{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Attitudes and access to resources and strategies to improve quality of radiotherapy among US radiation oncologists: A mixed methods study.
{Author}: Zhang YH;Cha E;Lynch K;Gennarelli R;Brower J;Sherer MV;Golden DW;Chimonas S;Korenstein D;Gillespie EF;
{Journal}: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol
{Volume}: 66
{Issue}: 7
{Year}: Oct 2022
{Factor}: 1.667
{DOI}: 10.1111/1754-9485.13423
{Abstract}: <B>BACKGROUND: </B>We aimed to assess contouring-related practices among US radiation oncologists and explore how access to and use of resources and quality improvement strategies vary based on individual- and organization-level factors.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>We conducted a mixed methods study with a sequential explanatory design. Surveys were emailed to a random 10% sample of practicing US radiation oncologists. Participating physicians were invited to a semi-structured interview. Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and a multivariable regression model were used to evaluate associations. Interview data were coded using thematic content analysis.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>Survey overall response rate was 24%, and subsequent completion rate was 97%. Contouring-related questions arise in ≥50% of clinical cases among 73% of respondents. Resources accessed first include published atlases (75%) followed by consulting another radiation oncologist (60%). Generalists access consensus guidelines more often than disease-site specialists (P = 0.04), while eContour.org is more often used by generalists (OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.2-14.8) and younger physicians (OR 1.33 for each 5-year increase, 95% CI 1.08-1.67). Common physician-reported barriers to optimizing contour quality are time constraints (58%) and lack of access to disease-site specialists (21%). Forty percent (40%, n = 14) of physicians without access to disease-site specialists indicated it could facilitate the adoption of new treatments. Almost all (97%) respondents have formal peer review, but only 43% have contour-specific review, which is more common in academic centres (P = 0.02).<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Potential opportunities to improve radiation contour quality include improved access to disease-site specialists and contour-specific peer review. Physician time must be considered when designing new strategies.