ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026
Gender-specific Differences in Radiation Oncology Training during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Subanalysis.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted cancer education across specialties. Radiation oncology, with its highly technical nature and multidisciplinary approach, faced unique challenges in maintaining training quality while adapting to pandemic restrictions. This subanalysis of a nationwide survey on oncological training quality during the pandemic examines gender-specific differences within radiation oncology specialist training. We analyzed survey responses from 85 radiation oncologists (58 females, 27 males) conducted between February and November 2022, focusing on workload changes, educational access, digital learning adaptation, and training quality assessment. Male radiation oncologists experienced more frequent work disruptions, including temporary departmental relocation (48.1% vs. 24.1%, p = 0.027) and significant work assignment changes (categories 4 + 5: 55.5% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.002). Males reported better access to digital learning alternatives, including e-learning platforms (37.0% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.001) and live online teaching (51.9% vs. 20.7%, p = 0.004), while females more frequently lacked alternatives for clinical training (55.2% vs. 25.9%, p = 0.012). Gender differences emerged in perceived negative training factors, with males more concerned about team meeting disruptions (categories 4 + 5: 51.8% vs. 41.4%, p = 0.022) and females about personal work absences (categories 4 + 5: 31.0% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.015). Despite these operational differences, overall training and work quality assessments remained comparable between genders. The pandemic affected male and female radiation oncologists through different pathways, with males experiencing more work deployment changes and better digital access, while females faced greater gaps in training alternatives. These findings highlight the importance of gender-sensitive crisis response planning to ensure equitable training opportunities during future health emergencies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41524845What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.