TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessing radiation oncology research needs in India
T2 - Results of a physician survey
AU - Bhatia, Rohini
AU - Sastri Chopra, Supriya
AU - Palkonda, Vijay
AU - Giri, G.
AU - Senapati, Surendranath
AU - Bilimagga, Ramesh
AU - Chadha, Manjeet
AU - Viswanathan, Akila
AU - Grover, Surbhi
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding was cited as a limitation for writing a research protocol for 17% of respondents. Funding agencies including the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Terry Fox, and the Department of Science and Technology (DST) have grants available for early and intermediate scientists. These agencies promote collaborations with different countries and with a focus on combining science and technology with innovative cancer research. Mentorship and support to apply for international grants supporting cross‑national partnerships are an integral part of building research capacity. In the same vein, there has been a push to address the gap in research capacity in LMICs to ensure that local knowledge and training are enforced and responsive to research outcomes. Partnering radiation oncology researchers with mentors locally and internationally will allow for knowledge sharing about local resources, innovative use of resources for research projects, and assistance in navigating research waters that have been previously occupied by high‑income countries.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Indian Journal of Cancer | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 411.
PY - 2020/10/1
Y1 - 2020/10/1
N2 - In India, where the annual incidence of cancer is projected to reach 1.7 million by 2020, the need for clinical research to establish the most effective, resource-guided, and evidence-based care is paramount. In this study, we sought to better understand the research training needs of radiation oncologists in India. Methods: A 12 item questionnaire was developed to assess research training needs and was distributed at the research methods course jointly organized by Indian College of Radiation Oncology, the American Brachytherapy Society, and Education Committee of the American Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology during the Indian Cancer Congress, 2017. Results: Of 100 participants who received the questionnaire, 63% responded. Ninety percent (56/63) were Radiation Oncologists. Forty-two percent (26/63) of respondents had previously conducted research. A longer length of practice (>10 years) was significantly associated with conducting research (odds ratio (OR) 6.99, P = 0.031) and having formal research training trended toward significance (OR 3.03, P = 0.058). The most common reason for not conducting research was 'lack of training' (41%, 14/34). The most common types of research conducted were Audits and Retrospective studies (62%, 16/26), followed by a Phase I/II/III Trial (46%, 10/26). Having formal research training was a significant factor associated with writing a protocol (OR 5.53, P = 0.016). Limited training in research methods (54%, 13/24) and lack of mentorship (42%, 10/24) were cited as reasons for not developing a protocol. Ninety-seven percent (57/59) of respondents were interested in a didactic session on research, specifically focusing on biostatistics. Conclusions: With research training and mentorship, there is a greater likelihood that concepts and written protocols will translate into successfully completed studies in radiation therapy.
AB - In India, where the annual incidence of cancer is projected to reach 1.7 million by 2020, the need for clinical research to establish the most effective, resource-guided, and evidence-based care is paramount. In this study, we sought to better understand the research training needs of radiation oncologists in India. Methods: A 12 item questionnaire was developed to assess research training needs and was distributed at the research methods course jointly organized by Indian College of Radiation Oncology, the American Brachytherapy Society, and Education Committee of the American Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology during the Indian Cancer Congress, 2017. Results: Of 100 participants who received the questionnaire, 63% responded. Ninety percent (56/63) were Radiation Oncologists. Forty-two percent (26/63) of respondents had previously conducted research. A longer length of practice (>10 years) was significantly associated with conducting research (odds ratio (OR) 6.99, P = 0.031) and having formal research training trended toward significance (OR 3.03, P = 0.058). The most common reason for not conducting research was 'lack of training' (41%, 14/34). The most common types of research conducted were Audits and Retrospective studies (62%, 16/26), followed by a Phase I/II/III Trial (46%, 10/26). Having formal research training was a significant factor associated with writing a protocol (OR 5.53, P = 0.016). Limited training in research methods (54%, 13/24) and lack of mentorship (42%, 10/24) were cited as reasons for not developing a protocol. Ninety-seven percent (57/59) of respondents were interested in a didactic session on research, specifically focusing on biostatistics. Conclusions: With research training and mentorship, there is a greater likelihood that concepts and written protocols will translate into successfully completed studies in radiation therapy.
KW - India
KW - mentorship
KW - radiation oncology education
KW - research
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85093904951&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85093904951&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.4103/ijc.IJC_518_19
DO - 10.4103/ijc.IJC_518_19
M3 - Article
C2 - 32769296
AN - SCOPUS:85093904951
SN - 0019-509X
VL - 57
SP - 457
EP - 462
JO - Indian Journal of Cancer
JF - Indian Journal of Cancer
IS - 4
ER -