College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021 Jun 1;110(2):292-302. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.12.049. Epub 2021 Jan 4.
Although mentorship is described extensively in academic medical literature, there are few descriptions of mentorship specific to radiation oncology. The goal of the current study was to investigate the state of mentorship in radiation oncology through a scoping review of the literature.
A search protocol was defined according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Predefined search terms and medical subject headings were used to search PubMed for English language articles published after January 1, 1990, on mentorship in radiation oncology. Additionally, in-press articles from major radiation oncology and medical education journals were searched. Three reviewers determined article eligibility. Included articles were classified based on predefined evaluation criteria.
Fourteen publications from 2008 to 2019 met inclusion criteria. The most commonly described form of mentorship was the dyad (64.3%), followed by team (14.3%) and peer (7.1%); 2 articles did not specify mentorship type (14.3%). The most commonly mentored participants were residents (35.7%), followed by medical students (35.7%) and attendings (21.4%); 1 study included participants of all levels (7.1%). Thirteen studies (92.9%) identified an experimental study design, most of which were cross-sectional (42.9%), followed by cohort studies (28.6%) and before/after (21.4%). Median sample size, reported in 12 of 13 experimental studies, was 132 (coefficient of variation, 1.06). Although outcomes varied widely, the majority described successful implementation of mentorship initiatives with high levels of participant satisfaction.
Although few initiatives are currently reported, the present study suggests that these initiatives are successful in promoting career development and increasing professional satisfaction. The interventions overwhelmingly described mentorship dyads; other forms of mentorship are either less common or understudied. Limitations included interventions not being evaluated in a controlled setting, and many were assessed using surveys with low response rates. This review highlights rich opportunities for future scholarship to develop, evaluate, and disseminate radiation oncology mentorship initiatives.
尽管学术医学文献中广泛描述了指导关系，但针对放射肿瘤学的指导关系描述却很少。本研究的目的是通过对文献的范围综述来调查放射肿瘤学中的指导关系现状。
根据系统评价和荟萃分析扩展的首选报告项目（PRISMA-ScR）指南，定义了搜索方案。使用预定义的搜索词和医学主题词在 PubMed 上搜索 1990 年 1 月 1 日以后发表的关于放射肿瘤学指导关系的英文文章。此外，还搜索了主要放射肿瘤学和医学教育期刊的在印文章。三名评审员确定文章的合格性。将纳入的文章根据预定义的评估标准进行分类。
2008 年至 2019 年的 14 篇文章符合纳入标准。最常描述的指导关系形式是二人组（64.3%），其次是团队（14.3%）和同行（7.1%）；2 篇文章未指定指导关系类型（14.3%）。最常指导的参与者是住院医师（35.7%），其次是医学生（35.7%）和主治医生（21.4%）；1 项研究包括所有水平的参与者（7.1%）。13 项研究（92.9%）确定了实验研究设计，其中大部分为横断面研究（42.9%），其次是队列研究（28.6%）和前后研究（21.4%）。在 13 项实验研究中，有 12 项报告了中位数样本量，报告值为 132（变异系数为 1.06）。尽管结果差异很大，但大多数研究都描述了成功实施指导关系计划，并具有较高的参与者满意度。
尽管目前报道的计划很少，但本研究表明，这些计划成功地促进了职业发展并提高了专业满意度。干预措施主要描述了指导二人组；其他形式的指导关系要么不太常见，要么研究较少。局限性包括干预措施未在对照环境中进行评估，并且许多评估都使用了低响应率的调查。本综述突出了未来开展放射肿瘤学指导关系发展、评估和传播的丰富机会。
