Evaluation of an Informal Virtual Medical Student Elective in Radiation Oncology During the COVID Era

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S): The COVID19 pandemic prevented most onsite elective rotations for medical students (MSs) in 2020; therefore, alternate methods of subspeciality exploration were necessary. We assessed the efficacy of an informal virtual elective (IVE) for students interested in radiation oncology (RO). MATERIALS/METHODS: We created a series of IVE activities (non-credit granting) related to RO. MSs interested in the formal RO away elective at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) were invited to participate. A pre- and post-IVE survey was performed in the Summer and Fall of 2020, respectively. Likert-type scores (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely) were reported as median [interquartile range]. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare pre/post values. RESULTS: The pre- and post-IVE surveys were completed by 22/27 (81%) and 20/27 (74%) students, respectively. Prior to the IVE, students reported their top reasons for participation: promote self in preparation for interview season (5, 23%), receive an introduction to the field of RO (4, 18%), interact with faculty/residents at MDACC (3, 14%), networking (3, 14%), initiate research collaborations (3, 14%), self-exposure in RO (2, 9%), explore research opportunities (1, 5%), explore learning opportunities (1, 5%). Students reported that resident mentors would be extremely beneficial (5 [4-5]) on the pre-IVE survey vs. quite beneficial (4 [4-5]) on the post-IVE survey (P = 0.42). Faculty mentors were rated slightly more beneficial after the IVE (5 [4-5]) compared to prior (4.5 [4-5]) (P = 0.79). Students rated preparing and delivering a virtual presentation as quite beneficial (4 [3-4]) prior to the IVE and extremely beneficial (3 [3-5]) after the IVE (P = 0.16). The MS lecture series was rated as quite beneficial both prior to (4 [4-5]) and after (4.5 [4-5]) the IVE (P = 0.86). The remote resident didactics were rated as quite beneficial on both the pre- and post-IVE survey (4 [4-5] vs 4 [3-4], respectively, P = 0.054). On the pre-IVE survey, MSs preferred a full onsite away elective (16, 73%) vs. an official virtual elective (3, 14%), or an IVE (3, 14%). On the post-IVE survey, fewer MSs preferred an official virtual elective (1, 5%), and most still preferred a full onsite away elective (16, 80%). On the post-IVE survey, students reported participating in an onsite elective at their home institution (14, 70%), a full virtual away elective (7, 35%), a full onsite away elective (4, 20%), and none (2, 10%). Overall, students scored the ability of the IVE to provide an adequate introduction to RO higher after the experience (4 [4-5] vs 3 [3-4.25], P = 0.10 CONCLUSION: MSs report that IVE experiences can provide an adequate introduction to RO, although they prefer a formal onsite away elective. These informal virtual activities could be used to introduce MSs to smaller, less accessible subspecialties such as RO, even when onsite rotations are again allowed.