Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantitative Assessment of Learning Behaviors for Oncology Providers

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

How health care providers select topics and activities for learning is key to meeting their needs. The goal of this study was to investigate how oncology providers identify knowledge gaps and choose learning activities. An online focus group within a larger longitudinal study was conducted between November 2015 and August 2016. Participants were chosen by convenience and stratified random sampling of diverse types of oncology providers. Providers were asked monthly to identify learning needs, explain how they identified those needs, and describe the learning activity they chose to meet those needs. Thirty-two oncology providers recorded 201 learning needs via online journal entries (mean 6 entries per person). Needs were associated with practice setting and professional role (p < .05). Colleague recommendation predicted learning needs for advanced practice providers (APPs) (p = .003). Patient cases drove > 50% of identified learning needs across groups. Learning activity preferences were associated with practice setting (p < .05). Choice of learning activity was associated with practice setting, professional role, and geographic location. Colleague recommendation was important for APPs (p = .025). Over 75% of learner responses identify convenience and content quality as important factors in choosing an activity. This study represents a quantitative assessment of learning behaviors for oncology providers and shows that identification of learning needs and activity selection differ by provider demographics. Limitations include small size and underrepresentation of some groups. Our findings should be confirmed with larger samples. Future research should focus on assessment of cohort versus individual needs and learning priorities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fletcher SW (2008) Chairman’s summary of the conference. Continuing education in the health professions: improving healthcare through lifelong learning. J Contin Educ Nurs 39(3):112–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. McMahon GT (2016) What do I need to learn today?—the evolution of CME. N Engl J Med 374(15):1403–1406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Davis DA, Prescott J, Fordis CM Jr, Greenberg SB, Dewey CM, Brigham T, Lieberman SA, Rockhold RW, Lieff SJ, Tenner TE Jr (2011) Rethinking CME: an imperative for academic medicine and faculty development. Acad Med 86(4):468–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. IOM (2010) Redesigning continuing education in the health professions. Washington DC

  5. Sun J, Wei Q, Zhou Y, Wang J, Liu Q, Xu H (2017) A systematic analysis of FDA-approved anticancer drugs. BMC Syst Biol 11(Suppl 5):87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lyman GH, Zon R, Harvey RD, Schilsky RL (2018) Rationale, opportunities, and reality of biosimilar medications. N Engl J Med 378(21):2036–2044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bennett EE, Blanchard RD, Hinchey KT (2012) AM last page. Applying Knowles’ andragogy to resident teaching. Acad Med 87(1):129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Daily JA, Landis BJ (2014) The journey to becoming an adult learner: from dependent to self-directed learning. J Am Coll Cardiol 64(19):2066–2068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Campbell C, Silver I, Sherbino J, Cate OT, Holmboe ES (2010) Competency-based continuing professional development. Med Teach 32(8):657–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Murad MH, Coto-Yglesias F, Varkey P, Prokop LJ, Murad AL (2010) The effectiveness of self-directed learning in health professions education: a systematic review. Med Educ 44(11):1057–1068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Schumacher DJ, Englander R, Carraccio C (2013) Developing the master learner: applying learning theory to the learner, the teacher, and the learning environment. Acad Med 88(11):1635–1645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jeong D, Presseau J, ElChamaa R, Naumann DN, Mascaro C, Luconi F, Smith KM, Kitto S (2018) Barriers and facilitators to self-directed learning in continuing professional development for physicians in Canada: a scoping review. Acad Med 93(8):1245–1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cook DA, Price DW, Wittich CM, West CP, Blachman MJ (2017) Factors influencing physicians’ selection of continuous professional development activities: a cross-specialty national survey. J Contin Educ Heal Prof 37(3):154–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M, Van Harrison R, Thorpe KE, Perrier L (2006) Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review. JAMA. 296(9):1094–1102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lockyer J, Armson H, Chesluk B, Dornan T, Holmboe E, Loney E, Mann K, Sargeant J (2011) Feedback data sources that inform physician self-assessment. Med Teach 33(2):e113–e120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Peterson LE, Blackburn B, Bazemore A, O'Neill T, Phillips RL Jr (2014) Do family physicians choose self-assessment activities based on what they know or don’t know? J Contin Educ Heal Prof 34(3):164–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson DA, Austin DL, Thompson JN (2005) Role of state medical boards in continuing medical education. J Contin Educ Heal Prof 25(3):183–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Leach DC, Fletcher SW (2008) Perspectives on continuing education in the health professions: improving health care through lifelong learning. Chest. 134(6):1299–1303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Forsetlund L, Bjorndal A, Rashidian A et al (2009) Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD003030

