No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
ESTRO guidelines for developing questionnaires in survey-based radiation oncology research
Abstract
Survey-based research is increasingly used in radiation oncology, yet survey-based research methodology is often unfamiliar in the field. This guideline offers comprehensive instructions for conducting survey-based research in radiation oncology, covering critical aspects such as survey design, validation, dissemination, analysis, and reporting. Tailored to professionals, it emphasizes the importance of methodological rigour to ensure reliable and actionable data collection. Dissemination strategies are highlighted to maximize response rates and enhance data completeness across diverse clinical, research and industrial settings. Rigorous analysis techniques are discussed to uncover insights that optimize operational efficiencies and inform evidence-based practices. Transparent reporting is underscored as crucial for enhancing the credibility and applicability of findings. This guideline aims to be a practical resource for enhancing research standards in survey-based research for researchers and practitioners in radiation oncology.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
In this paper, we take the lessons learned from designing a survey and collecting validity evidence and prepare to administer the survey for research. We focus specifically on how researchers can reach individuals in the target population, methods of contact and engagement, evidence‐informed factors that enhance participation, and recommendations for follow‐up with nonrespondents. We also discuss the challenges of survey administration and provide guidance for navigating low response rates. Surveys are a common tool used to evaluate educational initiatives and collect data for all types of research. However, many clinician educators conducting survey‐based evaluation and research may struggle to efficiently administer their survey. As a result, they often struggle to obtain appropriate response rates and thus may have difficulty publishing their survey results. Previous papers in this series focused on the initial steps of survey development and validation, but it is equally important to understand how best to administer your survey to obtain meaningful responses from a representative sample.
Surveys are descriptive assessment tools. Like other assessment tools, the validity and reliability of the data obtained from surveys depend, in large part, on the rigor of the development process. Without validity evidence, data from surveys may lack meaning, leading to uncertainty as to how well the survey truly measures the intended constructs. In documenting the evidence for the validity of survey results and their intended use, it is incumbent on the survey creator to have a firm understanding of validity frameworks. Having an understanding of validity evidence and how each step in the survey development process can support the validity argument makes it easier for the researcher to develop, implement, and publish a high‐quality survey.
Purpose:
To quantify the clinical practice of respiratory motion management in radiation oncology.
Methods:
A respiratory motion management survey was designed and conducted based on clinician survey guidelines. The survey was administered to American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) members on 17 August 2020 and closed on 13 September 2020.
Results:
A total of 527 respondents completed the entire survey and 651 respondents completed part of the survey, with the partially completed surveys included in the analysis. Overall, 84% of survey respondents used deep inspiration breath hold for left-sided breast cancer. Overall, 83% of respondents perceived respiratory motion management for thoracic and abdominal cancer radiotherapy patients to be either very important or required. Overall, 95% of respondents used respiratory motion management for thoracic and abdominal sites, with 36% of respondents using respiratory motion management for at least 90% of thoracic and abdominal patients. The majority (60%) of respondents used the internal target volume method to treat thoracic and abdominal cancer patients, with 25% using breath hold or abdominal compression and 13% using gating or tracking.
Conclusions:
A respiratory motion management survey has been completed by AAPM members. Respiratory motion management is generally considered very important or required and is widely used for breast, thoracic, and abdominal cancer treatments.
In recent panel studies, besides other methods such as sequential mixed-mode design, push-to-web method, and prepaid monetary incentives, follow-up contacts such as personalised electronic mails (e-mails) or short message service are often used to motivate nonrespondents to complete the questionnaire, increase the response rate within a limited fieldwork period, and minimise panel attrition. Since it is still unclear when and how often non-complying panellists should be reminded to take part in a survey, this contribution analyses the short- and long-term effects of digital reminders across the fieldwork period. For this purpose, longitudinal data and statistical procedures of event history analysis are applied to reveal the effects of reminders on the likelihood, timing, and social structure of Swiss juveniles’ survey participation. On the one hand, there are short-term and long-term effects of multiple early reminders on the response of panellists receiving reminders. On the other hand, there are no cumulative effects across the fieldwork period or overlapping effects of reminders across the mixed survey modes. Considering the social structure of nonrespondents who receive reminders, it appears plausible that there may be a selective response in terms of the panellists’ social origin, educational level, and language proficiency.
Radiation therapy has become increasingly complex over time and is rapidly evolving. Radiation therapists play a key role within the interdisciplinary team and their education must prepare them to function effectively in the future in order to ensure a safe, high quality radiation therapy service. The aim of this research was to evaluate the current status of radiation therapist education to establish the duration of education programs, the percentage of radiation therapy-specific content and the professional title on graduation. A survey was developed, based on the questionnaire used for the ESTRO 3rd Revision of the Core Curriculum for Radiation Therapists. This was piloted by colleagues to verify the validity of the survey and also its use outside of the European context. The final survey was distributed purposively through Survey Monkey via a local gatekeeper to key radiation therapy personnel covering all of Europe and Australia, New Zealand, USA and South Korea in January 2021 who distributed it to educational institutes and clinical departments in their respective countries. 101 responses were received of which 58 were fully complete and available for analysis representing 30 countries, 26 European and 4 beyond Europe. The duration and radiation therapy-specific content of education programs varied considerably with dedicated radiation therapy programs from the respondents offered only in Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S.A. 17 countries in the survey offer 'combined' programs with the majority dedicating less than 20% of their content to radiation therapy. Of note is that several respondents were unable to state the percentage of content related to radiation therapy and there was a variation in content and duration of programs, even within a single country. This survey has demonstrated that there remains a significant deficit in the educational programs of radiation therapists in many regions.
Background and Purpose
A survey on the patterns of practice of respiratory motion management (MM) was distributed to 111 radiation therapy facilities to inform the development of an end-to-end dosimetry audit including respiratory motion.
Materials and Methods
The survey (distributed via REDCap) asked facilities to provide information specific to the combinations of MM techniques (breath-hold gating – BHG, internal target volume – ITV, free-breathing gating – FBG, mid-ventilation – MidV, tumour tracking – TT), sites treated (thorax, upper abdomen, lower abdomen), and fractionation regimes (conventional, stereotactic ablative body radiation therapy – SABR) used in their clinic.
Results
It was completed by 78% of facilities, with 98% of respondents indicating that they used at least one form of MM. The ITV approach was common to all MM-users, used for thoracic treatments by 89% of respondents, and upper and lower abdominal treatments by 38%. BHG was the next most prevalent (41% MM users), with applications in upper abdominal and thoracic treatment sites (28% vs 25% respectively), but minimal use in the lower abdomen (9%). FBG and TT were utilised sparingly (17%, 7% respectively), and MidV was not selected at all.
Conclusions
Two distinct treatment workflows (including use of motion limitation, imaging used for motion assessment, dose calculation, and image guidance procedures) were identified for the ITV and BHG MM techniques, to form the basis of the initial audit. Thoracic SABR with the ITV approach was common to nearly all respondents, while upper abdominal SABR using BHG stood out as more technically challenging. Other MM techniques were sparsely used, but may be considered for future audit development.
