Competencies for practicing medical oncology with common sense: A global curricula review.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
9018 Background: The Common Sense Oncology (CSO) movement advocates for high-quality, patient-centered cancer care by emphasizing evidence-based, patient-relevant outcomes and equitable access to care through improved evidence generation, interpretation, and communication. A key part of CSO’s mission is training oncologists to incorporate these principles into their practice. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate how competencies in global postgraduate medical oncology curricula align with CSO principles. Methods: We conducted a document analysis of publicly available postgraduate medical and clinical oncology curricula. Curricula were identified through: (1) searches in Education Source, EMBASE, and PubMed using the terms 'oncology', 'curriculum', and 'competency-based'; (2) a grey literature search; and (3) requests to medical education experts. Curricula in English, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, or Hebrew were included to ensure regional representation, while accounting for the research team’s language proficiency. Competencies were categorized into eight domains aligned with CSO principles, including critical appraisal, cost and value of cancer care, communication about outcomes and treatment risks, equity in accessing cancer care, ethical principles, and integration of psychosocial oncology, survivorship, and palliative care. Two team members reviewed each curriculum, resolving discrepancies collaboratively, with unresolved cases adjudicated by the first or senior author. Results: We analyzed 16 curricula (Australia/New Zealand, Brazil, Canada, the European Union, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the ESMO/ASCO joint curriculum). Ten (63%) were from high-income regions, and six (37%) were from low/ middle-income countries (LMIC). The most frequently identified domains were critical appraisal (94% of curricula), communication (94%), palliative care (94%), and cost/value of care (88%). Less frequent domains were equity in accessing cancer care (56%), ethical principles (56%), and survivorship care (63%). Four (25%) curricula, all from high-income regions, covered all CSO-relevant domains, while three (19%) addressed four or fewer. Competencies related to equity and ethics were found in 70% of high-income curricula but only in 33% of LMIC. Conclusions: Competencies reflecting CSO principles were identified in global oncology curricula, with emphasis on critical appraisal, communication, palliative care, and psychosocial oncology. Competencies related to equity, ethical principles and survivorship care were less frequently observed. Notable gaps were observed between high-income countries and LMIC, though language limitations may have influenced our findings. Our results will inform the development of a globally relevant competency framework for common sense in oncology.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,034 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,014 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».