| Literature DB >> 33323600 |
Sushobhan Dasgupta1, Tarannum Shakeel1, Priyanka Gupta1, Ashish Kakkar1, Vatsala Vats1, Monika Jain1, Viraj Rathi1, Juhi Panwar1, Kavleen Kaur1, Himani Gupta1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze the impact of ophthalmic webinars on the resident's learning experience during the COVID-19 pandemic (CP).Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic; impact; ophthalmology; residents; survey; webinar
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33323600 PMCID: PMC7926168 DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_2279_20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Ophthalmol ISSN: 0301-4738 Impact factor: 1.848
Overview of the responses
| Variables | Number (%) | Skipped ( |
|---|---|---|
| Year of post-graduation | 5 | |
| Ist Year | 96 (25.46) | |
| IInd Year | 127 (33.69) | |
| IIIrd year | 154 (40.85) | |
| Gender: | 2 | |
| Female | 267 (70.26) | |
| Male | 113 (29.74) | |
| States: Total | 19/28 (67.85) | 24 |
| Union territory: Total | 03 (37.50) | |
| Type of College | 5 | |
| Government | 219 (58.09) | |
| Private | 136 (36.07) | |
| Trust | 19 (5.04) | |
| Charitable | 03 (0.8) |
The overall impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the resident’s training program
| Variables | Number (%) | Skipped ( |
|---|---|---|
| Decline in acquisition of academic knowledge and skills | 2 | |
| >50% decline | 161 (42.37) | |
| Upto 50% decline | 86 (22.63) | |
| Upto 25% decline | 68 (17.89) | |
| No decline | 65 (17.11) | |
| Self-study schedule affected: | 5 | |
| Getting more time | ||
| Distraction, as no | 183 (48.54) | |
| faculty/peer interaction | 107 (28.38) | |
| Getting less time | 53 (14.06) | |
| No change | 34 (9.02) | |
| Thesis work affected | 6 | |
| Getting no cases | 218 (57.98) | |
| Not affected | 97 (25.80) | |
| Thesis submitted | 38 (10.11) | |
| Clearance issues | 13 (3.46) | |
| Clinical exposure affected | 3 | |
| >50% decline | 280 (73.88) | |
| Upto 50% decline | 62 (16.36) | |
| Upto 25% decline | 27 (7.12) | |
| No decline | 10 (2.64) |
Figure 1Breakdown of responses by the overall impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the resident's training program
The overall impact of webinars on the resident’s training program
| Variables | Number (%) | Skipped ( |
|---|---|---|
| Attended webinar before pandemic: | 2 | |
| Infrequently | 214 (56.23) | |
| Never | 86 (22.63) | |
| Frequently | 62 (16.32) | |
| Not aware of such | 18 (4.74) | |
| Online meets (Zoom, Skype, Google) being organized in dept: | 0 | |
| Yes | 250 (65.45) | |
| No | 88 (23.04) | |
| Have planned to implement | 44 (11.52) | |
| Number of webinars attended during a pandemic: | 1 | |
| Up to 5 | 155 (40.68) | |
| Up to 10 | 112 (29.40) | |
| Up to 20 | 64 (16.80) | |
| >than 20 | 31 (8.14) | |
| None | 19 (4.99) | |
| Technical problem faced: | 0 | |
| Connectivity issues | 200 (53.91) | |
| Data usage | 37 (9.97) | |
| Upgrading system | 11 (2.96) | |
| All the above | 92 (24.80) | |
| Others: Irrelevant topic, Monotony, audiovisual delink, time management issue | 24 (6.47) | |
| Substantial gain from topic over preexisting knowledge: | 7 | |
| Yes | 286 (76.27) | |
| No | 89 (23.73) | |
| Interaction with speaker: | 0 | |
| Yes; Through chat | 191 (50) | |
| Yes; Through video | 144 (37.70) | |
| No | 47 (12.30) | |
| Queries answered? | 9 | |
| Yes | 209 (56.03) | |
| Partly | 123 (32.98) | |
| No | 41 (10.99) | |
| Likings: | 9 | |
| Wider exposure to topics | 111 (29.76) | |
| Access to many speakers | 107 (28.69) | |
| Homely comfort | 105 (28.15) | |
| Discussions and interactions | 50 (13.40) | |
| Disliking: | 13 | |
| Too lengthy | 134 (36.31) | |
| Poor audiovisual quality | 121 (32.79) | |
| Link issues | 85 (23.04) | |
| Difficulty to understand | 29 (7.86) | |
| Missing: | 23 | |
| Personal touch | 188 (52.37) | |
| Stepwise approach | 94 (26.185) | |
| Feedback | 45 (12.53) | |
| Others: Odd transmission time, Not- | 26 (7.24) | |
| downloadable, discussion, not PG-level oriented, distracting | ||
| Mental stress during webinars: | 15 | |
| Hectic schedule; Time constraints | 211 (57.34) | |
| Never | 113 (30.71) | |
| Stressful; Latest advanced studies | 43 (11.68) | |
| Preferred subspecialty: | 25 | |
| Cornea | 107 (29.97) | |
| Glaucoma | 97 (27.175) | |
| Lens and Refractive Surgery | 55 (15.41) | |
| Neuro-ophthalmology | 41 (11.48) | |
| Squint and Oculoplasty | 33 (9.24) | |
| Retina and Uvea | 14 (3.92) |
Figure 2Breakdown of responses by the impact of webinars on the resident's training program
The level of acceptance of webinars modules as compared to the other learning module
| Variables | Number () | Skipped ( |
|---|---|---|
| Webinar Vs. Classroom: | 6 | |
| Classroom teaching preferred | 184 (48.94) | |
| Both should run parallel | 162 (43.09) | |
| Prefer webinar | 30 (7.98) | |
| Webinar Vs. Live conference: | 0 | |
| Both should be balanced | 182 (47.86) | |
| Live conference is better | 130 (34.22) | |
| Webinar saves time to travel | 68 (17.91) | |
| Webinar Vs. Social media Platform (Youtube, Podcast, Slide-share, etc): | 8 | |
| Both offer different content | 173 (46.26) | |
| YouTube, more flexible | 103 (27.54) | |
| Webinar, more interactive | 98 (26.20) | |
| Grade webinar as an academic tool: | 7 | |
| Good | 176 (46.93) | |
| Very good | 115 (30.67) | |
| Excellent | 53 (14.13) | |
| No advantage | 31 (8.27) | |
| Would like to attend a webinar in the post-COVID phase: | 4 | |
| Only if, exclusively designed for residents | 202 (53.44) | |
| Occasionally | 122 (32.28) | |
| Always | 45 (11.90) | |
| Never | 9 (2.38) |
Figure 3Breakdown of responses by the level of acceptance of webinars as compared to the other learning modules