Surveys are ubiquitous in medical education. They can be valuable for assessment across a wide range of applications and are frequently used in medical education research. This Educator's Blueprint paper reviews the best practices in survey design with a focus on survey development. Key components of the survey design process include determining whether a survey is the right tool, using an intentional approach to content development, and following best practices in item writing and formatting. These processes are meant to help educators and researchers design better surveys for making better decisions.
Introduction
Surface Guided Radiation Therapy (SGRT) is being increasingly implemented into clinical practice across a number of techniques and irradiation-sites. This technology, which is provided by different vendors, can be used with most simulation- and delivery-systems. However, limited guidelines and the complexity of clinical settings have led to diverse patterns of operation. With the aim to understand current clinical practice a survey was designed focusing on specifics of the clinical implementation and usage.
Materials and methods
A 32-question survey covered: type and number of systems, quality assurance (QA), clinical workflows, and identification of strengths/limitations. Respondents from different professional groups and countries were invited to participate. The survey was distributed internationally via ESTRO-membership, social media and vendors.
Results
Of the 278 institutions responding, 172 had at least one SGRT-system and 136 use SGRT clinically. Implementation and QA were primarily based on the vendors’ recommendations and phantoms. SGRT was mainly implemented in breast RT (116/136), with strong but diverse representation of other sites. Many (58/135) reported at least partial elimination of skin-marks and a third (43/126) used open-masks. The most common imaging protocol reported included the combination of radiographic imaging with SGRT. Patient positioning (115/136), motion management (104/136) and DIBH (99/136) were the main applications.
Main barriers to broader application were cost, system integration issues and lack of demonstrated clinical value. A lack of guidelines in terms of QA of the system was highlighted.
Conclusions
This overview of the SGRT status has the potential to support users, vendors and organisations in the development of practices, products and guidelines.
Background and purpose
Major differences exist among proton therapy (PT) centres regarding PT delivery in adult cancer patient. To obtain insight into current practice in Europe, we performed a survey among European PT centres.
Materials and methods
We designed electronic questionnaires for eight tumour sites, focusing on four main topics: 1) indications and patient selection methods; 2) reimbursement; 3) on-going or planned studies, 4) annual number of patients treated with PT.
Results
Of 22 centres, 19 (86%) responded. In total, 4,233 adult patients are currently treated across Europe annually, of which 46% consists of patients with central nervous system tumours (CNS), 15% head and neck cancer (HNC), 15% prostate, 9% breast, 5% lung, 5% gastrointestinal, 4% lymphoma, 0.3% gynaecological cancers. CNS are treated in all participating centres (n=19) using PT, HNC in 16 centres, lymphoma in 10 centres, gastrointestinal in 10 centres, breast in 7 centres, prostate in 6 centres, lung in 6 centres, and gynaecological cancers in 3 centres. Reimbursement is provided by national health care systems for the majority of commonly treated tumour sites. Approximately 74% of centres enrol patients for prospective data registration programs. Phase II-III trials are less frequent, due to reimbursement and funding problems. Reasons for not treating certain tumour types with PT are lack of evidence (30%), reimbursement issues (29%) and/or technical limitations (20%).
Conclusion
Across European PT centres, CNS tumours and HNC are the most frequently treated tumour types. Most centres use indication protocols. Lack of evidence for PT and reimbursement issues are the most reported reasons for not treating specific tumour types with PT.
Purpose
The aim was to reach consensus in The Netherlands on which parameters should be used to evaluate breast cancer radiotherapy (RT) plans.
Materials and methods
A Benchmark Case with delineated planning target volumes (PTVs) and Organs At Risk (OARs) was sent to all Dutch radiotherapy centres in combination with a questionnaire, with the request to generate RT plans prescribing 15 times 2.67 Gy for four different treatment indications according to the institutional irradiation technique. The plans and accompanying questionnaire answers were analysed using descriptive statistics. These results, together with a harmonisation proposal, were sent to all centres. The proposal was discussed at a meeting of the Dutch Society of Radiation Oncology breast cancer platform. Distinct parameters were accepted if consensus on them was reached.
Results
19 out of 20 Dutch departments participated in this study. PTV coverage varied considerably, with D98% between 63% and 99% for the breast and between 37% and 97% for the internal mammary nodes (IMN). Also substantial OAR dose differences were observed, with e.g. mean heart doses ranging between 1.85 Gy and 5.42 Gy in case the IMN were included in the PTV. For evaluation of the PTVs D98%, D2% and Dmean were chosen to report on, with target values of ≥ 95% (90% for the PTV_IMN), ≤ 107%, and 99–101%, respectively. For OARs, consensus was reached on the parameters to be evaluated, without target values: Dmean of the heart, Dmean and V5% of the lungs, and in case of periclavicular radiotherapy V30Gy of the thyroid gland. For patients younger than 40 years a contralateral mean breast dose of ≤ 1 Gy was agreed upon.
Conclusion
A new Dutch consensus guideline for evaluation of breast cancer RT plans has been established.
Introduction
With the implementation of new radiotherapy technology, it is imperative that patient experience is investigated alongside efficacy and outcomes. This paper presents the development of a specifically designed validated questionnaire and a first report of international multi-institutional preliminary patient experience of MRI-guided adaptive radiotherapy (MRgART) on the 1.5 T MR-Linac (MRL).
Methods
A patient experience questionnaire was developed and validated before being distributed to the Elekta MRL Consortium, to gather first patient-reported experience from participating centres worldwide. The final version of the questionnaire contains 18 questions covering a range of themes and was scored on a Likert scale of 0–3. Responses were post-processed so that a score of 0 represents a negative response and 3 represents the most favourable response. These results were analysed for patient-reported experience of treatment on the MRL. Results were also analysed for internal consistency of the questionnaire using Chronbach’s Alpha and the questionnaire contents were validated for relevance using content validity indexes (CVI).
Results
170 responses were received from five centres, representing patients with a wide range of tumour treatment sites from four different countries. MRgART was well tolerated with an 84% favourable response across all questions and respondents. When analysed by theme, all reported the highest percentage of results in the favourable categories (2 and 3). Internal consistency in the questionnaire was high (Cronbach’s α = 0.8) and the item-level CVI for each question was 0.78 or above and the Scale-level CVI was 0.93, representing relevant content.
Conclusion
The developed questionnaire has been validated as relevant and appropriate for use in reporting experience of patients undergoing treatment on the MRL. The overall patient-reported experience and satisfaction from multiple centres within the Elekta MRL Consortium was consistently high. These results can reinforce user confidence in continuing to expand and develop MRL use in adaptive radiotherapy.
Background and purpose
The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed changes in radiotherapy (RT) departments worldwide. Medical physicists (MPs) are key healthcare professionals in maintaining safe and effective RT. This study reports on MPs experience during the first pandemic peak and explores the consequences on their work.
