ABSTRACT
In the context of the shutdowns related to the COVID-19 pandemic, we explored communication processes within families through both qualitative and quantitative means. A panel survey of 1,510 adults (1,059 parents) in the United States was administered during the summer of 2020 (June 18–July 22). Summary quantitative data are presented. Nearly half (N = 624) also chose to respond to five, open-ended, qualitative questions. From these data, diverse influences of COVID-19 on family communication were qualitatively reported, identified, coded, and analyzed. Four related themes are presented related to the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on family communication: (1) negative influences, (2) neutral influences, (3) positive influences, and (4) dualistic (negative and positive) influences. About 50 verbatim excerpts from the qualitative data are shared, along with implications and applications. © 2023 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Image-guided training traditionally requires instructors and students to work in close proximity to impart skills and master new medical devices. The classical method of training has been prohibitive during the Covid-19 pandemic. We determined the value of using virtual training on inanimate models that closely replicate the prostate gland on ultrasound and MRI. METHODS: Six urologic procedures which included the injection of a rectal hydrogel spacer, transperineal biopsy, mpMRI fusion biopsy (2 different devices), Cesium-131 implant and focal brachytherapy were taught by urology and radiation oncology experts via a webinar (example in Figure 1). The prostate phantoms were designed to maximize the learning experience and included MRI visible lesions. The training lasted 30 minutes for each procedure. Seven faculty and 110 attendees participated. Survey Monkey was used to assess the education experience of both groups. RESULTS: 31 attendees and the 7 faculty completed the survey. All the faculty responded the phantom simulated human tissue, was easy to set up, and was superior to using a live patient (Table 1). 42.8% believed that 30 minutes was adequate for training. 100% of the attendees also believed the phantom simulated human tissue (Table 1). In contrast to the faculty, only 19.4% of attendee's believed 30 minutes was adequate. 90.3% of the attendees reported that the prostate phantom could substitute for training on a live patient. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first demonstration of remote learning on a physical prostate phantom. While the faculty had more confidence that 30 minutes training was adequate, the attendees requested their own phantom for training. The Covid-19 pandemic provided the opportunity to introduction a novel training approach. Expansion of this method to more complex procedures could substitute for teaching on live patients. Providing phantoms to instructors and attendees represents a future expansion of remote learning.