2964 - Cancer Research Training for Oncology Trainees in Zambia: Results from a Hybrid Program's In-Person Workshop
Presenter(s)
K. L. Lee1, G. M. Nogueras-Gonzalez2, M. E. Inam1, S. Msadabwe-Chikuni3, C. Mwaba3, K. Diao4, C. Njovu3, G. Pupwe3, T. Yap5, S. K. Peterson6, J. R. Montealegre6, E. Y. Chiao2, and L. L. Lin1; 1Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 2Department of Epidemiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 3Cancer Diseases Hospital, Lusaka, Zambia, 4PIH Health, Whittier, CA, 5Investigational Cancer Therapeutics (Phase I Program), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 6Department of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Purpose/Objective(s): Like many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Zambia faces challenges in conducting research, such as inadequate human capacity, insufficient funding, and limited infrastructure; however, with a rising cancer burden, context-specific treatments informed by local cancer research are needed. To help address this need, we developed a collaborative research training program between a United States (US) academic institution and a cancer center in Zambia, held annually with a virtual format from 2020-2023 and a hybrid format in 2024. The research training program is aimed at improving research capacities at the cancer center, which has had a clinical training program since 2018.
Materials/Methods: All oncology trainees at the cancer center in Zambia were invited to participate in a hybrid research training program in 2024. For the virtual component, lectures were given by Zoom weekly or biweekly for eight weeks. This was followed by weekly Zoom small group sessions over the next month with local and US mentors who helped trainees develop their own initial research protocols before an in-person workshop. The in-person workshop spanned three days and included 15 lectures about research resources, study designs, biostatistics, and data management. Additional in-person small group sessions allowed further protocol development, and the workshop culminated in a half-day mini-symposium of trainee presentations. Before the in-person workshop, an anonymous online pre-survey assessed attitudes towards research and perceived research abilities among trainees. An immediate post-workshop survey reassessed those attitudes/perceptions and solicited course feedback. McNemar’s exact test was used to assess differences in pre-/post-surveys.
Results: Among the 16 trainees who participated in the in-person workshop, 14 (88%) completed the pre-survey and 13 completed the post-survey (81%). Most participants (85%) were satisfied/very satisfied with the workshop. There were pre- and post-workshop gains across four of 10 academic self-sufficiency domains: comfort with interpreting research (54% strongly agree/somewhat agree pre vs 100% post; p=0.031), developing a research question (54% vs 100%; p=0.031), and summarizing/reporting data (31% vs 85%; p=0.016). Three domains trended towards statistical significance: confidence in generating a hypothesis, collecting/maintaining data, and having adequate mentorship (p=0.063 for all).
Conclusion: Our hybrid research training program’s in-person workshop improved self-reported research comprehension, development, and reporting skills among Zambian oncology trainees. Due to its success, the workshop will continue annually. Continued work is needed to mitigate remaining cancer research barriers in Zambia.