BACKGROUND: Little is known about how faculty, residents, and fellows practice for oral presentations at academic meetings. We sought to categorize presenters' practice styles and the impact of feedback. METHODS: We surveyed oral presenters at 5 annual academic general internal medicine meetings between 2008 and 2010, using a cross-sectional design. Main measures were frequency and settings of practice, most helpful practice setting, changes made in response to feedback, impact of feedback, and perceived quality of presentation. RESULTS: The response rate was 63% (333/525 responders). Respondents represented 59 academic medical centers. Presenters reported practicing in a mean ± SD of 2.3 (±1.3) of 5 different settings. Of the 46% of presenters (152/333) who practiced in front of a group of more experienced colleagues, 80% of presenters (122/152) reported it was the most helpful setting. Eighty-one percent of presenters (268/333) practiced alone, and 25% of presenters (82/333) reported practicing alone was the most helpful setting. The mean numbers of change types reported by faculty were fewer than those reported by residents and fellows (mean 2.3 ± 1.8, and 3.1 ± 2.0, respectively; P < .001). Practicing alone was not associated with changes in content (P = .30), visual aids (P = .12), or delivery style (P = .53). CONCLUSIONS: Practicing in front of a group of experienced colleagues was the most helpful setting in which to prepare for an oral academic meeting presentation, but it was not universally utilized. Feedback given at these sessions was more likely to result in changes made to the presentation; however, broader implementation of such sessions 5 require institutional support.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about how faculty, residents, and fellows practice for oral presentations at academic meetings. We sought to categorize presenters' practice styles and the impact of feedback. METHODS: We surveyed oral presenters at 5 annual academic general internal medicine meetings between 2008 and 2010, using a cross-sectional design. Main measures were frequency and settings of practice, most helpful practice setting, changes made in response to feedback, impact of feedback, and perceived quality of presentation. RESULTS: The response rate was 63% (333/525 responders). Respondents represented 59 academic medical centers. Presenters reported practicing in a mean ± SD of 2.3 (±1.3) of 5 different settings. Of the 46% of presenters (152/333) who practiced in front of a group of more experienced colleagues, 80% of presenters (122/152) reported it was the most helpful setting. Eighty-one percent of presenters (268/333) practiced alone, and 25% of presenters (82/333) reported practicing alone was the most helpful setting. The mean numbers of change types reported by faculty were fewer than those reported by residents and fellows (mean 2.3 ± 1.8, and 3.1 ± 2.0, respectively; P < .001). Practicing alone was not associated with changes in content (P = .30), visual aids (P = .12), or delivery style (P = .53). CONCLUSIONS: Practicing in front of a group of experienced colleagues was the most helpful setting in which to prepare for an oral academic meeting presentation, but it was not universally utilized. Feedback given at these sessions was more likely to result in changes made to the presentation; however, broader implementation of such sessions 5 require institutional support.