Methods
A 39-question survey on changes in departmental and clinical practice and on the impact for the future was sent to the global MP community. A total of 433 responses were analysed by professional role and by country clustered on the daily infection numbers.
Results
The impact of COVID-19 was bigger in countries with high daily infection rate. The majority of MPs worked in alternation at home/on-site. Among practice changes, implementation and/or increased use of hypofractionation was the most common (47% of the respondents). Sixteen percent of respondents modified patient-specific quality assurance (QA), 21% reduced machine QA, and 25% moved machine QA to weekends/evenings. The perception of trust in leadership and team unity was reversed between management MPs (towards increased trust and unity) and clinical MPs (towards a decrease). Changes such as home-working and increased use of hypofractionation were welcomed. However, some MPs were concerned about pressure to keep negative changes (e.g. weekend work).
Conclusion
COVID-19 affected MPs through changes in practice and QA procedures but also in terms of trust in leadership and team unity. Some changes were welcomed but others caused worries for the future. This report forms the basis, from a medical physics perspective, to evaluate long-lasting changes within a multi-disciplinary setting.
Introduction
In 2020, the ESTRO course on image-guided radiotherapy and chemotherapy in gynaecological cancer was converted into an online version due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper describes the change process and evaluates the impact on participants compared with previous live courses.
Methods and Materials
The 2019 live course contained 41 hours of educational content, comprising 33 hours of synchronous activities (lectures, interactive activities, videos) and 8 hours of homework (contouring, dose planning). For the online course, the lectures were provided as pre-course material (11 mandatory, 22 optional). Contouring/dose planning homework was unchanged. The synchronous sessions were reconfigured as six 2-hour webinars (total educational content ∼38 hours).
Participant numbers/characteristics, engagement and satisfaction for six live courses and the online course were compared.
Results
Participant numbers for the online and live courses were similar (90 vs. mean 96). There were more participants from outside Europe (28% vs. mean 18%) and more non-doctors (47% vs. mean 33%). Proportion of participants responding to the pre-course questionnaire was similar (77% vs. mean 78%) but post-course questionnaire response was lower (62% vs. mean 92%).
43% participants viewed ≥75% of mandatory lectures before the webinars. 86% viewed the optional lectures. Submissions of contouring and dose planning homework was higher (contouring 77%-90% vs. 56%-69%, dose planning 74%-89% vs. 29%-57%).
96% (47/49) participants rated the online course as Excellent (43%) or Good (53%). Overall satisfaction was similar (4.4 vs. mean 4.6).
Conclusion
Participant satisfaction and engagement with the online course remained high despite less contact time with faculty.
Life expectancy is gradually increasing due to continuously improving medical and nonmedical interventions. The increasing life expectancy is desirable but brings in issues such as impairment of quality of life, disease perception, cognitive health, and mental health. Thus, questionnaire building and data collection through the questionnaires have become an active area of research. However, questionnaire development can be challenging and suboptimal in the absence of careful planning and user-friendly literature guide. Keeping in mind the intricacies of constructing a questionnaire, researchers need to carefully plan, document, and follow systematic steps to build a reliable and valid questionnaire. Additionally, questionnaire development is technical, jargon-filled, and is not a part of most of the graduate and postgraduate training. Therefore, this article is an attempt to initiate an understanding of the complexities of the questionnaire fundamentals, technical challenges, and sequential flow of steps to build a reliable and valid questionnaire.
Purpose
ESTRO-EFOMP intend to update the core curriculum (CC) for education and training of medical physicists in radiotherapy in line with the European Commission (EC) guidelines on Medical Physics Experts (MPE), the CanMEDS methodology and recent developments in radiotherapy. As input, a survey of the current structure of radiotherapy MPE national training schemes (NTS) in Europe was carried out.
Methods
A 35-question survey was sent to all European medical physics national societies (NS) with a focus on existence of an NTS, its format and duration, required entry-level education, and financial support for trainees.
Results
Twenty-six of 36 NS responded. Twenty had an NTS. Minimum required pre-training education varied from BSc in physics or related sciences (5/2) to MSc in medical physics, physics or related sciences (6/5/2) with 50–210 ECTS in fundamental physics and mathematics. The training period varied from 1 to 5 years (median 3 years with 50% dedicated to radiotherapy). The ratio of time spent on university lectures versus hospital training was most commonly 25%/75%. In 14 of 20 countries with an NTS, a research project was mandatory. Residents were paid in 17 of 20 countries. The recognition was mostly obtained by examination. Medical physics is recognised as a healthcare profession in 19 of 26 countries.
Conclusions
The NTS entrance level, duration and curriculum showed significant variations. This survey serves to inform the design of the updated CC to define a realistic minimum training level for safe and effective practice aiming at further harmonization in line with EC guidelines.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. © 2021 Page et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
Background and purpose
Gynaecological brachytherapy can cause anxiety, distress and discomfort. It is not known how variation in delivery impacts women’s experiences. To inform future research an online survey was carried out to identify variations in brachytherapy and support available to women receiving treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC).
Materials and methods
An online survey was sent to 44 UK brachytherapy centres using the Qualtrics® survey platform. It included questions about brachytherapy scheduling, inpatient/day case treatment, anaesthetic/analgesia, non-pharmacological support and health professionals’ opinions regarding holistic care. A mixture of closed questions with pre-specified options and open questions were employed. Descriptive statistics were generated to identify variance in UK practice. Free text responses were analysed using inductive content analysis.
Results
Responses were received from 39/43 eligible centres (91% response rate). Brachytherapy was predominantly given on an inpatient basis at 65% and day case at 35% of centres. Eleven scheduling regimes were reported with typical duration of brachytherapy ranging from three to 52 hours. The main categories identified in response to what worked well were: ‘consistency of staff’; ‘good information provision’ and ‘experienced/skilled/senior staff’. The main categories identified as needing improvement were: ‘training of different staff groups’ and ‘follow up and support’ with many suggestions for service improvements.
Conclusion
The survey provided a comprehensive overview of brachytherapy services for LACC demonstrating wide variability in scheduling regimes, duration of treatment and holistic care. The findings support the need to explore women’s experiences with a range of treatment regimes and anaesthesia and analgesia techniques to inform improvements to future clinical care.
Background and purpose
The use of artificial intelligence (AI)/ machine learning (ML) applications in radiation oncology is emerging, however no clear guidelines on commissioning of ML-based applications exist. The purpose of this study was therefore to investigate the current use and needs to support implementation of ML-based applications in routine clinical practice.
Materials and methods
A survey was conducted among medical physicists in radiation oncology, consisting of four parts: clinical applications (1), model training, acceptance and commissioning (2), quality assurance (QA) in clinical practice and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (3), and need for education and guidelines (4). Survey answers of medical physicists of the same radiation oncology centre were treated as a separate unique responder in case reporting on different AI applications.
