Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/jax.js

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.
Overall (N=72) Resident (N=9) Fellow (N=5) Rad<5y (N=11) Rad>5y (N=32) Other/unknown (N=15) pval
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.
Overall 1.Resident 2.Fellow 3.Rad < 5y 4.Rad > 5y 5.Other/Unknown pval
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.
Overall 1.Resident 2.Fellow 3.Rad < 5y 4.Rad > 5y 5.Other/Unknown pval
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.
Overall 1.Resident 2.Fellow 3.Rad < 5y 4.Rad > 5y 5.Other/Unknown pval
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.
1.Resident 2.Fellow 3.Rad < 5y 4.Rad > 5y
0(0%) 0(0%) 3(18.8%) 13(81.2%)
Table 3b. Presented lectures.
No Yes
10(62.5%) 6(37.5%)
Table 3c. Most vs least important factors in choosing topic.
Inst expertise Speaker preference Clinical relevance Promote collab. Complement curriculum
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.
0 1-3 4-9
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.
11-30 31-50 51 or greater
8(50%) 7(43.8%) 1(6.2%)
Table 3f. Meet and greet.
No Sometimes Yes
9(56.2%) 2(12.5%) 5(31.2%)
Table 3g. Why no meet-and-greet?
No commit after work Difficult scheduling Lack of interest
3(37.5%) 2(25%) 3(37.5%)
Table 3h. Honorarium provided.
No Yes
10(62.5%) 6(37.5%)
Table 3i. Lectures recorded.
No Yes
10(62.5%) 6(37.5%)
Table 3j. Why not recorded?
Departmental/Institutional restrictions IT limitations Other Speakers’ preference
6(60%) 1(10%) 1(10%) 2(20%)
Table 3k. Biggest benefit.
Collab pub Collab proj Rad. societies Speaking invit Add to CV Help promotion Other
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.
1.Resident 2.Fellow 3.Rad < 5y 4.Rad > 5y
0(0%) 0(0%) 7(50%) 7(50%)
Table 4b. Biggest benefit.
Collab pub Collab proj Rad. societies Speaking invit Add to CV Help promotion Other
1(7.1%) 1(7.1%) 1(7.1%) 2(14.3%) 7(50%) 1(7.1%) 1(7.1%)
Table 4c. Honorarium provided.
No Yes
12(85.7%) 2(14.3%)
Table 4d. Honorarium increased enthusiasm.
Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree
1(7.1%) 8(57.1%) 2(14.3%) 3(21.4%)
Table 4e. Meet and greet.
No Yes
11(78.6%) 3(21.4%)
Table 4f. Liked Meet-and-greet.
Might or might not Probably yes Definitely yes NA
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.
None at all A little A moderate amount A lot/great deal
1(11.1%) 1(11.1%) 1(11.1%) 6(66.7%)
Table 5b. Improve your board exam preparation.
A little A moderate amount A lot
3(33.3%) 4(44.4%) 2(22.2%)
Table 5c. Increase your enthusiasm for Breast Imaging.
None at all A moderate amount A lot/great deal
1(11.1%) 3(33.3%) 5(55.6%)
Table 5d. More likely to subspecialize in Breast Imaging.
Definitely not Probably not Might or might not Probably yes Definitely yes
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.
A little A moderate amount A lot/great deal
1(20%) 1(20%) 3(60%)
Table 6b. Improve your board exam preparation.
None at all A moderate amount A lot
1(20%) 2(40%) 2(40%)
Table 6c. Increase your enthusiasm for Breast Imaging.
A little A moderate amount A great deal
1(20%) 2(40%) 2(40%)
Table 6d. Improve your preparedness for future practice in Breast Imaging.
Might or might not Probably yes Definitely yes
1(20%) 2(40%) 2(40%)