Defining a Role for Webinars in Surgical Training Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United Kingdom: Trainee Consensus Qualitative Study

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic posed several challenges for surgical training, including the suspension of many in-person teaching sessions in lieu of webinars. As restrictions have eased, both prepandemic and postpandemic training methods should be used.

Objective

This study investigates trainees’ experiences of webinars during the COVID-19 pandemic to develop recommendations for their effective integration into surgical training going forward.

Methods

This project was led by the Association of Surgeons in Training and used an iterative process with mixed qualitative methods to consolidate arguments for and against webinars, and the drivers and barriers to their effective delivery, into recommendations. This involved 3 phases: (1) a web-based survey, (2) focus group interviews, and (3) a consensus session using a nominal group technique.

Results

Trainees (N=281) from across specialties and grades confirmed that the COVID-19 pandemic led to an increase in webinars for surgical training. While there were concerns, particularly around the utility for practical training (80.9%), the majority agreed that webinars had a role in training following the COVID-19 pandemic (90.2%). The cited benefits included improved access or flexibility and potential standardization of training. The majority of limitations were technical. These perspectives were refined through focus group interviews (n=18) into 25 recommendations, 23 of which were ratified at a consensus meeting, which was held at the Association of Surgeons in Training 2021 conference.

Conclusions

Webinars have a role in surgical training following the COVID-19 pandemic. The 23 recommendations encompass indications and technical considerations but also discuss important knowledge gaps. They should serve as an initial framework for ensuring that webinars add value and continue to evolve as a tool for training.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2200055325; http://www.chictr.org.cn/showprojen.aspx?proj=142802

Related collections

Most cited references 30

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

A Tong, P SAINSBURY, J. Craig (2007)

Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.

0 comments Cited 10759 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES)

Gunther Eysenbach (2004)

Analogous to checklists of recommendations such as the CONSORT statement (for randomized trials), or the QUORUM statement (for systematic reviews), which are designed to ensure the quality of reports in the medical literature, a checklist of recommendations for authors is being presented by the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) in an effort to ensure complete descriptions of Web-based surveys. Papers on Web-based surveys reported according to the CHERRIES statement will give readers a better understanding of the sample (self-)selection and its possible differences from a “representative” sample. It is hoped that author adherence to the checklist will increase the usefulness of such reports.

0 comments Cited 1850 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Consensus methods for medical and health services research.

J Jones, D Hunter (1995)

Health providers face the problem of trying to make decisions in situations where there is insufficient information and also where there is an overload of (often contradictory) information. Statistical methods such as meta-analysis have been developed to summarise and to resolve inconsistencies in study findings--where information is available in an appropriate form. Consensus methods provide another means of synthesising information, but are liable to use a wider range of information than is common in statistical methods, and where published information is inadequate or non-existent these methods provide a means of harnessing the insights of appropriate experts to enable decisions to be made. Two consensus methods commonly adopted in medical, nursing, and health services research--the Delphi process and the nominal group technique (also known as the expert panel)--are described, together with the most appropriate situations for using them; an outline of the process involved in undertaking a study using each method is supplemented by illustrations of the authors' work. Key methodological issues in using the methods are discussed, along with the distinct contribution of consensus methods as aids to decision making, both in clinical practice and in health service development.

0 comments Cited 311 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Benjamin M Davies:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0591-5069

Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of CambridgeBox 167, Cambridge Biomedical CampusAddenbrooke’s HospitalCambridge, CB2 0QQUnited Kingdom44 207973030bd375@cam.ac.uk

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): JMIR Med Educ

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): JMIR Med Educ

Journal ID (publisher-id): JME

Title: JMIR Medical Education

Publisher: JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )

ISSN (Electronic): 2369-3762

Publication date Collection: Oct-Dec 2022

Publication date (Electronic): 21 December 2022

Volume: 8

Issue: 4

Electronic Location Identifier: e40106

Affiliations

[1 ] Association of Surgeons in Training London United Kingdom

[2 ] Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics University Hospitals North Midlands Stoke-on-Trent United Kingdom

[3 ] Department of Neurosurgery University of Cambridge Cambridge United Kingdom

Author notes

Corresponding Author: Benjamin M Davies bd375@ 123456cam.ac.uk

Author information

Emma Barlow https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1279-8545

Wajiha Zahra https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9813-0414

Jane Hornsby https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5038-4450

Alex Wilkins https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5557-2263

Benjamin M Davies https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0591-5069

Joshua Burke https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4027-747X

Article

Publisher ID: v8i4e40106

DOI: 10.2196/40106

PMC ID: 9813811

PubMed ID: 36542431

SO-VID: 3227f92d-588b-4703-8524-fb39c94aa343

License:

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Medical Education, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mededu.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

History

Date received : 6 June 2022

Date revision requested : 17 October 2022

Date revision received : 27 October 2022

Date accepted : 30 November 2022

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

Most referenced authors 363

See all reference authors

Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
- celebrating 25 years of open access