Results
In total, 213 medical physicists from 202 radiation oncology centres were included in the analysis. Sixty-nine percent (1 4 7) was using (37%) or preparing (32%) to use ML in clinic, mostly for contouring and treatment planning. In 86%, human observers were still involved in daily clinical use for quality check of the output of the ML algorithm. Knowledge on ethics, legislation and data sharing was limited and scattered among responders. Besides the need for (implementation) guidelines, training of medical physicists and larger databases containing multicentre data was found to be the top priority to accommodate the further introduction of ML in clinical practice.
Conclusion
The results of this survey indicated the need for education and guidelines on the implementation and quality assurance of ML-based applications to benefit clinical introduction.
Introduction
The demand for radiation therapy services in New Zealand is growing due to an increasing and ageing population. The radiation therapist (RT) workforce is currently in a vulnerable state and this study aimed to understand RT perceptions on intent to remain in both the workplace and profession. Understanding factors that contribute to satisfaction and retention are important for the development of strategies by healthcare leaders to improve workforce sustainability.
Materials and methods
All current practising RTs were invited via email link to complete an online survey. Multivariate regression models were used to investigate any impact of demographic, workplace and professional variables on intent to remain in the workplace and intent to leave the profession.
Results
Three hundred and sixty two (91% response rate) RTs completed the survey. Key findings include: a) 33% are thinking of leaving their current workplace with 31% of these intending to leave within the next 12 months; b) 35% intend to change careers before they retire; and c) 25% indicated they would leave the profession if they could. Workplace satisfaction, being challenged and a lack of career development opportunities were common factors that influence intention to leave both the workplace and profession.
Conclusions
Strategies to ensure the sustainability of the RT workforce in New Zealand need to focus on developing a robust framework for career development including advanced practice opportunities that challenge RTs and ensuring workplaces create an environment that promote a sense of pride, camaraderie and flexibility in how they operate.
Background and purpose
We aimed to assess the prescription preference about hypofractionated radiation therapy (HFRT) for breast cancer (BC) patients amongst radiation oncologists (ROs) practicing in Europe and to identify restraints on HFRT utilisation.
Materials and methods
An online survey was circulated amongst ROs in Europe through personal, RO and BC societies’ networks, from October 2019 to March 2020. The statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, chi-squared testing, and logistic regression analysis.
Results
We received 412 responses from 44 countries. HFRT was chosen as the preferred schedule for whole breast irradiation (WBI) by 54.7% and for WBI with regional nodes irradiation (RNI) by 28.7% of the responding ROs. In the case of postmastectomy RT with or without reconstruction, HFRT was preferred by 21.1% and 29.6%, respectively. Overall, 69.2% of the responding ROs selected at least one factor influencing the decision to utilise HFRT, the most frequent of which included age (51.4%), RNI (46.9%), internal mammary lymph nodes irradiation (39.7%), BC stage (33.5%) and implant-based breast reconstruction (31.6%). ROs working in academic centres (odds ratio, (OR), 1.7; 95% confidence interval, (CI); 1.1–2.6, p=0.019), practicing in Western Europe (OR, 4.2; 95%CI; 2.7–6.6, p<0.0005) and/or dedicating >50% of clinical time to BC patients (OR, 2.5; 95%CI; 1.5–4.2, p=0.001) more likely preferred HFRT.
Conclusion
Although HFRT is recognised as a new standard, its implementation in routine RT clinical practice across Europe varies for numerous reasons. Better dissemination of evidence-based recommendations is advised to improve the level of awareness about this clinical indication.
Background and purpose:
The uptake of new technologies has varied internationally and there have often been barriers to implementation. On-line adaptive radiotherapy (ART) promises to improve patient outcome. This survey focuses on the implementation phase of delivering ART and professional roles and responsibilities currently involved in the workflow and changes which may be expected in the future.
Materials and methods:
A 38 question survey included aspects on current practice; professional responsibilities; benefits and barriers; and decision making and responsibilities. For the purposes of the questionnaire and paper, ART was considered where tumour and /or organs at risk were contoured and re-planning was performed on-line. The questionnaire was electronically distributed via radiotherapy networks.
Results:
Nineteen international responses were received. Europe (n = 11), United States of America (n = 4); Canada (n = 2), Australia (n = 1) and Hong Kong (n = 1). The majority of centres started using ART in either 2018 (n = 7) or 2019 (n = 6). Four centres started treating with ART between 2015 and 2017, and the first was in 2014. Centres initially treated prostate and oligometastases patients, expanding to treat prostate, oligometastases, pancreas and rectum. The majority of centres were working in conventional roles, however moving towards radiographers taking more responsibility in contouring organs at risk (OAR), target and dosimetry. The three most important criteria chosen by medical doctors to determine if ART should be used were overall gross anatomy changes of target and OAR, target not covered by planning target volume (PTV) and OAR close to the high dose area. There was no clear consensus on the minimum improvement in dose to target or reduction in dose to OAR to warrant adaption.
Conclusion:
On-line ART has been implemented successfully internationally. Initial practice maintains conventional professional roles and responsibilities, however there is trend to changing roles for the future. There is little consensus regarding the triggers of adaption.
Background and purpose:
Physical and mental well-being are crucial for oncology professionals as they affect performance at work. Personality traits, as alexithymia and empathy, may influence professional quality of life. Alexithymia involves diminished skills in emotion processing and awareness. Empathy is pertinent to the ability to understand another's 'state of mind/emotion'. The PROject on Burn-Out in RadiatioN Oncology (PRO BONO) investigates professional quality of life amongst radiation oncology professionals, exploring the role of alexithymia and empathy. The present study reports on data pertinent to radiation therapists (RTTs).
Material and methods:
An online survey targeted ESTRO members. Participants were asked to fill out 3 questionnaires for alexithymia, empathy and professional quality of life: (a) Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20); (b) Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI); (c) Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQoL). The present analysis focuses on RTTS to evaluate compassion satisfaction (CS), secondary traumatic stress (STS) and Burnout and their correlation with alexithymia and empathy, using generalized linear modeling. Covariates found significant at univariate linear regression analysis were included in the multivariate linear regression model.
Results:
A total of 399 RTTs completed all questionnaires. The final model for the burnout scale of ProQoL found, as significal predictors, the TAS-20 total score (β = 0.46, p < 0 0.001), and the individual's perception of being valued by supervisor (β = -0.29, p < 0.001). With respect to CS, the final model included TAS-20 total score (β = -0.33, p < 0.001), the Empatic Concern domain (β = 0.23, p < 0.001) of the IRI questionnaire and the individual's perception of being valued by colleagues (β = 0.22, p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
Alexithymia increased the likelyhood to experience burnout and negatively affected the professional quality of life amongst RTTs working in oncology. Empathy resulted in higher professional fulfillment together with collegaues' appreciation. These results may be used to benchmark preventing strategies and implement organization-direct and/or individual-directed interventions.
