PURPOSE:Although several different contouring instructional programs are available to radiation oncologists and trainees, very little is known about which methods and resources benefit learners most, and whether some learners may need alternate forms of instruction. This study aimed to determine the factors that were predictors of learners' success in anatomy, radiology, and contouring education. METHODS AND MATERIALS:Participants in the online and face-to-face Anatomy and Radiology Contouring (ARC) Bootcamp completed pre- and postintervention evaluations that assessed anatomy/radiology knowledge, contouring skills, self-confidence, and spatial ability. Baseline factors were assessed as predictors of outcomes across multiple educational domains. RESULTS:One hundred and eighty (face-to-face: n = 40; online: n = 140) participants enrolled in the ARC Bootcamp, and 57 (face-to-face: n = 30; online: n = 27) participants completed both evaluations. Of the participants enrolled, 37% were female, and most were radiation oncology residents (62%). In the anatomy/radiology knowledge testing, all quartiles (based on baseline performance) improved numerically; however, the largest improvements occurred in learners with the lowest baseline scores (P < .001). At the end of the Bootcamp, learners with lower-performing scores did not reach the level of learners with the highest baseline scores (Bonferroni-corrected P < .001). Regarding the contouring assessment, improvements were only evident for the participants with lower-performing baseline scores (P < .05). Spatial anatomy skills, as measured by the spatial anatomy task, were correlated to contouring ability. Overall, the greatest improvements were seen for learners in postgraduate year 1 to 3, those with no previous rotation experience in a given discipline, and those who attended from other programs (ie, medical physics residents and medical students). CONCLUSIONS:The ARC Bootcamp improved all levels of performers' anatomy and radiology knowledge but only lower-performers' contouring ability. The course alone does not help lower-performing learners reach the abilities of higher-performers. The ARC Bootcamp tends to be most beneficial for participants with less radiation oncology experience. Curriculum modifications can be made to help support ARC Bootcamp participants with lower performing scores.

Background As new treatments and technologies have been introduced in radiation oncology, the clinical roles of radiation therapists (RTs) have expanded. However, there are few formal learning opportunities for RTs. An online, anatomy, radiology and contouring bootcamp (ARC Bootcamp) originally designed for medical residents was identified as a prospective educational tool for RTs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate an RT edition of the ARC Bootcamp on knowledge, contouring, and confidence, as well as to identify areas for future modification. Methods Fifty licensed RTs were enrolled in an eight-week, multidisciplinary, online RT ARC Bootcamp. Contouring practice was available throughout the course using an online contouring platform. Outcomes were evaluated using a pre-course and post-course multiple-choice quiz (MCQ), contouring evaluation and qualitative self-efficacy and satisfaction survey. Results Of the fifty enrolled RTs, 30 completed the course, and 26 completed at least one of the post-tests. Nineteen contouring dice similarity coefficient (DSC) scores were available for paired pre- and post-course analysis. RTs demonstrated a statistically significant increase in mean DSC scoring pooled across all contouring structures (mean ± SD improvement: 0.09 ± 0.18 on a scale from 0 to 1, p=0.020). For individual contouring structures, 3/15 reached significance in contouring improvement. MCQ scores were available for 26 participants and increased after RT ARC Bootcamp participation with a mean ± SD pre-test score of 18.6 ± 4.2 (46.5%); on a 40-point scale vs. post-test score of 24.5 ± 4.3 (61.4%) (p < 0.001). RT confidence in contouring, anatomy knowledge and radiographic identification improved after course completion (p < 0.001). Feedback from RTs recommended more contouring instruction, less in-depth anatomy review and more time to complete the course. Conclusions The RT ARC Bootcamp was an effective tool for improving anatomy and radiographic knowledge among RTs. The course demonstrated improvements in contouring and overall confidence. However, only approximately half of the enrolled RTs completed the course, limiting statistical power. Future modifications will aim to increase relevance to RTs and improve completion rates.

