Results of the 2014 Survey of the Association of Directors of Radiation Oncology Programs (ADROP)

Ashesh B. Jani, David Marshall, Neha Vapiwala, Sara Beth Davis, Mark Langer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: In 2014, the Association of Directors of Radiation Oncology Programs (ADROP) conducted an in-depth survey of program directors along several axes. We report the results of this survey and compare the major findings with those of the 2007 ADROP survey. Methods and materials: The survey was written and approved by ADROP leadership in 2012, announced online through broadcasts throughout 2013 and early 2014, and closed in mid-2014. The results based on question groups related to (1) hours spent in activities, (2) budget and nonprogram resources, (3) physics/biology didactics, (4) mock exams/didactics/research, (5) electives, (6) students, and (7) resources/challenges were tabulated. Descriptive comparisons with the 2007 survey were performed. Results: There was 26% participation (23/88 programs). Major areas of time commitment were faculty and site organization, maintenance, and corrections (70 hours/year) and didactics/conferences and rounds (200 hours/year). The median program director protected time was 23% (range 0%-50%). All responding programs (100%) had biology and physics courses and assigned directors, but only approximately 20% of respondents had a threshold grade in these courses for graduation. Major resources desired were templates of goals/objectives by disease site, competency evaluations by level, journal club repository, and software for contouring, oral examination preparation, grant writing, publication writing, oral presentation, and effective teaching. Major activity challenges were Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education external review and time commitment. Conclusions: Overall, the 2014 results are similar to those of the 2007 survey. The average time commitment remains considerably higher than the 10% minimum required in the current ACGME program requirements. The survey results may guide ADROP membership in centralizing some of the identified resources needed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e673-e678
JournalPractical Radiation Oncology
Volume5
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2015

Fingerprint

Radiation Oncology
Physics
Graduate Medical Education
Oral Diagnosis
Surveys and Questionnaires
Organized Financing
Accreditation
Budgets
Publications
Teaching
Software
Maintenance
Organizations
Students
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Results of the 2014 Survey of the Association of Directors of Radiation Oncology Programs (ADROP). / Jani, Ashesh B.; Marshall, David; Vapiwala, Neha; Davis, Sara Beth; Langer, Mark.

In: Practical Radiation Oncology, Vol. 5, No. 6, 01.11.2015, p. e673-e678.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jani, Ashesh B. ; Marshall, David ; Vapiwala, Neha ; Davis, Sara Beth ; Langer, Mark. / Results of the 2014 Survey of the Association of Directors of Radiation Oncology Programs (ADROP). In: Practical Radiation Oncology. 2015 ; Vol. 5, No. 6. pp. e673-e678.
@article{b6d7e8b80e2f4c73a8dd0d47567318b6,
title = "Results of the 2014 Survey of the Association of Directors of Radiation Oncology Programs (ADROP)",
abstract = "Background: In 2014, the Association of Directors of Radiation Oncology Programs (ADROP) conducted an in-depth survey of program directors along several axes. We report the results of this survey and compare the major findings with those of the 2007 ADROP survey. Methods and materials: The survey was written and approved by ADROP leadership in 2012, announced online through broadcasts throughout 2013 and early 2014, and closed in mid-2014. The results based on question groups related to (1) hours spent in activities, (2) budget and nonprogram resources, (3) physics/biology didactics, (4) mock exams/didactics/research, (5) electives, (6) students, and (7) resources/challenges were tabulated. Descriptive comparisons with the 2007 survey were performed. Results: There was 26{\%} participation (23/88 programs). Major areas of time commitment were faculty and site organization, maintenance, and corrections (70 hours/year) and didactics/conferences and rounds (200 hours/year). The median program director protected time was 23{\%} (range 0{\%}-50{\%}). All responding programs (100{\%}) had biology and physics courses and assigned directors, but only approximately 20{\%} of respondents had a threshold grade in these courses for graduation. Major resources desired were templates of goals/objectives by disease site, competency evaluations by level, journal club repository, and software for contouring, oral examination preparation, grant writing, publication writing, oral presentation, and effective teaching. Major activity challenges were Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education external review and time commitment. Conclusions: Overall, the 2014 results are similar to those of the 2007 survey. The average time commitment remains considerably higher than the 10{\%} minimum required in the current ACGME program requirements. The survey results may guide ADROP membership in centralizing some of the identified resources needed.",
author = "Jani, {Ashesh B.} and David Marshall and Neha Vapiwala and Davis, {Sara Beth} and Mark Langer",
year = "2015",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.prro.2015.06.007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "e673--e678",
journal = "Practical Radiation Oncology",
issn = "1879-8500",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Results of the 2014 Survey of the Association of Directors of Radiation Oncology Programs (ADROP)

