Radiology on Reddit: A Content Analysis and Opportunity for Radiologist Engagement and Education

ObjectiveSocial media use in radiology has been well documented, primarily pertaining to Twitter and Facebook. We evaluated radiology-related posts and users on Reddit, a popular platform with users who post and discuss content in a message-board format.MethodsTwo subreddits were reviewed: r/radiology (top 100 posts) and r/medicine (search queries: radiology, x-ray, CT scan, MRI, ultrasound, PET scan, and mammogram). Post aims and user types were categorized. Kruskal-Wallis H and post-hoc pairwise Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to assess user and post types associated with greater post comments and points.ResultsA total of 323 posts submitted by 258 unique users over a 9 year period with a median of 21 comments (range 0-568) and 119 points (0-1877) were reviewed. These were most commonly posted by physicians (41%), radiologic technologists (18%), and medical students (12%). Radiologists represented 30% of physicians and 12% of all users. Posts by physicians had significantly higher median comments and points than half of other user categories (P = <0.01-0.04). Most posts related to imaging case presentations (25%), comedic content (18%), and imaging appropriateness (10%). The most common radiology subspecialties featured were musculoskeletal (26%), neuroradiology (22%), abdominal (21%), and cardiothoracic (20%). Although only 1% of posts featured wellness and burnout, they had significantly higher median comments and points than 14 of 15 and 15 of 15 other post categories, respectively (P = <0.01-0.03).ConclusionReddit hosts a diverse community providing an interface for education, consultation, and humor. Radiologists represent a small, although impactful, portion of this community and should embrace Reddit as an avenue for engagement.     

Radiology Practices Employing Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants: Characteristics and Trends From 2017 Through 2019

PurposeThe number and roles of US nonphysician practitioners (NPPs) have expanded considerably, but little is known about their use by radiology practices. The authors assessed characteristics and trends of radiology practices employing Medicare-recognized NPPs.MethodsUsing Medicare databases from 2017 through 2019, the authors mapped all nurse practitioners and physician assistants (together “NPPs”) to employer groups for which all physicians were radiologists (“radiology practices”). Practices were characterized by size, geography, and radiologist characteristics. Temporal changes were assessed, and NPP employment likelihood was estimated using multivariate logistic regression modeling.ResultsAs the number of US radiology practices declined by 36.5% (from 2,643 to 1,679) between 2017 and 2019, the number employing NPPs increased by 10.5% (from 228 [8.6%] to 252 [15.0%]). The number of radiologists in NPP-employing practices increased by 10.4% (from 6,596 [35.1%] to 7,282 [40.0%]) as the number of radiology-employed NPPs increased by 17.5% (from 588 to 691). Practices were more likely to employ NPPs when medium (odds ratio [OR], 1.31) or large (OR, 1.25) in size, when urban located (OR, 1.35), and as their percentages of interventional radiologists increased (OR, 5.53 per percentage point) (P < .01 for all). Practices were less likely to employ NPPs as mean radiologist years since completing training increased (OR, 0.99 per year; P < .01).ConclusionsEmployment of NPPs by radiology practices has grown considerably in recent years, particularly in larger and urban practices and in those that employ more interventional and early-career radiologists. More work is necessary to better understand how this expanding use of NPPs affects the specialty.     

Integration of a Community Radiology Division into a Subspecialty-Focused Academic Radiology Department

IntroductionAssimilate a general radiology division into a subspecialty-focused radiology department at an academic medical center.MethodsThis Institutional Review Board-approved quality improvement initiative was performed at an academic medical centers’ subspecialty-focused academic radiology department, aiming to assimilate a general radiology division providing interpretive services for a distributed set of community ambulatory practices. An Oversight Committee charged by the department chair created a charter with unambiguous goal, timelines, clear decision-making, and conflict resolution processes. The Committee assessed the resources and clinical capabilities of the general radiologists, and the anticipated shift in exam volume from the community into subspecialty divisions. Primary outcome, percentage of targeted organ systems-specific interpretations by general radiologists based on assigned subspecialty division, and secondary outcome of report turnaround time (TAT) for all ambulatory exams, were compared before and after sub-specialization.ResultsAmong 10 general radiologists, 4.5 were assigned to subspecialty divisions; 5.5 continued to cover an independent general radiology practice in a for-profit delivery network. In the 5 months’ post-transition, a total 86.6% (11,668/13,477) of reports by the integrated general radiologists were within designated subspecialty divisions vs 23.9% (2,586/10,829) pre-transition (P < 0.01). There was no change in ambulatory radiology report TAT for non-urgent care center (UCC) or UCC exams pre- vs post-integration.DiscussionA quality improvement initiative with unambiguous decision-making and conflict resolution processes incorporated a general radiology practice (radiologists and exams) into a subspecialty-focused academic radiology practice without negatively impacting TAT metrics. Future studies would be needed to assess impact on quality of interpretations.     