Background and purpose:
The professional quality of life of radiation oncology professionals can be influenced by different contributing factors, including personality traits. Alexithymia involves deficits in emotion processing and awareness. Empathy is the ability to understand another's 'state of mind/emotion'. We investigated professional quality of life, including burnout, in radiation oncology, exploring the role of alexithymia and empathy and targeting the population of medical physicists (MPs), since this professional category is usually underrepresented in surveys exploring professional well-being in radiation oncology and MPs may experience professional distress given the increasing complexity of multimodal cancer care.
Material and methods:
An online survey was addressed to ESTRO members. Participants filled out three questionnaires to evaluate alexithymia, empathy and professional quality of life: a) Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20); b) Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI); c) Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQoL). Professional quality of life as per ProQoL was considered as dependent variable. The three domains of the ProQoL, namely compassion satisfaction (CS), secondary traumatic stress (STS) and burnout were correlated with alexithymia (as per TAS-20) and empathy (as per IRI with three subcategories: empathic concern, perspective taking and personal distress) and demographic/professional characteristics as independent variables. Generalized linear modeling was used. Significant covariates on univariate linear regression analysis were included in the multivariate linear regression model.
Results:
A total of 308 medical physicists completed all questionnaires. Alexithymia as per TAS-20 was correlated to decreased CS (β = -0.25, p < 0 0.001), increased likelihood for STS (β = 0.26, p < 0 0.001) and burnout (β = 0.47, p < 0 0.001). With respect to empathy, the 'Empatic Concern' subscale of the IRI was found to be a significant predictor for increased CS (β = 0.19, p = 0 0.001) and increased STS (β = 0.19, p < 0 0.001), without significant correlation with burnout. The individual's perception of being valued by own's supervisor was correlated to increased CS (β = 0.23, p < 0.001), and decreased burnout (β = -0.29, p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
Alexithymic personality trait increased the likelihood to develop burnout, with less professional satisfaction amongst MPs working in radiation oncology. Empathy results in higher professional fulfilment. These results may be used to benchmark preventing strategies, including peer support, debriefing sessions, leadership initiatives and work-load limitation strategies.
Purpose
The POP-ART RT study aims to determine to what extent and how intra-fractional real-time respiratory motion management (RRMM) and plan adaptation for inter-fractional anatomical changes (ART), are used in clinical practice and to understand barriers to implementation. Here we report on part I: RRMM
Material and Methods
A questionnaire was distributed worldwide to assess current clinical practice, wishes for expansion or new implementation and barriers to implementation.
RRMM was defined as inspiration/expiration gating in free-breathing or breath-hold, or tracking where the target and the beam are continuously realigned.
Results
The questionnaire was completed by 200 centres from 41 countries. RRMM was used by 68% of respondents (‘users’) for a median (range) of 2 (1-6) tumour sites.
Eighty-one percent of users applied inspiration breath-hold in at least one tumour site (breast: 96%). External marker was used to guide RRMM by 61% of users. KV/MV imaging was frequently used for liver and pancreas (with fiducials) and for lung (with or without fiducials). Tracking was mainly performed on robotic linacs with hybrid internal-external monitoring.
For breast and lung, approximately 75% of respondents used or wished to implement RRMM, which was lower for liver (44%) and pancreas (27%). Seventy-one percent of respondents wished to implement RRMM for a new tumour site. Main barriers were human/financial resources and capacity on the machine.
Conclusion
Sixty-eight percent of respondents used RRMM and 71% wished to implement RRMM for a new tumour site. The main barriers to implementation were human/financial resources and capacity on treatment machines.
Purpose
The POP-ART RT study aims to determine to what extent and how intrafractional real-time respiratory motion management (RRMM), and plan adaptation for interfractional anatomical changes (ART) are used in clinical practice and to understand barriers to implementation. Here we report on part II: ART using more than one plan per target per treatment course.
Materials and methods
A questionnaire on the current practice of ART, wishes for expansion or implementation, and barriers to implementation was distributed worldwide. Four types of ART were discriminated: daily online replanning, online plan library, protocolled offline replanning (all three based on a protocol), and ad-hoc offline replanning.
Results
The questionnaire was completed by 177 centres from 40 countries. ART was used by 61% of respondents (31% with protocol) for a median (range) of 3 (1-8) tumour sites. CBCT/MVCT was the main imaging modality except for online daily replanning (11 users) where 10 users used MR. Two thirds of respondents wished to implement ART for a new tumour site; 40% of these had plans to do it in the next 2 years. Human/material resources and technical limitations were the main barriers to further use and implementation.
Conclusions
ART was used for a broad range of tumour sites, mainly with ad-hoc offline replanning and for a median of 3 tumour sites. There was a large interest in implementing ART for more tumour sites, mainly limited by human/material resources and technical limitations. Daily online replanning was primarily performed on MR-linacs.
Introduction
With the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals have been forced to follow strict social isolation guidelines. While crucial to control the pandemic, isolation might have a significant impact on productivity and mental health. Especially for researchers working in healthcare, the current situation is complex. We therefore carried out a survey amongst researchers in the field of radiation oncology to gain insights on the impact of social isolation and working from home and to guide future work.
Materials and methods
An online survey was conducted between March 27th and April 5th, 2020. The first part contained 14 questions intended to capture an overview of the specific aspects related to research while in isolation. The second (optional) part of the questionnaire was the validated Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), a self-reported measure used to assess levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms.
Results
From 543 survey participants, 48.8% reported to work full-time from home. The impact on perceived productivity, with 71.2% of participants feeling less productive, caused 58% of participants to feel some level of guilt.
Compared to normative data, relatively high levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms were recorded for the 335 participants who filled out the HADS questionnaire. Group comparisons found the presence of a supportive institutional program as the sole factor of statistical significance in both anxiety and depressive symptom levels. People having to work full-time on location showed higher depressive symptom levels than those working from home. Anxiety scores were negatively correlated with the number of research years.
Conclusion
Results of the survey showed there is a non-negligible impact on both productivity and mental health. As the radiation oncology research community was forced to work from home during the COVID-19 pandemic, lessons can be learned to face future adverse situations but also to improve work-life balance in general.
Aim:
To provide an overview of Radiation Oncology (RO) teaching to medical students around Europe.
Materials and methods:
An electronic survey was sent to European academic teachers of RO. The survey focused on the teaching of RO to medical students throughout their undergraduate education.
Results:
A total of 87 academic RO teachers from 29 countries were invited to participate in the electronic survey. Thirty-two surveys were completed by respondents from 19 European countries (response rate: 37%). The median number of hours devoted to RO teaching was 10 h (mean 16 h, range 2-60). The number of hours assigned to RO teaching was equal or inferior compared to medical oncology. In two institutions (6%) RO was delivered as a stand-alone course with an individual knowledge assessment. In 30 institutions (94%), the RO course was taught and/or assessed in a modular curriculum with other disciplines. Radiobiology, breast, lung, gastrointestinal, gynecologic malignancies, RO adverse events and palliative RO were taught in 80% of institutions. Pediatric RO, RO for benign conditions and economic topics were taught in less than 30% of institutions. In most institutions, classical written and oral examinations were used. Computer-based examinations and/or objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE) were seldom used. E-learning methods were available in less than 10% of institutions. A clerkship in RO department was available in 28 out of 32 institutions (87%), less than 5% of medical students were involved in research in RO during their undergraduate education. Strategies to encourage medical students to consider RO as a future career were offered in 53% of institutions.
