4.2 Article

A GERCOR-AERIO national survey of oncology residents in France: Current setting and expectations regarding post-internship and research

期刊

BULLETIN DU CANCER
卷 106, 期 5, 页码 407-420

出版社

JOHN LIBBEY EUROTEXT LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bulcan.2019.02.009

关键词

University hospital career; Motivation; Clinical research; Fundamental research; Translational research; Survey

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction > The demographics of oncology residents has changed since 2010 with the increase in the size of promotions. The evolution of the residents' aspirations towards research and their future exercise in parallel with these demographic changes has not been assessed. Methods > A questionnaire was developed by a working group from GERCOR (cooperative group in oncology), involving clinicians, researchers, GERCOR members, and residents. It consisted of 62 questions divided into 7 sections: demographics, medical thesis, post-residency, mobility, publication activity, basic research, and clinical/translational research. The national survey was published online by the Association d'enseignement et de recherche des internes en oncologie (AERIO). Results > In total, 143 residents participated, of which 116 (81.1%) completed the questionnaire entirely. The population was representative of the current demographics, with a majority of women (65.0%), a median age of 28 years, and 39.7% of residents from Paris region. The unsupervised analysis revealed four profiles of residents, including one group strongly committed to research (16.8%), one group with moderate involvement (41.3%) and one group that did not seem interested in research (14.7%). Uncertainty about future position and lack of time and interaction with researchers appeared to be the main barriers to involvement of residents in research. Discussion > This notional survey provided useful information about the residents' perspective to academic research. It may serve as a basis for proposing measures adapted to their expectations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据