PurposeThe Anatomy and Radiology Contouring (ARC) Bootcamp was a face-to-face (F2F) intervention providing integrated education for radiation oncology (RO) residents and medical physicists. To increase access, we launched an online offering in 2019. We evaluated the effect of the online course on participants' knowledge acquisition, contouring skills, and self-confidence by comparing it with the F2F course.Methods and MaterialsUsing modules, the online course offers content similar to that of the F2F comparator. Participants from the 2019 F2F and the 2019-2020 online course completed pre- and postevaluations assessing anatomy and radiology knowledge, contouring skills, self-confidence, and course satisfaction.ResultsThere were 180 individuals enrolled (F2F: n = 40; online: n = 140); 57 participants (F2F: n = 30; online: n = 27) completed both evaluations. The online course had a wider geographic participation (19 countries) than F2F (4 countries). F2F had primarily RO resident participation (80%), compared with online (41%). Both cohorts demonstrated similar improvements in self-confidence pertaining to anatomy and radiology knowledge, contouring skills, and interpreting radiology images (all P < .001). Both the online (mean ± SD improvement: 6.6 ± 6.7 on a 40-point scale; P < .001) and F2F (3.7 ± 5.7; P = .002) groups showed anatomy and radiology knowledge improvement. Only the F2F group demonstrated improvement with the contouring assessment (F2F: 0.10 ± 0.17 on a 1-point Dice scale; P = .004; online: 0.07 ± 0.16; P = .076). Both cohorts perceived the course as a positive experience (F2F: 4.8 ± 0.4 on a 5-point scale; online: 4.5 ± 0.6), stated it would improve their professional practice (F2F: 4.6 ± 0.5; online: 4.2 ± 0.8), and said they would recommend it to others (F2F: 4.8 ± 0.4; online: 4.4 ± 0.6).ConclusionsThe online ARC Bootcamp demonstrated improved self-confidence, knowledge scores, and high satisfaction levels among participants. The offering had lower completion rates but was more accessible to geographic regions, provided a flexible learning experience, and allowed for ongoing education during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The Anatomy and Radiology Contouring (ARC) Bootcamp was a face-to-face (F2F) course designed to ensure radiation oncology residents were equipped with the knowledge and skillset to use radiation therapy techniques properly. The ARC Bootcamp was proven to be a useful educational intervention for improving learners' knowledge of anatomy and radiology and contouring ability. An online version of the course was created to increase accessibility to the ARC Bootcamp and provide a flexible, self-paced learning environment. This study aimed to describe the instructional design model used to create the online offering and report participants' motivation to enroll in the course and the online ARC Bootcamp's strengths and improvement areas. METHODS: The creation of the online course followed the analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation (ADDIE) framework. The course was structured in a linear progression of locked modules consisting of radiology and contouring lectures, anatomy labs, and integrated evaluations. RESULTS: The online course launched on the platform Teachable in November 2019, and by January 2021, 140 participants had enrolled in the course, with 27 participants completing all course components. The course had broad geographic participation with learners from 19 different countries. Of the participants enrolled, 34% were female, and most were radiation oncology residents (56%), followed by other programs (24%), such as medical physics residents or medical students. The primary motivator for participants to enroll was to improve their subject knowledge/skill (44%). The most common strength identified by participants was the course's quality (41%), and the most common improvement area was to incorporate more course content (41%). CONCLUSIONS: The creation of the online ARC Bootcamp using the ADDIE framework was feasible. The course is accessible to diverse geographic regions and programs and provides a flexible learning environment; however, the course completion rate was low. Participants' feedback regarding their experiences will inform future offerings of the online course.

Purpose: Simulation-based medical education is an effective tool for medical teaching, but simulation-based medical education deployment in radiation oncology (RO) is limited. Flexible nasopharyngoscopy (FNP), an essential skill for RO residents, requires practice that typically occurs on volunteer patients, introducing the potential for stress and discomfort. We sought to develop a high-fidelity simulator and intervention that provides RO residents the opportunity to develop FNP skills in a low-pressure environment. Methods and Materials: Computed tomography images were used to create an anatomically accurate 3-dimensional-printed model of the head and neck region. An intervention incorporating didactic instruction, multimedia content, and FNP practice on the model was designed and administered to RO residents attending the Anatomy and Radiology Contouring Bootcamp. Participants completed pre- and postintervention evaluations of the training session and model fidelity, and self-assessments of FNP skill and confidence performing FNP. Participants were video recorded performing FNP pre- and postintervention. Videos were scored by a blinded observer on a predefined rubric. Changes in scores were evaluated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: Twenty-four participants from 17 institutions and 4 countries completed the intervention, 50% were women, and most were senior residents. Postintervention, FNP confidence and FNP performance improved significantly (mean +/- standard deviation on a 10-point scale: 1.8 +/- 1.8, P < .001; 2.2 +/- 2.0, P < .001, respectively). Participants felt the model was helpful (mean +/- standard deviation on a 5-point scale: 4.2 +/- 0.6), anatomically correct (4.1 +/- 0.9), and aided in spatial comprehension (4.3 +/- 0.8). Overall satisfaction for the intervention was high (4.3 +/- 0.8). Participants strongly agreed the intervention should be integrated into RO training programs (4.3 +/- 0.8). Conclusions: A 3-dimensional-printed model and associated intervention were effective at improving FNP performance and the teaching method was rated highly by participants. RO residents may benefit from broader dissemination of this technique to improve trainee performance. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

IntroductionThe flipped classroom approach (FCA) is a growing instructional method in higher education. In the flipped classroom, students’ first exposure to content is prior to class, commonly in the form of two learning modalities (LMs): a textbook reading, or a video recording. Class time then focuses on the application of knowledge. This approach has been implemented in many lecture‐based courses; however, it has yet to be fully evaluated in the anatomical laboratory (lab). It remains unclear whether students prefer traditional or flipped instruction for anatomy lab sessions and, with a FCA, which LM provides anatomical content exposure that most aligns with student preferences. Thus, the aims of this cross‐over study were: (i) to determine students’ preferred instruction type for anatomy lab sessions, (ii) to determine students’ rank‐order of learning modalities for anatomical content exposure from most to least preferred, and (iii) to establish the reasons for learning modality preferences.MethodsUndergraduate students (n=59) were recruited from a systemic human anatomy course at the University of Western Ontario and were placed in one of four study groups. The groups were exposed to three flipped and one traditional lab sessions, with each session focused on a different musculoskeletal region. The flipped lab sessions used one of the following LMs for content exposure before the in‐lab component of the session: a textbook reading, a video recording, or a three‐dimensional (3D) anatomy application (app). The traditional lab sessions did not have content exposure before the in‐lab component but consisted of a lab talk during the in‐lab session using cadaveric specimens. An open‐ended questionnaire determined student’s preferred instruction type and rank‐order preference for the LMs. Open‐ended questions were coded and analyzed for themes to establish the reasons for the student’s rank‐order of the LMs.Results(i) The majority of students (57.6%) preferred a LM associated with flipped instruction compared to that associated with the traditional instruction. (ii) The average ranking of the LMs from most to least preferred were lab talk, 3D anatomy app, video recording, and textbook reading, with the textbook reading most often ranked as the least preferred LM (p < 0.05). (iii) Based on responses to the open‐ended questions, many students preferred LMs that allowed for representational visualization of the anatomical structures. Majority of students also preferred LMs, which allowed them to control their pace of learning. Inadequate visualization of the structures and lack of engagement were the main reasons the textbook reading was predominately ranked as the least preferred LM.ConclusionThe FCA relies heavily on student’s gaining a baseline of knowledge before class time; therefore, it is important to determine the LMs that enhance engagement, and most align with student learning preferences to promote completion of content exposure before class. This study revealed that anatomy students prefer LMs that promote visualization of the structures and allow for control of the pace of learning. Thus, when designing LMs to expose undergraduate students to the anatomical content, consideration should be given to the incorporation of the identified preferences to maximize student engagement.