Conclusions:
RO teaching to medical students was not uniform in Europe. RO teaching during undergraduate education in Europe was undervalued, and its knowledge and learning tools could be broadened and updated in the core curricula of medical students.
Background and purpose
Palliative radiotherapy (RT) is one of the treatment options for bleeding tumours; a frequent symptom in patients with advanced cancer. The optimal RT schedule is however unclear. This study explores the current pattern of practice of palliative RT for bleeding tumours in the Netherlands.
Materials and methods
An internet-based questionnaire, including respondent characteristics, factors influencing the choice of RT schedules and five patient case scenarios, was sent to all members of the Dutch Society for Radiation Oncology. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the results.
Results
The response rate was 125/374 (34%); representing 20 out of 21 Dutch RT departments. Most reported influencing factors were performance status, prognosis, patients’ comfort and patients’ choice. Most preferred RT schedules were 1 × 8 Gy for hematemesis, 1 × 8 Gy and 5 × 4 Gy for haemoptysis, 5 × 4 Gy for haematuria, 5 × 5 Gy for rectal bleeding, 1 × 8 Gy, 5 × 4 Gy and 10-13 × 3 Gy for vaginal bleeding.
Conclusions
The current patterns of practice in the Netherlands for bleeding tumours varied considerably. Most often a single fraction is chosen (35% of all cases), followed by a five-fraction schedule (30% of all cases). The choice of an RT schedule is mainly influenced by patient related factors.
Introduction
Radiotherapy education can be very different across Europe, despite the publication of the ESTRO core curricula in 2011. The purpose of the current study is to map the different RO European education systems, to report their perceived quality and to understand what could be improved to better teach RO.
Methods
An online survey consisting of 30 questions was sent to RO professionals under 40 years of age via email and social media. Clinicians, radiobiologists, physicists and radiation therapists (RTTs) were invited to answer questions regarding (1) demographics data, (2) duration, (3) organization, (4) content, (5) quality and potential improvements of national education programs.
Results
Four hundred and sixty three questionnaires were received from 34 European countries. All disciplines were represented: 45% clinicians (n = 210), 29% physicists (n = 135), 24% RTTs (n = 108) and 2% radiobiologists (n = 10). Male and female participants were well-balanced in each speciality, except for radiobiologists (80% males). Median age was 31.5 years old (range 21–40). A large range of the duration of the National RO education programs was observed: median = 9 years (range: 3–15). In half of the surveyed countries the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS), that facilitates mobility for trainees, has been implemented. Participants declared only a minority of countries have implemented the ESTRO Core Curriculum (n = 5). A quarter of participants indicated that their national education program is insufficient.
Conclusion
This is the first study to examine the different RO education systems in Europe. Large differences in organization and duration of national education programs have been found, along with perceived quality across Europe within each speciality. These results show the necessity of a discussion on how to move forward in this diversity of education programs and the potential contribution that the ESTRO may fulfil.
Background and purpose:
Anatomical changes may compromise the planned target coverage and organs-at-risk dose in particle therapy. This study reports on the practice patterns for adaptive particle therapy (APT) to evaluate current clinical practice and wishes and barriers to further implementation.
Materials and methods:
An institutional questionnaire was distributed to PT centres worldwide (7/2020-6/2021) asking which type of APT was used, details of the workflow, and what the wishes and barriers to implementation were. Seventy centres from 17 countries participated. A three-round Delphi consensus analysis (10/2022) among the authors followed to define recommendations on required actions and future vision.
Results:
Out of the 68 clinically operational centres, 84% were users of APT for at least one treatment site with head and neck being most common. APT was mostly performed offline with only two online APT users (plan-library). No centre used online daily re-planning. Daily 3D imaging was used for APT by 19% of users. Sixty-eight percent of users had plans to increase their use or change their technique for APT. The main barrier was "lack of integrated and efficient workflows". Automation and speed, reliable dose deformation for dose accumulation and higher quality of in-room volumetric imaging were identified as the most urgent task for clinical implementation of online daily APT.
Conclusion:
Offline APT was implemented by the majority of PT centres. Joint efforts between industry research and clinics are needed to translate innovations into efficient and clinically feasible workflows for broad-scale implementation of online APT.
Background and purpose:
Organ motion compromises accurate particle therapy delivery. This study reports on the practice patterns for real-time intrafractional motion-management in particle therapy to evaluate current clinical practice and wishes and barriers to implementation.
Materials and methods:
An institutional questionnaire was distributed to particle therapy centres worldwide (7/2020-6/2021) asking which type(s) of real-time respiratory motion management (RRMM) methods were used, for which treatment sites, and what were the wishes and barriers to implementation. This was followed by a three-round DELPHI consensus analysis (10/2022) to define recommendations on required actions and future vision. With 70 responses from 17 countries, response rate was 100% for Europe (23/23 centres), 96% for Japan (22/23) and 53% for USA (20/38).
Results:
Of the 68 clinically operational centres, 85% used RRMM, with 41% using both rescanning and active methods. Sixty-four percent used active-RRMM for at least one treatment site, mostly with gating guided by an external marker. Forty-eight percent of active-RRMM users wished to expand or change their RRMM technique. The main barriers were technical limitations and limited resources. From the DELPHI analysis, optimisation of rescanning parameters, improvement of motion models, and pre-treatment 4D evaluation were unanimously considered clinically important future focus. 4D dose calculation was identified as the top requirement for future commercial treatment planning software.
Conclusion:
A majority of particle therapy centres have implemented RRMM. Still, further development and clinical integration were desired by most centres. Joint industry, clinical and research efforts are needed to translate innovation into efficient workflows for broad-scale implementation.
Multiple‐choice questions are commonly used for assessing learners' knowledge, as part of educational programs and scholarly endeavors. To ensure that questions accurately assess the learners and provide meaningful data, it is important to understand best practices in multiple‐choice question design. This Educator's Blueprint paper provides 10 strategies for developing high‐quality multiple‐choice questions. These strategies include determining the purpose, objectives, and scope of the question; assembling a writing team; writing succinctly; asking questions that assess knowledge and comprehension rather than test‐taking ability; ensuring consistent and independent answer choices; using plausible foils; avoiding grouped options; selecting the ideal response number and order; writing high‐quality explanations; and gathering validity evidence before and evaluating the questions after use.
We aim to investigate the current state of brachytherapy (BT) training among the radiation oncology trainees in Europe.
