Is Remote Learning as Effective as In-Person Learning for Contouring Education? A Comparison of Face-to-Face vs. Online Delivery of the Anatomy and Radiology Contouring Bootcamp

Abstract

Materials/Methods: All applicants provided demographic information and specific mentorship need requests. Pairings occurred periodically based on a personalized pairing process. This year, due to COVID-19, all sessions were held virtually. A questionnaire was designed in Google Forms based on the Society for Women in Radiation Oncology (SWRO) annual survey to evaluate the mentorship program. Data were collected and analysis was conducted using JMP version 15(SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC). Results: Since June 2020, 78 individuals enrolled: 28 to become a mentor, 38 to become a mentee; 12 were interested in both. The mentor group consisted of radiation oncology residents (47.5%), academic faculty (40%) and private practice physicians (12.5%). 57.5% of the mentors were males and 4% associated with the LGBTQI+ community. Geographic distribution of mentors: 40% Midwest, 27.5% South/Southeast, 15% Northeast, 12.5% West Coast and 5% international. Among resident mentors, 58% were Junior (PGY1-3) and 42% were senior (PGY4-5) residents. Among mentees, 50% were residents, followed by medical students (46%) and new practitioners (4%). There were equal number of males and females. The geographic distribution was: 32% Midwest, 22% South/Southeast, 36% Northeast, 2% West Coast, and 8% international. The distribution across residency training years was: 57% Junior (PGY1-3) and 43% Senior (PGY4-5). The survey was sent out in January 2021 and we currently have 29/78, 37% response rate. This survey showed the most common method of communication was email (59%), followed by video call (52%) and phone (48%). 62% had at least 2 interactions since being paired. Both parties set up the interactions in 59% of pairs, followed by mentees being responsible in 24%. Mentors reported experiencing mutual respect (94%), a personal connection (67%), clear expectations (44%), and shared values (44%). Mentees similarly reported mutual respect (94%), shared values (76%), a personal connection (59%) and clear expectations (47%). 96% had mentor/mentee relationship outside ACRO program; however, 62% felt that a formal program is more beneficial than informal opportunities. Conclusion:The results of our mentorship program highlight the continued interest and need for formal radiation oncology mentorship programs. The major strength of the program has been the high rates of interaction which is based on mutual respect, shared values and personal connection. Areas of future focus includes recruiting more new practitioners and private practice radiation oncologists to help enrich and diversify the mentorship program.

Achievement of learning outcomes in non‐traditional (online) versus traditional (face‐to‐face) anatomy teaching in medical schools: A mixed method systematic review

“…Thirty‐six medical schools were included in these studies with 1776 students participating in total. Only two studies enrolled medical residents along with the students: Eansor et al ( 2021 ) recruited medical and radiological residents and Fang et al ( 2014 ) included both medical and surgical residents. Twenty studies reported demographic information about the participants and 11 did not.…”

“…For measurement of outcomes, two studies (Harrell et al, 2021 ; Nagaraj et al, 2021 ) lacked quantitative data for the outcomes for the control group and were classed as having an unclear risk of reporting bias. The case control studies were classed as low risk (De Faria et al, 2016 ; Eansor et al, 2021 ; Ikram & Rabbani, 2021 ; Yang et al, 2020 ).…”

Anatomy education beyond the Covid‐19 pandemic: A changing pedagogy

“…The population of students that anatomy educators are providing for is becoming more diverse in terms of age, gender, culture, and geography (Vnuk et al, 2017; Avci et al, 2019; Bliss et al, 2020; Eansor et al, 2022). Students are also showing increasing preferences and need to personalize their learning as they contend with additional and off‐campus commitments (Franzoi et al, 2021; Legan & Zupan, 2022).…”