AU - Jani, Ashesh B.

AU - Marshall, David

AU - Vapiwala, Neha

AU - Davis, Sara Beth

AU - Langer, Mark

PY - 2015/11/1

Y1 - 2015/11/1

N2 - Background: In 2014, the Association of Directors of Radiation Oncology Programs (ADROP) conducted an in-depth survey of program directors along several axes. We report the results of this survey and compare the major findings with those of the 2007 ADROP survey. Methods and materials: The survey was written and approved by ADROP leadership in 2012, announced online through broadcasts throughout 2013 and early 2014, and closed in mid-2014. The results based on question groups related to (1) hours spent in activities, (2) budget and nonprogram resources, (3) physics/biology didactics, (4) mock exams/didactics/research, (5) electives, (6) students, and (7) resources/challenges were tabulated. Descriptive comparisons with the 2007 survey were performed. Results: There was 26% participation (23/88 programs). Major areas of time commitment were faculty and site organization, maintenance, and corrections (70 hours/year) and didactics/conferences and rounds (200 hours/year). The median program director protected time was 23% (range 0%-50%). All responding programs (100%) had biology and physics courses and assigned directors, but only approximately 20% of respondents had a threshold grade in these courses for graduation. Major resources desired were templates of goals/objectives by disease site, competency evaluations by level, journal club repository, and software for contouring, oral examination preparation, grant writing, publication writing, oral presentation, and effective teaching. Major activity challenges were Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education external review and time commitment. Conclusions: Overall, the 2014 results are similar to those of the 2007 survey. The average time commitment remains considerably higher than the 10% minimum required in the current ACGME program requirements. The survey results may guide ADROP membership in centralizing some of the identified resources needed.

AB - Background: In 2014, the Association of Directors of Radiation Oncology Programs (ADROP) conducted an in-depth survey of program directors along several axes. We report the results of this survey and compare the major findings with those of the 2007 ADROP survey. Methods and materials: The survey was written and approved by ADROP leadership in 2012, announced online through broadcasts throughout 2013 and early 2014, and closed in mid-2014. The results based on question groups related to (1) hours spent in activities, (2) budget and nonprogram resources, (3) physics/biology didactics, (4) mock exams/didactics/research, (5) electives, (6) students, and (7) resources/challenges were tabulated. Descriptive comparisons with the 2007 survey were performed. Results: There was 26% participation (23/88 programs). Major areas of time commitment were faculty and site organization, maintenance, and corrections (70 hours/year) and didactics/conferences and rounds (200 hours/year). The median program director protected time was 23% (range 0%-50%). All responding programs (100%) had biology and physics courses and assigned directors, but only approximately 20% of respondents had a threshold grade in these courses for graduation. Major resources desired were templates of goals/objectives by disease site, competency evaluations by level, journal club repository, and software for contouring, oral examination preparation, grant writing, publication writing, oral presentation, and effective teaching. Major activity challenges were Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education external review and time commitment. Conclusions: Overall, the 2014 results are similar to those of the 2007 survey. The average time commitment remains considerably higher than the 10% minimum required in the current ACGME program requirements. The survey results may guide ADROP membership in centralizing some of the identified resources needed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84946501428&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84946501428&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.prro.2015.06.007

DO - 10.1016/j.prro.2015.06.007

M3 - Article

VL - 5

SP - e673-e678

JO - Practical Radiation Oncology

JF - Practical Radiation Oncology

SN - 1879-8500

IS - 6

ER -