Table 2

Summary of Participant Evaluation of Videoconference Oncology Rounds

Factor

Strongly agree (n, %)

Strongly disagree (n, %)

No response


VIDEOCONFERENCE

5

4

3

2

1

99

Presenter clearly visible

32 (47.8)

30 (44.8)

3 (4.5)

--

2 (3.0)

---

Slides/visual aids clearly visible

15 (22.4)

22 (32.8)

12 (17.9)

7 (10.4)

5 (7.5)

6 (9.0)

Presenter clearly audible

24 (35.8)

21 (31.3)

17 (25.4)

3 (4.5)

1 (1.5)

1 (1.5)

Interaction with speaker possible

24 (35.8)

28 (41.8)

14 (20.9)

---

1 (1.5)

---

Interaction with other participants possible

14 (20.9)

26 (38.8)

12 (17.9)

9 (13.4)

2 (3.0)

4 (6.0)

CONTENT

Presentation time was sufficient

22 (32.8)

34 (50.7)

9 (13.4)

2 (3.0)

---

---

Discussion time was sufficient

16 (23.9)

34 9(50.7)

15 (22.4)

2 (3.0)

---

---

Topic was relevant to my practice

29 (43.3)

21 (31.3)

12 (17.9)

1 (1.5)

2 (3.0)

2 (3.0)

PRESENTER

Clearly presented the topic

19 (28.4)

35 (52.2)

12 (17.9)

1 (1.5)

---

---

Demonstrated thorough knowledge of topic

29 (43.3)

34 (50.7)

3 (4.5)

1 (1.5)

---

---

Established good rapport with audience

22 (32.8)

35 (52.2)

9 (13.4)

---

---

1 (1.5)

Stimulated critical thinking

19 (28.4)

30 (44.8)

13 (19.4)

3 (4.5)

1 (1.5)

1 (1.5)

Encourged questions and participation

25 (37.3)

31 (46.3)

10 (14.9)

1 (1.5)

---

---

OVERALL

Overall, was satisfied with event

16 (23.9)

34 (50.7)

14 (20.9)

3 (4.5)

---

---

OUTCOME

Information revealed not accessible elsewhere

1 (1.5)

22 (32.8)

21 (31.3)

16 (23.9)

5 (7.5)

2 (3.0)

Discussion provided useful tips for practice

5 (7.5)

31 (46.3)

19 (28.4)

6 (9.0)

3 (4.5)

3 (3.5)

Discussion caused reflection on practice

13 (19.4)

34 (50.7)

8 (11.9)

10 (14.9)

1 (1.5)

1 (1.5)

EFFECT ON PRACTICE

Yes

No

Not sure

Problems

No response

Will current practice change?

17 (25.4)

40 (59.7)

4 (6.0)

4 (6.0)

4 (6.0)


Gagliardi et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2003 3:7   doi:10.1186/1472-6947-3-7

Open Data