    Google Scholar 

  20. Salinas GD (2015) CME effectiveness: utilizing outcomes assessments of 600+ CME programs to evaluate the association between format and effectiveness. J Contin Educ Heal Prof 35(Suppl 1):S38–S39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fordis M, King JE, Ballantyne CM, Jones PH, Schneider KH, Spann SJ, Greenberg SB, Greisinger AJ (2005) Comparison of the instructional efficacy of Internet-based CME with live interactive CME workshops: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 294(9):1043–1051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Young KJ, Kim JJ, Yeung G, Sit C, Tobe SW (2011) Physician preferences for accredited online continuing medical education. J Contin Educ Heal Prof 31(4):241–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kaufman DM (2003) Applying educational theory in practice. BMJ. 326(7382):213–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Reed S, Shell R, Kassis K, Tartaglia K, Wallihan R, Smith K, Hurtubise L, Martin B, Ledford C, Bradbury S, Bernstein H(H), Mahan JD (2014) Applying adult learning practices in medical education. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care 44(6):170–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Friedlander MJ, Andrews L, Armstrong EG, Aschenbrenner C, Kass JS, Ogden P, Schwartzstein R, Viggiano TR (2011) What can medical education learn from the neurobiology of learning? Acad Med 86(4):415–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mahan JD, Stein DS (2014) Teaching adults-best practices that leverage the emerging understanding of the neurobiology of learning. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care 44(6):141–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Slotnick HB (1999) How doctors learn: physicians’ self-directed learning episodes. Acad Med 74(10):1106–1117

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Sargeant J, Mann K, Sinclair D, Ferrier S, Muirhead P, van der Vleuten C, Metsemakers J (2006) Learning in practice: experiences and perceptions of high-scoring physicians. Acad Med 81(7):655–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mamede S, Schmidt HG (2004) The structure of reflective practice in medicine. Med Educ 38(12):1302–1308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Duffy FD, Holmboe ES (2006) Self-assessment in lifelong learning and improving performance in practice: physician know thyself. JAMA. 296(9):1137–1139

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. McGaghie WC (2010) Medical education research as translational science. Sci Transl Med 2(19):19cm18

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Financial support for the Learning Cohort Pilot Project was provided by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Vermont School of Medicine, Given E214, 89 Beaumont Avenue, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA

    Marie Wood

  2. University of Florida Health, 2000 SW Archer Rd., Gainesville, FL, 32608, USA

    Thomas J. George

  3. Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road S, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA

    Rami Manochakian

  4. George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 2300 I Street NW, Washington, DC, 20052, USA

    Maura Polansky

  5. American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2318 Mill Road, Suite 800, Alexandria, VA, 22315, USA

    Allyson Baer & Anne Grupe

  6. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1211 Medical Center Drive, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA

    Yu Shyr & Leora Horn

  7. Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Cathy Wang

Authors
  1. Marie Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas J. George
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rami Manochakian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maura Polansky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Allyson Baer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anne Grupe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yu Shyr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Cathy Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Leora Horn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie Wood.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Because ASCO does not have access to a formal ethical review process, careful steps were taken to ensure ethical treatment of study participants. The authors selected participants via a combination of stratified random sampling and convenience sampling. This allowed for ASCO members who were interested in participating to opt in to the group while simultaneously capturing a group of people who were not as heavily involved in the organization. Before finalizing participation and beginning the project, each individual was provided with a description of the overall project, participation expectations, information about how data collected would be used, and how he or she would be compensated for their time and feedback. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Data from the project was collected via a secure online platform and stored in secure folders and documents. Throughout the processing of summarizing results (for both internal and external reporting), all participant data was de-identified and kept confidential.

Overall, the study presented very little risk to the participants. The project was designed to survey and gather information on what oncology health care providers were already doing or planning to do rather than to modify behavior based on the introduction of a variable. The amount of time required to participate was minimal, and participants were permitted to skip portions of the study if work or clinic schedules proved difficult. Additionally, participants were provided with a stipend, Fellow of ASCO points, and complimentary access to several ASCO resources. Thus, the benefits derived from their participation outweighed any risks to individual participants.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Previous Presentations

A portion of this data was presented as a poster at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting, June 1–5, 2018, Chicago, IL.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wood, M., George, T.J., Manochakian, R. et al. Quantitative Assessment of Learning Behaviors for Oncology Providers. J Canc Educ 36, 25–32 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-019-01593-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-019-01593-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation