Statistical analysis
Response categories were summarized by number (percentage) overall
and by attendee level (resident, fellow, radiologist with < or > 5
years of experience). Differences between the attendee levels were
tested using the Fisher exact test, with p-values <.05 considered as statistically significant. All statistical
analyses were performed in R version 4.0.2 (R Foundation for Statistical
Computing, Vienna, Austria).
Comparative data between different attendee levels
Table 1 below summarizes the comparisons between different attendee
levels (resident, fellow, rad<5 yrs, rad > 5 yrs). The p-values are based on the Fisher’s exact
test between the four levels (excluding “Other/unknown”). (There is no
meaningful data for factors preventing people from attending.)
Table 1. Comparative data between different attendee
levels.
Attendance - 1 year |
36(61%) |
4(44.4%) |
3(60%) |
10(90.9%) |
19(59.4%) |
0(0%) |
0.1271 |
Attendance - 2 years |
23(39%) |
5(55.6%) |
2(40%) |
1(9.1%) |
13(40.6%) |
2(100%) |
|
Relevance - Neither
agree/disagree |
5(8.5%) |
1(11.1%) |
1(20%) |
2(18.2%) |
1(3.1%) |
0(0%) |
0.1052 |
Relevance - Somewhat agree |
8(13.6%) |
3(33.3%) |
0(0%) |
0(0%) |
4(12.5%) |
1(50%) |
|
Relevance - Strongly agree |
46(78%) |
5(55.6%) |
4(80%) |
9(81.8%) |
27(84.4%) |
1(50%) |
|
New knowledge - Somewhat disagree |
1(1.7%) |
0(0%) |
0(0%) |
0(0%) |
1(3.1%) |
0(0%) |
0.8122 |
New knowledge - Neither
agree/disagree |
4(6.8%) |
1(11.1%) |
0(0%) |
2(18.2%) |
1(3.1%) |
0(0%) |
|
New knowledge - Somewhat agree |
9(15.3%) |
1(11.1%) |
1(20%) |
1(9.1%) |
5(15.6%) |
1(50%) |
|
New knowledge - Strongly agree |
45(76.3%) |
7(77.8%) |
4(80%) |
8(72.7%) |
25(78.1%) |
1(50%) |
|
Practice patterns - Somewhat
disagree |
1(1.7%) |
0(0%) |
0(0%) |
1(9.1%) |
0(0%) |
0(0%) |
0.1738 |
Practice patterns - Neither
agree/disagree |
4(6.8%) |
1(11.1%) |
1(20%) |
0(0%) |
2(6.2%) |
0(0%) |
|
Practice patterns - Somewhat
agree |
12(20.3%) |
4(44.4%) |
0(0%) |
2(18.2%) |
5(15.6%) |
1(50%) |
|
Practice patterns - Strongly
agree |
42(71.2%) |
4(44.4%) |
4(80%) |
8(72.7%) |
25(78.1%) |
1(50%) |
|
Improve engagement - Neither
agree/disagree |
5(8.5%) |
1(11.1%) |
1(20%) |
2(18.2%) |
1(3.1%) |
0(0%) |
0.1947 |
Improve engagement - Somewhat
agree |
20(33.9%) |
5(55.6%) |
1(20%) |
4(36.4%) |
9(28.1%) |
1(50%) |
|
Improve engagement - Strongly
agree |
34(57.6%) |
3(33.3%) |
3(60%) |
5(45.5%) |
22(68.8%) |
1(50%) |
|
Another w. existing collab - Prob.
not |
1(1.7%) |
0(0%) |
0(0%) |
0(0%) |
1(3.1%) |
0(0%) |
0.3661 |
Another w. existing collab - Might (
or not) |
4(6.8%) |
1(11.1%) |
1(20%) |
1(9.1%) |
1(3.1%) |
0(0%) |
|
Another w. existing collab - Prob.
yes |
13(22%) |
4(44.4%) |
1(20%) |
2(18.2%) |
5(15.6%) |
1(50%) |
|
Another w. existing collab - Def.
