sanit 37:98–98 Navar 38:213–223 24. Agarwal A, Shah A, Byler S, Hirsch AE (2017) Cultivating interest 34. Rodríguez-Rey R, Palacios A, Alonso-Tapia J (2019) Training in in oncology through a medical student oncology society. J Cancer communication skills, end-of-life care, and coping strategies as the Educ Off J Am Assoc Cancer Educ 32:31–34 key to preventing burnout in clinicians. Aust Crit Care Off J Confed 25. Stamm M, Buddeberg-Fischer B (2011) The impact of mentoring Aust Crit Care Nurses 32:277–278 during postgraduate training on doctors’ career success. Med Educ 35. Darban F, Balouchi A, Narouipour A, Safarzaei E, Shahdadi H 45:488–496 (2016) Effect of communication skills training on the burnout of 26. Frei E, Stamm M, Buddeberg-Fischer B (2010) Mentoring pro- nurses: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Diagn Res JCDR 10:IC01– grams for medical students - a review of the PubMed literature IC04 2000–2008. BMC Med Educ 10:32 36. Theodoulou I, Sideris M, Lawal K, Nicolaides M, Dedeilia A, Emin 27. Thakur A, Fedorka P, Ko C, Buchmiller-Crair TL, Atkinson JB, EI, Tsoulfas G, Papalois V, Velmahos G, Papalois A (2020) Fonkalsrud EW (2001) Impact of mentor guidance in surgical ca- Retrospective qualitative study evaluating the application of IG4 reer selection. J Pediatr Surg 36:1802–1804 curriculum: an adaptable concept for holistic surgical education. 28. Debenham B, Banerjee R, Fairchild A, Dundas G, Trotter T, Yee D BMJ Open 10:e033181 (2012) 2009 Canadian radiation oncology resident survey. Int J 37. Sideris M, Papalois A, Theodoraki K, Dimitropoulos I, Johnson Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:1326–1331 EO, Georgopoulou E-M et al (2017) Promoting undergraduate sur- 29. Steiner JF, Lanphear BP, Curtis P, Vu KO (2002) Indicators of gical education: current evidence and students’ views on ESMSC early research productivity among primary care fellows. J Gen international wet lab course. J Investig Surg Off J Acad Surg Res Intern Med 17:854–860 30:71–77 30. Dorrance KA, Denton GD, Proemba J, La Rochelle J, Nasir J, 38. Sideris M, Nicolaides M, Theodoulou I, Emin EI, Hanrahan JG, Argyros G et al (2008) An internal medicine interest group research Dedeilia A et al (2020) Student views on a novel holistic surgical program can improve scholarly productivity of medical students education curriculum (iG4): a multi-national survey in a changing and foster mentoring relationships with internists. Teach Learn landscape. Vivo Athens Greece 34:1063–1069 Med 20:163–167 31. Zier K, Friedman E, Smith L (2006) Supportive programs increase medical students’ research interest and productivity. J Investig Med Publisher’sNote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris- Off Publ Am Fed Clin Res 54:201–207 dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 32. Rana S, Holliday EB, Jagsi R, Wilson LD, Choi M, Thomas CR et al (2013) Scholastic activity among radiation oncology residents Affiliations 1,2 1,2 1,2 2 3 3 Kathrine S. Rallis & Anna Wozniak & Sara Hui & Adam Stammer & Cigdem Cinar & Min Sun & 3 4 5 6 7 Taylor Fulton-Ward & Alison A. Clarke & Savvas Papagrigoriadis & Apostolos Papalois & Michail Ch. Sideris 1 4 Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Guy’s, King’s and St Thomas’ School of Medicine, King’sCollege London, UK London, London, UK 2 5 Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen International Society for Pelvic Surgery, Athens, Greece Mary University of London, London, UK Experimental Educational and Research Centre ELPEN, Birmingham Medical School, University of Birmingham, Athens, Greece Birmingham, UK Women’s Health Research Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

Journal

Journal of Cancer Education – Springer Journals

Published: Aug 1, 2022

Keywords: UK medical students; Mentoring; Undergraduate oncology society; Undergraduate medical education; Undergraduate oncology teaching; Surveys and questionnaires

There are no references for this article.