Objective: The objective of this study was to determine fellowship satisfaction through a survey of gynecologic oncology fellows.

Methods: A survey was sent to all gynecologic oncology fellows in May 1998. Surveys were returned anonymously and confidentially. The questions focused on demographics, research and clinical experience, education, faculty involvement, future plans, and fellowship satisfaction. Association between variables were studied using chi(2) and two-tailed t tests.

Results: Of the surveys 53.8% were returned. Reputation, faculty, and clinical diversity were ranked the top three reasons for choosing a fellowship program. Eighty-seven and three-tenths percent were satisfied and 89.1% would recommend their fellowship. Fellows listed the two areas they were most satisfied with as surgical training and research support. Seventy-nine and four-tenths percent agreed they spent adequate time in the operating room and 94.1% had enough variety. Sixty percent or more of the clinical fellows felt they would be uncomfortable performing vaginal radical hysterectomies, splenectomies, radical vaginectomies, laparoscopic lymph node dissection (LND), scalene LND, skin grafts, creation of neovagina, tram flaps, and ureterovaginal fistula repairs by the end of their fellowship. Of the fellows surveyed, 94.7% were currently performing research. All believed they would finish their thesis by the end of their training. Thirty percent of fellows from Gynecologic Oncology Group institutions were not required to participate in their research trials. Among the clinical fellows 62.2% thought time for self-education was lacking compared with 35.3% of the research fellows, P = 0.07. The two areas fellows were least satisfied with were didactics and lack of time for other pursuits. Performance evaluations were received by 72.2%; however, evaluations of the program and of the attending staff occurred in only 51.3 and 34.0%, respectively. Sixty-seven and three-tenths percent stated they had a mentor and 34.0% an advisor. Fellows that did not have mentors or advisors thought they spent less time with faculty in educational pursuits (P = 0.03, 0.06).

Conclusion: Areas that could improve fellowship satisfaction include formal didactics and time for self-education. Evaluations of the fellowship and faculty could provide a forum to continue to assess their needs. Requiring a more active role of fellows in research trials may prove to increase research productivity in the future.