Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of Participant Evaluation of Videoconference Oncology Rounds

From: Feasibility study of multidisciplinary oncology rounds by videoconference for surgeons in remote locales

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)