Lachlan McDowell1,2,3, Susan Goode3,4, Puma Sundaresan3,5,6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 2. Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. 4. The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Radiation Oncology Network, Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 6. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The global COVID-19 pandemic forced the cancellation of the TROG 2020 face to face Annual Scientific Meeting (ASM). It was instead delivered as a live virtual meeting with 6 days of planning. Here, we report the participants' experience of this live virtual meeting. METHOD: Participants were invited to complete custom-developed, pre- and post-meeting surveys to assess their expectations of and satisfaction with the live virtual format. Speakers and moderators were also invited to complete a custom-developed satisfaction survey. The working parties of TROG (head/neck/skin, genitourinary, breast and lung) were also sampled. RESULTS: In total, 188/273 (69%) registered participants logged in to the live virtual meeting. The online engagement for each of the oral sessions ranged from 53 to 66%. There were 102 and 57 responders to the online pre- and post-meeting surveys, respectively. The majority of pre-meeting responders indicated a significant level of employer support to attend the virtual meeting. Post-meeting satisfaction exceeded pre-meeting expectations ('very much' and 'quite a bit'; 86% vs. 54%; P < 0.0001). The majority indicated they would be 'quite a bit' or 'very much' interested in future live virtual meetings. CONCLUSION: The TROG 2020 ASM was conducted as a live virtual meeting. Participant satisfaction and future interest in a live virtual meeting was high, indicating this is a viable platform for other CCTG's faced with the decision to deliver virtual content at times of global public health threats.
INTRODUCTION: The global COVID-19 pandemic forced the cancellation of the TROG 2020 face to face Annual Scientific Meeting (ASM). It was instead delivered as a live virtual meeting with 6 days of planning. Here, we report the participants' experience of this live virtual meeting. METHOD:Participants were invited to complete custom-developed, pre- and post-meeting surveys to assess their expectations of and satisfaction with the live virtual format. Speakers and moderators were also invited to complete a custom-developed satisfaction survey. The working parties of TROG (head/neck/skin, genitourinary, breast and lung) were also sampled. RESULTS: In total, 188/273 (69%) registered participants logged in to the live virtual meeting. The online engagement for each of the oral sessions ranged from 53 to 66%. There were 102 and 57 responders to the online pre- and post-meeting surveys, respectively. The majority of pre-meeting responders indicated a significant level of employer support to attend the virtual meeting. Post-meeting satisfaction exceeded pre-meeting expectations ('very much' and 'quite a bit'; 86% vs. 54%; P < 0.0001). The majority indicated they would be 'quite a bit' or 'very much' interested in future live virtual meetings. CONCLUSION: The TROG 2020 ASM was conducted as a live virtual meeting. Participant satisfaction and future interest in a live virtual meeting was high, indicating this is a viable platform for other CCTG's faced with the decision to deliver virtual content at times of global public health threats.
Authors: Bailey A Nelson; Kaitlyn Lapen; Olivia Schultz; Joseph Nangachiveettil; Steve E Braunstein; Christian Fernandez; Emma C Fields; Jillian R Gunther; Elizabeth Jeans; Rachel B Jimenez; Jordan R Kharofa; Anna Laucis; Raphael L Yechieli; Erin F Gillespie; Daniel W Golden Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-12-26 Impact factor: 8.013