The Challenge With Clinical Radiology Electives: Student and Faculty Perspectives Identify Areas for Improvement

PurposeTo determine medical students' and radiologists’ attitude toward radiology electives at a distributed medical school and identify specific areas for improvement.MethodsDuring a single academic year, both students and faculty preceptors were surveyed anonymously following a senior radiology elective. The survey was based on an established theoretical framework for studying the educational environment which takes into account domains: (1) goal orientation, (2) organization/regulation, and (3) relationships. Mann-Whitney tests were performed to determine if there was any difference between the overall satisfaction of students and preceptors, responses from the different elective sites and students’ ratings of the domains. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Thematic analysis was performed on the narrative comments to identify specific challenges.ResultsThe response rate was 82.0% for students (95/116) and 19.5% (31/159) for radiologists. There was no difference in responses based on elective site. Overall, the elective was viewed positively by both groups however students rated their experience as significantly better than their preceptors (P = .0012). Students viewed the relationships domain more positively than both the other two (goal orientation, P = .0001; organization/regulation, P = .0038). Thematic analysis identified that the student challenges were lack of autonomy, structured teaching, and preceptor continuity and the preceptor challenges were ambiguous learning objectives/expectations and insufficient resources.ConclusionsThe radiology elective challenges identified in this study provide educators with specific areas to target when updating radiology electives. A better elective experience may improve students' radiology knowledge and attitude towards the specialty as well as radiologists’ interest in teaching.     

Gender Disparity in Chest Radiology in North America

PurposeIn the current cultural climate, gender disparity is a topical and contentious issue. In academic medicine, there is an underrepresentation of female faculty in leadership positions with lower research output and fewer grant awards. We study the gender differences in faculty rank, leadership positions, and research output among chest radiologists in North America.Materials and MethodsA list of clinical faculty at radiology programs in North America was obtained using the FREIDA database and program websites. Demographic information and data pertaining to academic rank, peer-reviewed publications, and research productivity of each chest radiologist was obtained from Doximity and SCOPUS databases.ResultsFour hundred ten (281 male:129 female) academic chest radiologists were included. Females were underrepresented at senior faculty level accounting for 18.8% (n = 21) of full, 29.2% (n = 21) of associate and 40.7% (n = 61) of assistant professors. 23.1% (n = 14) of department chiefs were women. Women were more likely to occupy a faculty position in chest radiology in Canada than in US (P < 0.05). The median H-index, and numbers of publications and citations were lower for females than male faculty (P < 0.05). Male faculty had more years of experience – median of 19 years, 16.5 years for females (P < 0.05).ConclusionsGender disparity exists in chest radiology with similar male predominance in terms of senior faculty rank, leadership roles, and research productivity to other medical specialties. The observed deficiency of research and scholarly output among female chest radiologists and the paucity of aspirational female radiologists in senior academic/leadership positions are factors which perpetuate this gender disparity and contribute to persistence of the gender pay gap.     

