Live case demonstrations are essential for the success of pediatric urology meetings in India
Purpose: The purpose of the study was to survey the opinion of delegates attending national pediatric urology meeting regarding live case demonstrations (LCDs) to see whether these can be replaced with taped case demonstrations (TCDs) in future. Methods: A questionnaire-based survey was conducted at...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/031fe5fb705b4007aa06653bf8c4f17c |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Purpose: The purpose of the study was to survey the opinion of delegates attending national pediatric urology meeting regarding live case demonstrations (LCDs) to see whether these can be replaced with taped case demonstrations (TCDs) in future.
Methods: A questionnaire-based survey was conducted at the end of the 3-day annual conference and live operative workshop in pediatric urology. Apart from general data such as age of the respondent and type of practice setting, four key questions on LCDs with yes/no responses included: would you have attended this meeting if there were no LCDs? Are unedited videos (TCDs) as effective as LCDs for teaching? Do you think LCDs should be continued? Would you allow your child to be operated in LCD by an expert? For question 3, the outcomes were compared between junior surgeons (<45-year-old) and senior surgeons (>45-year-old).
Results: On analysis, 88/140 (62%) respondents (95% confidence interval [CI]: 54%–70%) said that they would not have attended the meeting if there were no LCDs; 70/139 (50%) respondents (95% CI: 42%–58%) felt that TCDs may be an effective alternative to LCDs; 129/144 (90%) respondents (95% CI: 83%–94%) felt that LCDs should be continued. For question 4, 101/129 (79%) said they would allow their child to be operated in LCD by an expert, while 28 (21%) did not agree for their child to be operated in LCD. There was no significant difference between junior and senior surgeons regarding support for LCDs (P = 0.15).
Conclusions: In the Indian scenario, LCDs were favored as an essential part of pediatric urology meeting, attract more participation, and are likely to be important for the success of the meeting. |
|---|