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

Abstract

The Anatomy and Radiology Contouring (ARC) Bootcamp was a face-to-face (F2F) intervention providing integrated education for radiation oncology (RO) residents and medical physicists. To increase access, we launched an online offering in 2019. We evaluated the effect of the online course on participants' knowledge acquisition, contouring skills, and self-confidence by comparing it with the F2F course. Using modules, the online course offers content similar to that of the F2F comparator. Participants from the 2019 F2F and the 2019-2020 online course completed pre- and postevaluations assessing anatomy and radiology knowledge, contouring skills, self-confidence, and course satisfaction. There were 180 individuals enrolled (F2F: n = 40; online: n = 140); 57 participants (F2F: n = 30; online: n = 27) completed both evaluations. The online course had a wider geographic participation (19 countries) than F2F (4 countries). F2F had primarily RO resident participation (80%), compared with online (41%). Both cohorts demonstrated similar improvements in self-confidence pertaining to anatomy and radiology knowledge, contouring skills, and interpreting radiology images (all P < .001). Both the online (mean ± SD improvement: 6.6 ± 6.7 on a 40-point scale; P < .001) and F2F (3.7 ± 5.7; P = .002) groups showed anatomy and radiology knowledge improvement. Only the F2F group demonstrated improvement with the contouring assessment (F2F: 0.10 ± 0.17 on a 1-point Dice scale; P = .004; online: 0.07 ± 0.16; P = .076). Both cohorts perceived the course as a positive experience (F2F: 4.8 ± 0.4 on a 5-point scale; online: 4.5 ± 0.6), stated it would improve their professional practice (F2F: 4.6 ± 0.5; online: 4.2 ± 0.8), and said they would recommend it to others (F2F: 4.8 ± 0.4; online: 4.4 ± 0.6). The online ARC Bootcamp demonstrated improved self-confidence, knowledge scores, and high satisfaction levels among participants. The offering had lower completion rates but was more accessible to geographic regions, provided a flexible learning experience, and allowed for ongoing education during the COVID-19 pandemic.