Physicians in TrainingINTRODUCTION
Annually, over 500,000 Americans are expected to succumb to cancer, making malignancy the second most frequent cause of death in this country. As more evidence emerges on the impact of early cancer detection, the attention of clinicians is being increasingly drawn to cancer screening. Medical and surgical efforts at achieving “cure” are often dependent upon the extent of the disease at presentation, with the early cancers having a better prognosis. Therefore, it seems intuitive that aggressive screening resulting in early detection may translate into a distinct survival advantage for the patient affected by cancer. Successful early screening is reliant on patient awareness as well as physician cognizance. While early screening may not result in reduction of cancer mortality in all types of cancer, awareness of incidence and mortality may better help physicians-in-training prioritize cancer screening, treatment and research endeavors.

Because a great deal is shaped and influenced in the formative training years, concentrated educational efforts during this time period have a long-lasting impact. In order to be most effective in these teaching efforts, an understanding of the young physicians’ baseline knowledge of basic cancer facts at specific points in their training is important. Thus, we undertook the current study to assess the knowledge of basic cancer facts and to note any differences between medical students and residents.¬†Buy skelaxin online

A self-administered questionnaire was devised to assess basic cancer facts (mortality and incidence) in medical students and residents. The questions that were asked are in Figure 1. The survey was given to the physicians-in-training immediately after an examination. Second-year medical students completing their preclinical courses, internal medicine residents (postgraduate years 1-3) and general surgery residents (postgraduate years 1-5) were asked to rank various malignancies (Table 1) by mortalityand incidence in the correct order for both male and female patients.



For both mortality and incidence, the physicians-in-training were scored by two methods. If the physician-in-training correctly identified the malignancies in the correct order except the last two, he/she was considered to have a correct score (method A). Thus, a patient with a correct method A had the correct order of the first three malignancies (Table 1). If the physician-in-training had the first three malignancies ranked as the first three but not in the correct order, he/she was considered to have a correct score (method B). Percentages for method A were calculated by dividing the number of physican-in-training who had a correct method A by total of number of the respondents. The same was done for method B. The logic of utilizing two separate scoring systems was so that we could appreciate baseline knowledge of common cancers verses more detailed knowledge of relative incidence and mortality of the physician-in-training. Physicians-in-training were scored for female and malepatients using both methods. Medication you can afford actos 30 mg

Blank and/or incomplete responses were not included in the calculations. Chi-squared tests were used for statistical analysis performed with Graph-PAD InStat Version 1.12a.

Category: Cancer / Tags: Cancer, education

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *