Evaluating the Oncology Research Internship (ORIoN) during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparison of Virtual and In-Person Iterations

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S): The Oncology Research Internship (ORIoN), a novel resident-supervised initiative for medical students (MS), was first established in 2018 and found to be mutually beneficial to both residents and MS. The COVID-19 pandemic halted many scholarly programs, including ORIoN, which relied heavily on mentorship through in-person interactions. We report results of the first virtual program, adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic, and compare participant feedback to previous in-person iterations. MATERIALS/METHODS: ORIoN application details were published online and emailed to first- and second-year MS. A panel of 3 physicians reviewed and scored applications independently. Successful MS applicants were paired with volunteer resident supervisors; each pair supervised by a staff oncologist. Compared to previous years, all meetings, correspondences and presentations between MS, residents, and supervising oncologists were conducted exclusively remotely. Only chart reviews were conducted on-site by MS. At the program's conclusion, each MS delivered a live virtual oral presentation of their completed case report, previously done in-person. Resident and MS participants completed questionnaires pre-/post program. Responses were collected on a 5-point Likert scale with open-ended free-text responses. Survey results from this virtual and the previous in-person programs were compared. RESULTS: Of 54 applications (previously 32 in 2018), 9 MS (three first-year, six second-year) were accepted and assigned to 9 volunteer residents (6 radiation oncology, 2 medical oncology, 1 pathology). To date, 9 manuscripts have been completed with 2 submitted for publication (1 published, 1 under review). Survey response rates were 100% (9/9) for residents and 89% (8/9) for MS. In the post-program surveys comparing the virtual and prior in-person programs, 87.5% (7/8) MS felt comfortable completing a clinical research project (22% strongly agree (SA), 62.5% agree (A), previously 25% and 75% respectively) and 100% (8/8) felt comfortable writing a case report (50% SA, 50% A, previously 75%, 25% respectively). All MS felt comfortable giving an oral research presentation (37.5% SA, 62.5% A) and teaching another MS to complete a case report (37.5% SA, 50% A). Similar to the in-person program, MS unanimously agreed that ORIoN was a beneficial experience (100%) and felt the program contributed to their career goals (100%, previously 88%). Post-program, all residents felt comfortable as a supervisor (67% SA, 22% A, previously 33%, 67% respectively), reviewing manuscripts (56% SA, 33% A, previously 33%, 50% respectively) and providing constructive feedback to trainees (67% SA, 33% A, previously 17%, 67% respectively). CONCLUSION: Compared to the previous in-person program, the virtual ORIoN retained strongly favorable ratings from MS and residents alike. These findings support adapting similar scholarly and mentorship programs to a virtual setting when in-person interactions are not feasible.