Communication Training in Pediatric Hematology/Oncology: A Canadian National Needs Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Communication skills are crucial in Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (PHO) due to clinical complexity and the need to balance child and parent interactions. Communication skills of Canadian PHO trainees are evaluated by nationally standardized Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) in a competency by design framework. While PHO communication training in the United States is limited (File et al. 2014), there is no published data for Canadian training programs. Objectives. 1) To characterize communication training in Canadian PHO programs. 2) To explore the perspectives of PHO trainees and Program Directors (PDs) on communication training. Methods. We conducted a mixed methods national needs assessment per Kern's Model of Curriculum Development, using an explanatory sequential design. Eligible participants were Canadian PHO PDs and current trainees, excluding subspecialty fellows (e.g. bone marrow transplant). An electronic survey, optimized with statistician input, cognitive interviewing, and pilot testing, was distributed via RedCap. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Respondents were invited to a focus group (trainees) or one-on-one interview (PDs), with interview guides informed by survey results. De-identified transcripts were coded using NVivo by 2 authors (KM, MT) with a deductive approach, and analyzed with reflexive thematic analysis. Participants received gift certificates. This project was designed as part of the ASH Medical Educators Institute and funded by the Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation and Department of Pediatrics Innovation Award. Results. Survey was completed by 7 PDs and 12 trainees, representing 9/10 Canadian PHO programs. Most participants (84%) identified as female. Zero to 10 hours/year of communication training was reported including workshops (8/9 programs), didactic lectures (6/9), simulation (3/9), and other methods, mostly delivered by PHO and palliative care physicians. Attitudes were assessed with a 5-point Likert scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Participants felt dedicated communication training is required (17/19 agreed, 2 neutral). PDs were more likely than trainees to report direct observation (86% vs 58%) and adequate evaluation (71% vs 42%) of trainee communication skills. Trainees preferred active teaching methods (simulation, peer/faculty feedback, and workshops) whereas PDs favoured passive methods (peer/faculty feedback, observing faculty, and observing peers). Trainees (58%) and PDs (86%) showed interest in simulation if available. Comfort with 15 communication scenarios (e.g. “disclosing an oncology diagnosis”) was assessed on a 5-point Likert scale from “very uncomfortable” to “very comfortable.” Trainees were least comfortable discussing autopsy requests (11/12 neutral or worse), survival data comparisons (9/12 neutral or worse), and clinical trial enrolment (7/12 neutral or worse). PDs were statistically more comfortable with 8/15 scenarios (p<0.05), with only sexual health and gender identity scored below neutral by any PD. Preliminary qualitative thematic analysis revealed 4 main themes: desire for PHO-specific communication training; barriers to curriculum development (e.g. budget and time constraints); need to improve communication evaluation; and need for collaboration between programs. Conclusion. There is a need for improved communication training in Canadian PHO programs. Participants desired increased training (passive modalities preferred by PDs and active ones favored by trainees), improved evaluation, and better inter-program collaboration. These findings will guide the development of a pilot PHO communication curriculum.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".