Faculty questionnaire

The Faculty Questionnaire was sent out to 165 medical schools in Europe. The addressee was the person who was designated as the relevant representative by the dean. The number of processable questionnaires returned was 115, so the net response-rate was 70%. The respondents represented 23 European countries.

Response rates Faculty Questionnaire and Student Questionnaire

A - number of addressed medical deans
B - number of deans naming a respondent
C - number of schools responding to Faculty Questionnaire
D - number of schools responding to Student Questionnaire

 

 

Some striking results of the Faculty Questionnaire

In the national U.S. Cancer Education Survey (1980) ¹ it was found that medical schools are better equipped for cancer education when they meet the following criteria:

• there is a specific cancer education course
• there is a cancer education coordinator
• there is a multidisciplinary cancer education committee.

Following these criteria with these favourable conditions for cancer education gave a list with 20 institutions in Europe (1992):

• Czechoslovakia : University of Safarika, Medical School, Kosice
• Estonia : Tartu University, MedicalSchool, Tartu
• France : University of Paris Val de Marne, MedicalSchool, Créteil
• France: University of Pierre et Marie Curie, Medical School Pitié-Salpétrière
• France : University of Paris 7, MedicalSchool Lariboisière Saint Louis, Paris
• France: Catholique University de Lille, Faculté de Médecine, Lille
• France : University of Grenoble, MedicalSchool, Grenoble
• GOS: Altai State University, MedicalSchool, Barnaul
• GOS: Chuvas University, MedicalSchool, Cheboksary
• GOS: University of Jaroslavl, MedicalSchool, Jaroslavl
• Ireland : UniversityCollege Dublin, MedicalSchool, Dublin
• Netherlands : University of Amsterdam, MedicalSchool, Amsterdam
• Netherlands : University of Nijmegen, MedicalSchool, Nijmegen
• Netherlands : University of Groningen, MedicalSchool, Groningen
• Netherlands : Erasmus University, MedicalSchool, Rotterdam
• Netherlands : Free University, MedicalSchool, Amsterdam
• Netherlands : University of Leiden, MedicalSchool, Leiden
• Poland : University of Lublin, MedicalSchool, Lublin
• Poland : University of Lodz, MedicalSchool, Lodz
• Poland : University of Gdansk, MedicalSchool, Gdansk.

Specific cancer education course
Respondents from 69 (60%) Medical Schools reported to have a specific cancer education course. For the following discussions these schools will be referred to as SCEC-schools (schools which have a Specific Cancer Education Course). In 47 of these schools it was a multidisciplinary activity, and one third had a multidisciplinary cancer education committee. In nearly all schools clinicians participated in the organization of the cancer education course, and in more than half also basic scientists were involved.

 

Cancer education coordinator
In 40 schools with a specific cancer course, there was a cancer education coordinator, sometimes full-time. However, it could be concluded from further details that these full-time coordinators were full-time clinicians, and were frequently the head of a department or division. There was only one school with a full-time professional cancer education coordinator.

Inpatient oncology divisions
Inpatient oncology divisions were existent in about two third of the main clinical departments, but students did rotate through a little bit less than half of these units.

Outpatient oncology divisions
The existence of outpatient oncology divisions was of the same magnitude, but rotation of students took place in only one out of three units.

Multidisciplinary cancer patient management conferences
Nearly all respondents mentioned multidisciplinary cancer patient management conferences in their school, most of the time more than three times per month. However, student attendance was more often occasionally than regularly, and in only 25% compulsory.

Cancer care and cancer control
Most aspects of cancer care and cancer control were considered to receive insufficient attention. Comparing SCEC-schools to other schools without SCEC characteristics, demonstrated a shift into a positive direction. Later in this report the results of the Student Questionnaire will be reported. Anticipating those results, it was demonstrated that - comparing students with faculty members - students were more positive with respect to education about epidemiology, high risk groups, and disease prevention, and more negative with respect to psychosocial support.

Cancer education objectives
Of the 115 schools, 32 (29%) reported that they provided their students with cancer education objectives, but only 6 enclosed those objectives with the questionnaire.

Cancer education teaching methods
Lecturing was both absolutely and relatively the predominant cancer education teaching method; electives, especially the basic science cancer electives, were relatively neglected.

Cancer education evaluation methods
Oral examinations, clinical examinations and multiple choice questions were the popular cancer education evaluation methods, with more contemporary methods like OSCE (Objective Structured Clinical Examination), MEQ's (Modified Essay Question) and Objective Criteria Lists as rare examination methods. A specific cancer examination was reported to exist in one out of four schools. SCEC-schools did not make a difference with regard to teaching and evaluation methods, except for the specific cancer examination (41%).

Cancer education reports and journals
Cancer education reports and journals were relatively unknown to the respondents (irrespective of school). The UICC Manual is a modest exception, but was only recommended in 25 schools, most of them from Eastern Europe.

WHO/UICC visit
Two out of three respondents would welcome a WHO/UICC visit (the same goes for the subgroup of the SCEC-schools).

Discussion and conclusions

The results made clear that there was a lot to do with respect to cancer education in Europe. It made one thinking that medical schools with a specific organized cancer education course were hardly distinguishable (in terms of this survey) from schools without such a course.
Students could see much more cancer patients than actually was realized. This applied to the inpatient facilities and a fortiori to the outpatient facilities.
If WHO/UICC experts were to visit medical schools, they would have lots of starting points: for instance modern teaching techniques, better utilisation of locally already existing oncology units, conferences, and use of modern assessment instruments.

References

1. Bakemeier RF et al: Cancer Education Survey: Final Report, Cancer Education in U.S. Medical Schools. Vol. 6. DHHS Publication No. 81-2259. Bethesda, Maryland: Nat Inst of Health (1981)