Bailey A Nelson1, Kaitlyn Lapen2, Olivia Schultz3, Joseph Nangachiveettil3, Steve E Braunstein4, Christian Fernandez5, Emma C Fields6, Jillian R Gunther7, Elizabeth Jeans8, Rachel B Jimenez9, Jordan R Kharofa1, Anna Laucis10, Raphael L Yechieli11, Erin F Gillespie2, Daniel W Golden12. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, California. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 11. Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. 12. Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: dgolden@radonc.uchicago.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group (ROECSG) hosted its annual international symposium using a virtual format in May 2020. This report details the experience of hosting a virtual meeting and presents attendee feedback on the platform. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The ROECSG symposium was hosted virtually on May 15, 2020. A postsymposium survey was distributed electronically to assess attendee demographics, participation, and experience. Attendee preference and experience were queried using 3-point and 5-point Likert-type scales, respectively. Symplur LLC was used to generate analytics for the conference hashtag (#ROECSG). RESULTS: The survey was distributed to all 286 registrants, with a response rate of 67% (191 responses). Seventeen nonattendee responses were omitted from this analysis, for a total of 174 included respondents. Eighty-two attendees (47%) were present for the entire symposium. A preference for a virtual symposium was expressed by 78 respondents (45%), whereas 44 (25%) had no preference and 52 (30%) preferred an in-person meeting. A total of 150 respondents (86%) rated the symposium as "extremely" well organized. Respondents who had not attended a prior in-person ROECSG symposium were more likely to prefer the virtual format (P = .03). Seventy-eight respondents (45%) reported a preference for the virtual platform for reviewing scholarly work, and 103 (59%) reported a preference for an in-person platform for networking. On the day of the symposium, #ROECSG had 408 tweets and 432,504 impressions. CONCLUSIONS: The 2020 ROECSG symposium was well received and can serve as a framework for future virtual meetings. Although the virtual setting may facilitate sharing research, networking aspects are more limited. Effort is needed to develop hybrid virtual and in-person meetings that meet the needs of participants in both settings. Social media is a significant avenue for dissemination and discussion of information and may be valuable in the virtual setting.
PURPOSE: Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group (ROECSG) hosted its annual international symposium using a virtual format in May 2020. This report details the experience of hosting a virtual meeting and presents attendee feedback on the platform. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The ROECSG symposium was hosted virtually on May 15, 2020. A postsymposium survey was distributed electronically to assess attendee demographics, participation, and experience. Attendee preference and experience were queried using 3-point and 5-point Likert-type scales, respectively. Symplur LLC was used to generate analytics for the conference hashtag (#ROECSG). RESULTS: The survey was distributed to all 286 registrants, with a response rate of 67% (191 responses). Seventeen nonattendee responses were omitted from this analysis, for a total of 174 included respondents. Eighty-two attendees (47%) were present for the entire symposium. A preference for a virtual symposium was expressed by 78 respondents (45%), whereas 44 (25%) had no preference and 52 (30%) preferred an in-person meeting. A total of 150 respondents (86%) rated the symposium as "extremely" well organized. Respondents who had not attended a prior in-person ROECSG symposium were more likely to prefer the virtual format (P = .03). Seventy-eight respondents (45%) reported a preference for the virtual platform for reviewing scholarly work, and 103 (59%) reported a preference for an in-person platform for networking. On the day of the symposium, #ROECSG had 408 tweets and 432,504 impressions. CONCLUSIONS: The 2020 ROECSG symposium was well received and can serve as a framework for future virtual meetings. Although the virtual setting may facilitate sharing research, networking aspects are more limited. Effort is needed to develop hybrid virtual and in-person meetings that meet the needs of participants in both settings. Social media is a significant avenue for dissemination and discussion of information and may be valuable in the virtual setting.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Brenda L Minor; Veida Elliott; Michelle Fernandez; Lindsay O'Neal; Laura McLeod; Giovanni Delacqua; Francesco Delacqua; Jacqueline Kirby; Stephany N Duda Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Karen Donelan; Esteban A Barreto; Sarah Sossong; Carie Michael; Juan J Estrada; Adam B Cohen; Janet Wozniak; Lee H Schwamm Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Ricardo Ladeiras-Lopes; Sarah Clarke; Rafael Vidal-Perez; Michael Alexander; Thomas F Lüscher Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Francesca Bottanelli; Bruno Cadot; Felix Campelo; Scott Curran; Patricia M Davidson; Gautam Dey; Ishier Raote; Anne Straube; Matthew P Swaffer Journal: J Cell Sci Date: 2020-08-14 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: William Croxford; Anna France; Matthew Clarke; Lauren Hewitt; Karen Kirkby; Ranald Mackay; Jane Miller; Ganesh Radhakrishna; Alison Sanneh; Ed Smith; Shermaine Pan Journal: BJR Open Date: 2021-12-10