لخّصلي

In order to practise evidence-based medicine, it is essen- tial to have an appreciation for the strengths and weak- nesses of published research. One way for clinicians to gain that appreciation is to conduct and publish research themselves. The Royal Australian and New Zealand Col- lege of Radiologists (RANZCR) embraces ‘fostering a
culture of research (and) actively supporting research as part of training and in the professional lives of our mem- bers’ as one of its main goals.1 Until 2011, Australasian radiation oncology (RO) trainees were required to submit a report on their research to the RANZCR Faculty of Radi- ation Oncology (FRO) Research Committee in order to satisfy the Original Research Project component of the curriculum. However, in that year, FRO established an
862
© 2019 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists
Assessment Executive Committee Working Group to revise aspects of the training requirements, one result of which was a decision to mandate submission of a (poten- tially) publishable manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal before being deemed eligible to sit for the final (Phase II) RO examination. It was anticipated that most of the manuscripts would be submitted to the Journal of Medi- cal Imaging and Radiation Oncology (JMIRO) as the offi- cial RANZCR journal, although four other overseas RO journals, for which the process of progression through to peer review could be monitored by the College, were also listed as suitable. The research requirement of the trai- nee would be satisfied if the manuscript was ‘accepted to peer review’. Acceptance for actual publication was not required, although obviously desirable. In January 2012, an extra tick box was added to the JMIRO online submis- sion process in order to flag trainee submissions for this purpose. Rejected manuscripts could, of course, be sub- mitted elsewhere if desired. Exceptional projects could alternatively be submitted upfront to an equal or higher impact journal, but the manuscript then had to actually be ‘accepted for publication’. In view of competing demands on trainees and potentially long journal review timelines, this was expected to be uncommon. Two other allowable pathways were to undertake a Cochrane Review or develop a prospective trial protocol2 (although the former option has only been pursued by one, and the latter by no trainee, thus far). Subsequently in 2013, with establishment of the ‘Clinician/Scientist Pathway’, a college initiative to combine specialist training with a for- mal graduate research higher degree, attainment of such a degree (MD, DMedSc, MPhil or PhD) became another way to satisfy the FRO trainee research requirement.2,3
Now that this structure has been in operation for some time, it is appropriate to review the impact on trainees and their departments, given that attempting to conduct and publish research is a major undertaking, especially as it is the first time for many trainees. Accordingly, plans are underway to survey current RO trainees and fellows who graduated under the same system, on their experience with this aspect of their training. This will provide relevant input for the RANZCR Training and Assessment Review project which is planned for imple- mentation in 2021.
In the meantime, it is also of interest to ascertain the trainee research requirements of the other Australasian medical colleges. To our knowledge, this formal compar- ison has not previously been undertaken. The purpose of this paper was to present the findings in order to provide some perspective on how the allowable pathways for RO trainees compare with those of their contemporaries in other disciplines.
Methods
There are 16 Australasian medical colleges conferring specialist fellowships listed on the Australian Health
Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) website.4 Four of them have multiple Faculties, Divisions, Chapters or Disciplines (RANZCR 2, and the Colleges of Surgeons 9, Physicians 34 and Pathologists 9). Most of these colleges are duplicated on the website of the corresponding NZ agency, the NZ Medical Council, but there are three other separate NZ only colleges (the Royal NZ Colleges of Gen- eral Practitioners, Public Health Medicine and Urgent Care),5 so the total number of entities for comparison is 69. Note that we chose to exclude fellowship of the Fac- ulty of Pain Medicine (ANZ College of Anaesthetists) which requires a previous eligible fellowship. The approved training programmes from the individual web- sites were interrogated between February and June 2019 to determine the research requirements of their trainees prior to sitting the final examination and/or conferring of the corresponding fellowship. Where more than one requirement is listed based upon the calendar year of entry into the training programme, only the most recent entry is reported in order that the comparison is current. In three cases where relevant details were not available online, the colleges were contacted directly by email or phone.
Since the information presented here is freely available in the public domain, the Royal Adelaide Hospital Research Ethics Committee deemed that ethics approval for this work was not required.