yes |
41(69.5%) |
4(44.4%) |
3(60%) |
8(72.7%) |
25(78.1%) |
1(50%) |
|
Another w. other inst - Prob. not |
1(1.7%) |
0(0%) |
0(0%) |
1(9.1%) |
0(0%) |
0(0%) |
0.1278 |
Another w. other inst - Might
(not) |
6(10.2%) |
1(11.1%) |
1(20%) |
0(0%) |
4(12.5%) |
0(0%) |
|
Another w. other inst - Prob. yes |
11(18.6%) |
4(44.4%) |
1(20%) |
2(18.2%) |
3(9.4%) |
1(50%) |
|
Another w. other inst - Def. yes |
41(69.5%) |
4(44.4%) |
3(60%) |
8(72.7%) |
25(78.1%) |
1(50%) |
|
Contributions - Collab pub |
10(13.9%) |
0(0%) |
1(20%) |
2(18.2%) |
7(21.9%) |
0(0%) |
0.5023 |
Contributions - Collab proj |
8(11.1%) |
0(0%) |
0(0%) |
1(9.1%) |
7(21.9%) |
0(0%) |
0.4562 |
Contributions - Speaking invit |
9(12.5%) |
0(0%) |
1(20%) |
3(27.3%) |
5(15.6%) |
0(0%) |
0.4216 |
Contributions - Nat. rad.
societies |
9(12.5%) |
0(0%) |
2(40%) |
3(27.3%) |
4(12.5%) |
0(0%) |
0.1203 |
Contributions - Other/none |
39(54.2%) |
9(100%) |
2(40%) |
6(54.5%) |
20(62.5%) |
2(13.3%) |
0.0514 |
Tables 2a–2c below summarize the top 4 most important reasons, the
most important reason, and the least important reason for attendance by
attendee levels.
Table 2a. Top 4 most important reasons for
attendance.
Departmental requirement |
18(30.5%) |
3(33.3%) |
4(80%) |
6(54.5%) |
5(15.6%) |
0(0%) |
0.0048 |
Expand knowledge |
51(86.4%) |
8(88.9%) |
4(80%) |
8(72.7%) |
29(90.6%) |
2(100%) |
0.4338 |
Timing non-interferent |
39(66.1%) |
7(77.8%) |
5(100%) |
9(81.8%) |
17(53.1%) |
1(50%) |
0.0943 |
Virtual format |
45(76.3%) |
6(66.7%) |
4(80%) |
8(72.7%) |
26(81.2%) |
1(50%) |
0.7974 |
Interest in other inst |
44(74.6%) |
5(55.6%) |
2(40%) |
7(63.6%) |
28(87.5%) |
2(100%) |
0.0284 |
Exposure to other faculty |
35(59.3%) |
6(66.7%) |
1(20%) |
4(36.4%) |
22(68.8%) |
2(100%) |
0.0823 |
Table 2b. The most important reasons for attendance.
Departmental requirement |
4(6.8%) |
1(11.1%) |
1(20%) |
1(9.1%) |
1(3.1%) |
0(0%) |
0.2309 |
Expand knowledge |
21(35.6%) |
2(22.2%) |
3(60%) |
3(27.3%) |
11(34.4%) |
2(100%) |
0.5626 |
Timing non-interferent |
5(8.5%) |
1(11.1%) |
0(0%) |
1(9.1%) |
3(9.4%) |
0(0%) |
1 |
Virtual format |
4(6.8%) |
2(22.2%) |
0(0%) |
0(0%) |
2(6.2%) |
0(0%) |
0.2761 |
Interest in other inst |
11(18.6%) |
1(11.1%) |
0(0%) |
2(18.2%) |
8(25%) |
0(0%) |
0.7359 |
Exposure to other faculty |
10(16.9%) |
1(11.1%) |
1(20%) |
2(18.2%) |
6(18.8%) |
0(0%) |
1 |
Table 2c. The least important (ranked 6 or 7) reasons for
attendance.
Departmental requirement |
37(62.7%) |
6(66.7%) |
1(20%) |
3(27.3%) |
26(81.2%) |
1(50%) |
0.0015 |
Expand knowledge |
3(5.1%) |
0(0%) |
1(20%) |
2(18.2%) |
0(0%) |
0(0%) |
0.0312 |
Timing non-interferent |
3(5.1%) |
0(0%) |
0(0%) |
0(0%) |
2(6.2%) |
1(50%) |
1 |
Virtual format |
2(3.4%) |
0(0%) |
0(0%) |
1(9.1%) |
1(3.1%) |
0(0%) |
1 |
Interest in other inst |
4(6.8%) |
2(22.2%) |
0(0%) |
2(18.2%) |
0(0%) |
0(0%) |
0.0266 |
Exposure to other faculty |
14(23.7%) |
2(22.2%) |
3(60%) |
5(45.5%) |
4(12.5%) |
0(0%) |
0.0249 |
Exploratory subgroup analyses
Organizers (N = 16)
There are a total of 16 organizers, whose responses are summarized
below. In particular, the distribution of attendee levels in the
organizers (predominantly Rad > 5y) is significantly different from
that in the overall respondents (p=0.0456).
