Is Remote Learning as Effective as In-Person Learning for Contouring Education? A Comparison of Face-to-Face vs. Online Delivery of the Anatomy and Radiology Contouring Bootcamp

ABSTRACT

Purpose/Objective(s) The Anatomy and Radiology Contouring (ARC) Bootcamp was a three-day in-person course providing integrated radiology, anatomy, and contouring education for radiation oncology (RO) residents and medical physicists. The course consisted of didactic radiology and contouring lectures, small group anatomy sessions using cadaveric prosections, and real-time contouring using commercial software. Acknowledging the importance of increasing access to the Bootcamp, we launched an online (ONL) version of the ARC Bootcamp in November 2019. We evaluated the ONL course's impact on participants' knowledge acquisition, contouring skills, and self-confidence by comparing it to the face-to-face (F2F) course. Materials/Methods: The F2F Bootcamp was adapted into an ONL version using the Teachable platform (teachable.com). The ONL course was structured in a linear progression of locked modules to offer similar content to the F2F comparator. Participants from the 2019 F2F and the 2019–2020 ONL Bootcamp provided consent for the study and completed pre-and post-intervention evaluations, which assessed anatomy/radiology knowledge, contouring skills, anatomy/radiology knowledge and contouring self-confidence, and course satisfaction. Results: Fifty-seven (F2F n = 30;ONL n = 27) participants completed both evaluations. The ONL course had a substantially wider geographic participation, with participants from 19 countries (vs. 4 countries in the F2F course) completing the pre-evaluation. F2F had primarily RO resident participation (80%) compared to ONL (41%). In the ONL course, most were from a different field (52%), including medical physics residents or medical students. Compared to baseline self-assessments, both cohorts demonstrated similar self-confidence improvements with their anatomy knowledge, contouring skills, and in interpreting radiology images (all P < 0.001). In the anatomy/radiology knowledge testing, the ONL group showed improvement (mean improvement ± SD 4.6 ± 6.3 on a 40-point scale;P < 0.001) but the F2F group did not (1.6 ± 5.6;P = 0.159). The F2F group demonstrated improvement with the contouring assessment (mean ± SD 0.10 ± 0.17 on a 1-point Dice scale;P = 0.004), whereas only a trend was found for the ONL group (0.07 ± 0.16;P = 0.076). Both cohorts perceived the course as a positive learning experience (F2F 4.8 ± 0.4 on a 5-point scale;ONL 4.5 ± 0.6) and stated it will improve their professional practice (F2F 4.6 ± 0.5 on a 5-point scale;ONL 4.2 ± 0.8). Both groups would recommend the course to others (F2F 4.8 ± 0.4 on a 5-point scale;ONL 4.4 ± 0.6). Conclusion: The ONL ARC Bootcamp achieved similar results as the F2F version, with improved self-confidence, knowledge scores, and high satisfaction levels among participants. The ONL course is more accessible to diverse geographic regions and disciplines, allows for ongoing education during the COVID-19 pandemic, and can be used as a framework to develop other online educational interventions in radiation oncology.