Material and methods:
A 22-question online survey based on the one by the American Association of Radiation Oncology Residents (2017) with added queries pertinent to training in Europe was sent to 1450 residents in two iterations. These included site-specific training, volume of experience, barriers to training, institutional support, and preferences for further education. Responses to individual statements were given on a 1 to 5 Likert-type scale. The answers were reported by junior (≤ 3 years of training) and senior years of training (year of training 4/5/6 and junior staff). Descriptive statistics were used to describe frequencies.
Results:
Residents from 21 European countries participated, 445 (31%) responded. 205 (47%) were senior residents. 60% residents consider that performing BT independently at the end of residency is very or somewhat important. Confidence in joining a brachytherapy practice at the end of residency was high or somewhat high in 34% of senior residents. They reported as barriers to achieving independence in BT to be lack of appropriate didactic/procedural training from supervisors (47%) and decreased case load (31%). 68% reported their program lacks a formal BT curriculum and standardized training assessment.
Conclusions:
Residents in Europe, feel independent BT practice is very or somewhat important, but do not feel confident they will achieve this goal. To address this gap, efforts are needed to develop and implement a formal and comprehensive BT curriculum with easy access to trained instructors.
Survey methodologies seek to answer questions regarding a set population's perceptions, attitudes, behaviors, or knowledge base, often pertaining to matters dealing with human behavior, social/psychological factors, or educational research. However, they can also provide information on patient perceptions regarding disease processes or therapies. As such, questionnaires are valuable tools that researchers can use to answer specific questions. Despite this value, there is often little guidance provided to investigators or reviewers in how to use or interpret findings from these instruments. This article will review survey terminology and provide a context from which to operate when deciding to use surveys in vascular surgery research.
Background and purpose
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) in the medical workforce is linked to improved patient care and innovation, as well as employee retention and engagement. The European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology launched a survey to provide a benchmark of DEI and engagement among radiation oncology (RO) professionals in Europe.
Methods
An anonymous survey was disseminated among RO professionals in Europe. The survey collected demographics and professional information, and participants were asked if they felt they belonged to a minority group. A DEI and workforce engagement questionnaire by Person et al. evaluated 8 inclusion factors. A favourable score was calculated by adding the percentage of “strongly agreed” or “agreed” answers.
Results
A total of 812 complete responses were received from 35 European countries. 21% of respondents felt they belonged to a minority group, mostly based on race/ethnicity (5.9%), nationality (4.8%) and age (4.3%). Compared to benchmark data from the United States, scores were lower for most inclusion factors, and to a greater extent for minority groups. The overall favourable score was 58% for those belonging to a minority group, significantly lower than for other respondents (71%, p<0.001). Those belonging to a minority group because of their gender or age had the lowest overall favourable score (47% and 51% respectively).
Conclusions
Our work indicates that actions to improve DEI and workforce engagement among RO professionals in Europe are urgently needed, in particular among minority groups. This would potentially improve employee wellbeing and retention, promoting high quality care and innovation.
Although survey studies allow researchers to gather unique information not readily available from other data sources on disease epidemiology, human behaviors and beliefs, and knowledge about health care topics from a specific population, they may be fraught with bias if not well designed and executed. The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) Survey Disclosure Checklist (2009) and Code of Professional Ethics and Practices (2015) can guide researchers in their efforts.¹,2 The standards were first proposed in 1948 and arose in direct response to the presidential election where Harry Truman defeated Thomas Dewey.³ Truman’s victory surprised the US because Gallup and other polls predicted a Dewey win. This divergence forced pollsters and statisticians to recognize flaws in their quota sampling methods, which resulted in a nonrepresentative sample and misprediction of the 33rd president of the United States. The confusion over the election prompted leaders to propose standards for survey research. Despite the long-standing nature of these guidelines, recent data show survey reporting is often subpar.⁴ Compliance with disclosure requirements is often lacking, and articles in some specialties only report 75% of the required methodologic elements on average.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
Background and purpose
Cancer care can be taxing. Alexithymia, a personality construct characterized by difficulties in identifying and describing feeling and emotions, an externally-oriented thinking style and scarcity of imagination and fantasy, is significantly correlated with higher levels of both secondary traumatic stress (STS) and burnout and lower levels of compassion satisfaction in medical professionals in radiation oncology. In this study, we aimed to assess the difference in professional quality of life (QoL) and the association with alexithymia in this multidisciplinary field depending on the specific profession (radiation/ clinical oncologist, RO; medical physicist, MP; radiation therapist, RTT).
Material and Methods
The study was conducted via an online questionnaire, receiving 1500 submissions between May and October 2018. Alexithymia was assessed via the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and professional QoL was evaluated using the Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQoL) version 5. Comparisons between the RO, RTT, and MP groups were performed by ANOVA or MANOVA, followed by Bonferroni corrected ANOVAs for continuous variables, and Pearson’s chi-square test for categorical variables. The effect size was determined by calculating partial eta-squared (η2).
Results
Profession had a moderator role on the correlation between alexithymia and STS, with RO being at a higher risk than MP and RTT. Further, the results of this study demonstrate the relevant point prevalence of decreased well-being at work even for professional categories such as MP despite the more technical profile and reduced interaction with patients.
Conclusions
This study demonstrates the importance of alexithymia as a factor contributing to decreased professional QoL amongst radiation oncology professionals. Alexithymic ROs are impacted to a higher extent compared to MPs and RTTs by the indirect exposure to patients suffering. It is worth addressing these observations in professional education, aiming to improve QoL for healthcare personnel.
Surveys are one of the most common study designs in healthcare research. They are easy to undertake, have minimal cost and aim to obtain reliable and unbiased information from a population of interest. Surveys in pediatric surgery/urology are an effective tool for gathering information on clinical practices for rare and complex conditions that highlight information on their behavior, institutional disparities, and healthcare paradigms.
This education article consists of using a published survey by one of the authors as an example to demonstrate both positive and negative aspects, including limitations, of survey design studies with the purpose of helping pediatric urologists develop a framework to create and critically appraise survey methodology. Using this approach, readers should be able to reliably discern the methodological quality of published surveys.
Total body irradiation (TBI) is an important treatment modality for the preparation of patients for bone marrow transplants. It is technically challenging and the actual delivery may vary from clinic to clinic. Knowledge of the pattern of practice may be helpful for clinics to determine future practice. We carried out an email survey from April to September 2019 sending 48 TBI related questions to all radiotherapy clinics in Australia and New Zealand via the Australasian College of Physical Scientists in Medicine email distribution list. Centres not performing TBI were not expected to complete the survey and centres that had participated in a previous survey, or that were known to perform the treatment, were followed up if no response was received. Of a total of approximately 70 centres, 14 clinics responded to the survey. The vast majority of clinics use conventional lateral and/or anterior–posterior beams at extended SSD for TBI treatment delivery. However, treatment planning, ancillary equipment (used for immobilisation/modulation), beam energy and prescribed lung doses vary considerably—with some clinics delivering the prescription dose to the lungs and some aiming to deliver a lung dose which is lower than the prescription dose. Only one clinic reported using an advanced delivery technique with modulated arcs at extended SSD. Centres either said they had no access to outcome data or did not answer this question. Compared with an earlier survey from 2005, 3 clinics have lowered their linac dose rate and 7 are the same or similar. The TBI practice in Australia and New Zealand remains varied, with considerable differences in treatment planning, beam energy, accepted lung doses and delivered dose rates.