Table 3a. Attendee levels.
|
0(0%) |
0(0%) |
3(18.8%) |
13(81.2%) |
Table 3b. Presented lectures.
|
10(62.5%) |
6(37.5%) |
Table 3c. Most vs least important factors in choosing
topic.
Most |
3(18.8%) |
10(62.5%) |
2(12.5%) |
0(0%) |
1(6.2%) |
Least |
1(6.2%) |
0(0%) |
1(6.2%) |
10(62.5%) |
4(25%) |
Table 3d. Number of lectures presented.
2020-21 |
4(25%) |
7(43.8%) |
5(31.2%) |
2021-22 |
2(12.5%) |
6(37.5%) |
8(50%) |
Table 3e. Average number of attendees per lecture.
|
8(50%) |
7(43.8%) |
1(6.2%) |
Table 3f. Meet and greet.
|
9(56.2%) |
2(12.5%) |
5(31.2%) |
Table 3g. Why no meet-and-greet?
|
3(37.5%) |
2(25%) |
3(37.5%) |
Table 3h. Honorarium provided.
|
10(62.5%) |
6(37.5%) |
Table 3i. Lectures recorded.
|
10(62.5%) |
6(37.5%) |
Table 3j. Why not recorded?
|
6(60%) |
1(10%) |
1(10%) |
2(20%) |
Table 3k. Biggest benefit.
|
6(37.5%) |
2(12.5%) |
0(0%) |
2(12.5%) |
3(18.8%) |
0(0%) |
3(18.8%) |
Speakers (N = 14)
There are a total of 14 speakers, whose responses are summarized
below. In particular, the distribution of attendee levels in the
speakers (equally divided between rad < and > 5y) is significantly
different from that in the overall respondents (p=2e-04).
Table 4a. Attendee levels.
|
0(0%) |
0(0%) |
7(50%) |
7(50%) |
Table 4b. Biggest benefit.
|
1(7.1%) |
1(7.1%) |
1(7.1%) |
2(14.3%) |
7(50%) |
1(7.1%) |
1(7.1%) |
Table 4c. Honorarium provided.
|
12(85.7%) |
2(14.3%) |
Table 4d. Honorarium increased enthusiasm.
|
1(7.1%) |
8(57.1%) |
2(14.3%) |
3(21.4%) |
Table 4e. Meet and greet.
|
11(78.6%) |
3(21.4%) |
Table 4f. Liked Meet-and-greet.
|
4(28.6%) |
2(14.3%) |
5(35.7%) |
3(21.4%) |
Residents (N = 9)
The following summarizes responses to resident-specific
questions.
Table 5a. Increase your Breast Imaging knowledge.
|
1(11.1%) |
1(11.1%) |
1(11.1%) |
6(66.7%) |
Table 5b. Improve your board exam preparation.
|
3(33.3%) |
4(44.4%) |
2(22.2%) |
Table 5c. Increase your enthusiasm for Breast
Imaging.
|
1(11.1%) |
3(33.3%) |
5(55.6%) |
Table 5d. More likely to subspecialize in Breast
Imaging.
|
1(11.1%) |
2(22.2%) |
2(22.2%) |
2(22.2%) |
2(22.2%) |
Fellows (N = 5)
The following summarizes responses to fellow-specific questions.
Table 6a. Increase your Breast Imaging knowledge.
|
1(20%) |
1(20%) |
3(60%) |
Table 6b. Improve your board exam preparation.
|
1(20%) |
2(40%) |
2(40%) |
Table 6c. Increase your enthusiasm for Breast
Imaging.
|
1(20%) |
2(40%) |
2(40%) |
Table 6d. Improve your preparedness for future practice in
Breast Imaging.
|
1(20%) |
2(40%) |
2(40%) |