Background and Purpose
Different factors may influence the professional quality of life of oncology professionals. Among them, personality traits, as alexithymia and empathy, are underinvestigated. Alexithymia is about deficits in emotion processing and awareness. Empathy is the ability to understand another’s ‘state of mind’/emotion. The PROject on BurnOut in RadiatioN Oncology (PRO BONO) assesses professional quality of life, including burnout, in the field of radiation oncology and investigates alexithymia and empathy as contributing factors.
Material and Methods
An online survey was conducted amongst ESTRO members. Participants completed 3 validated questionnaires for alexithymia, empathy and burn-out: a)Toronto Alexithymia Scale; b)Interpersonal Reactivity Index; c)Professional Quality of Life Scale. The present analysis, focusing on radiation/clinical oncologists, evaluates Compassion Satisfaction (CS), Secondary Traumatic Stress (STS) and Burnout and correlates them with alexithymia and empathy (empathic concern, perspective taking and personal distress) with generalized linear modeling. Significant covariates on univariate linear regression analysis were included in the multivariate linear regression model.
Results
A total of 825 radiation oncologists completed all questionnaires. A higher level of alexithymia was associated to decreased CS (β:-0.101;SE:0.018;p<0.001), increased STS (β:0.228;SE:0.018;p<0.001) and burn-out (β:0.177;SE:0.016;p<0.001). A higher empathic concern was significantly associated to increased CS (β:0.1.287;SE:0.305;p=0.001), STS (β:0.114;SE :0.296;p<0.001), with no effect on burn-out. Personal distress was associated to decreased CS (β:-1.423;SE:0.275;p<0.001), increased STS (β:1.871;SE:0.283;p<0.001) and burn-out (β:1.504;SE:0.245;p<0.001).
Conclusions
Alexithymic personality trait increased burnout risk, with less professional satisfaction. Empathic concern was associated to increased stress, without leading to burnout, resulting in higher professional fulfillment. These results may be used to benchmark preventing strategies, such as work-hour restrictions, peer support, debriefing sessions, and leadership initiatives for professionals at risk.
Background
Survey research, indispensable for assessing subjective outcomes in anesthesiology, can nonetheless be challenging to undertake and interpret.
Objective
To present a user-friendly guide for the appraisal of survey-derived evidence, and to apply it to published survey research in the anesthesia literature.
Methods
Synthesizing published expert guidance regarding methodology and reporting, we discuss five essential criteria (with subcomponents) for evaluating survey research: (1) relevance of survey outcome to research objective, (2) trustworthiness of the instrument (testing/validation, availability), (3) collecting information well (sampling, administration), (4) representativeness (response rate), and (5) guidance towards interpretation of survey findings (generalizability, interpretation of numerical outcomes). These criteria were subsequently applied by two independent assessors to original research articles reporting survey findings, published in the five highest impact general anesthesia journals (‘Anaesthesia’, ‘Anesthesia & Analgesia’, ‘Anesthesiology’, ‘British Journal of Anaesthesia’ and ‘European Journal of Anaesthesiology’) between July 01, 2016, and December 31, 2017, which were identified using a prespecified PubMed search strategy.
Results
Among 1107 original articles published, we identified 97 reporting survey research either employing novel survey instruments (58%), established surveys (30%), or sets of single-item scores (12%). The extent to which reader-oriented benchmarks were achieved varied by component and between survey types. Results were particularly mixed for validation (mentioned for 41% of novel and 86% of established surveys) and discussion of generalizability (59% of novel survey reports, 45% of established surveys, and 17% of sets of single-item scores).
Conclusion
Survey research is not uncommon in anesthesiology, frequently employs novel survey instruments, and demonstrates mixed results in terms of transparency and interpretability. We provide readers with a practical framework for critical interpretation of survey-derived outcomes.
Surveys, and survey research, have become ubiquitous; it is likely that most of us receive at least 1 survey in our email daily. Owing to this popularity and a large variation in survey design quality, many may dismiss the value of survey research. Dismissing surveys is a mistake, as there are many questions that are only answered using this research approach.
Background:
The quality of radiotherapy services in post-Soviet countries has not yet been studied following a formal methodology. The IAEA conducted a survey using two sets of validated radiation oncology quality indicators (ROIs).
Methods:
Eleven post-Soviet countries were assessed. A coordinator was designated for each country and acted as the liaison between the country and the IAEA. The methodology was a one-time cross-sectional survey using a 58-question tool in Russian. The questionnaire was based on two validated sets of ROIs: for radiotherapy centres, the indicators proposed by Cionini et al., and for data at the country level, the Australasian ROIs.
Results:
The overall response ratio was 66.3%, but for the Russian Federation, it was 24%. Data were updated on radiotherapy infrastructure and equipment. 256 radiotherapy centres are operating 275 linear accelerators and 337 Cobalt-60 units. 61% of teletherapy machines are older than ten years. Analysis of ROIs revealed significant differences between these countries and radiotherapy practices in the West. Naming, task profile and education programmes of radiotherapy professionals are different than in the West.
Conclusions:
Most countries need modernization of their radiotherapy infrastructure coupled with adequate staffing numbers and updated education programmes focusing on evidence-based medicine, quality, and safety.
Background:
To understand barriers and enablers to use of curative-intent radiotherapy (RT) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).
Methods:
Canadian urologists, radiation oncologists (ROs) and medical oncologists (MOs) participated in a web-based survey to assess barriers and enablers to use of RT. Survey questions were thematically mapped to TDF domains. Logistic regression was used to identify TDF domains associated with high referral/use of RT.
Results:
64 urologists, 29 ROs and 26 MOs participated. Participants reported comparable survival at five years with cystectomy (51%) and RT with concurrent chemotherapy (50%). Despite this, participants reported low RT referral/treatment rates: Urologists referred a median of 2/10 patients to RO; ROs treated a median of 5/10 patients referred; and MOs referred a median of 2/8 patients not referred to RO by urology. Among urologists, the TDF domains 'beliefs about consequences' (OR=8.1, 95% CI 1.5-44.9), 'social and professional role' (OR=11.2, 95% CI 2.3-53.6) and 'environmental context and resources' (OR=5.9, 95% CI 1.5-23.3) were associated with higher rates of RO referral.
Conclusions:
We have identified factors associated with referral for RT among patients with bladder cancer. These factors should be addressed as part of a concerted effort to increase utilization of RT.