Factors Influencing Patients’ Perspectives of Radiology Imaging Centers: Evaluation Using an Online Social Media Ratings Website

PurposeThe goal of this study was to use patient reviews posted on Yelp.com, an online ratings website, to identify factors most commonly associated with positive versus negative patient perceptions of radiology imaging centers across the United States.MethodsA total of 126 outpatient radiology centers from the 46 largest US cities were identified using Yelp.com; 1,009 patient reviews comprising 2,582 individual comments were evaluated. Comments were coded as pertaining to either the radiologist or other service items, and as expressing either a positive or negative opinion. Distribution of comments was compared with center ratings using Fisher’s exact test.ResultsOverall, 14% of comments were radiologist related; 86% pertained to other aspects of service quality. Radiologist-related negative comments more frequent in low-performing centers (mean rating ≤2 on 1-5 scale) than high-performing centers (rating ≥4) pertained to imaging equipment (25% versus 7%), report content (25% versus 2%), and radiologist professionalism (25% versus 2%) (P < .010). Other service-related negative comments more frequent in low-performing centers pertained to receptionist professionalism (70% versus 21%), billing (65% versus 10%), wait times (60% versus 26%), technologist professionalism (55% versus 12%), scheduling (50% versus 17%), and physical office conditions (50% versus 5%) (P < .020). Positive comments more frequent in high-performing centers included technologist professionalism (98% versus 55%), receptionist professionalism (79% versus 50%), wait times (72% versus 40%), and physical office conditions (64% versus 25%) (P < .020).ConclusionsPatients’ perception of radiology imaging centers is largely shaped by aspects of service quality. Schedulers, receptionists, technologists, and billers heavily influence patient satisfaction in radiology. Thus, radiologists must promote a service-oriented culture throughout their practice.     

Examining Gender Disparity in Academic Abdominal Radiology in North America

BackgroundGender disparity exists in nearly every medical specialty, particularly in leadership roles and academia. Radiology is not exempt from this phenomenon, with women making up less than a third of radiology residents in the United States (US). This can have long-lasting effects on the career progression of female radiologists. Our search did not reveal any study on gender composition in academic abdominal radiology.PurposeTo evaluate the academic productivity and career advancement of female academic abdominal radiology faculty in the United States and Canada.Materials and methodsParameters of academic achievement were measured, including the number of citations and publications, years of research, as well as H-index. Information regarding academic and leadership ranking among academic abdominal radiologists in the United States and Canada was also analyzed.ResultsIn academic abdominal radiology, there were fewer females than males (34.9% vs 65.1%; p-value 0.256). Among the female radiologists, the greatest proportion held the rank of assistant professor (40%). Female representation decreased with increasing rank. Females had a lower H-index than males (P-value = 0.0066) and significantly fewer years of research than males (P-value = 0.0243).ConclusionMale predominance in academic abdominal radiology is similar to many other medical specialties, and encompasses senior faculty rank, leadership roles and research productivity.     

Radiologists’ Experience With Patient Interactions in the Era of Open Access of Patients to Radiology Reports

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate radiologists’ experiences with patient interactions in the era of open access of patients to radiology reports.MethodsThis prospective, nonrandom survey of staff and trainee radiologists (n = 128) at a single large academic institution was performed with approval from the institutional review board with a waiver of the requirement to obtain informed consent. A multiple-choice questionnaire with optional free-text comments was constructed with an online secure platform (REDCap) and distributed via departmental e-mail between June 1 and July 31, 2016. Participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous, and responses were collected and aggregated via REDCap. Statistical analysis of categorical responses was performed with the χ² test, with statistical significance defined as P < .05.ResultsAlmost three-quarters of surveys (73.4% [94 of 128]) were completed. Staff radiologists represented 54.3% of survey respondents (51 of 94) and trainees 45.7% (43 of 94). Most respondents (78.7% [74 of 94]) found interactions with patients to be a satisfying experience. More than half of radiologists (54.3% [51 of 94]) desired more opportunities for patient interaction, with no significant difference in the proportion of staff and trainee radiologists who desired more patient interaction (56.9% [29 of 51] versus 51.2% [22 of 43], P = .58). Staff radiologists who specialized in vascular and interventional radiology and mammography were significantly more likely to desire more patient interaction compared with other specialists (77.8% [14 of 18] versus 45.5% [15 of 33], P = .03). Only 4.2% of radiologists (4 of 94) found patient interactions to be detrimental to normal workflow, with 19.1% of radiologists (18 of 94) reporting having to spend more than 15 min per patient interaction.ConclusionsMost academic staff and trainee radiologists would like to have more opportunities for patient interaction and consider patient interaction rarely detrimental to workflow.     

Artificial Intelligence and Radiology: A Social Media Perspective

ObjectiveTo use Twitter to characterize public perspectives regarding artificial intelligence (AI) and radiology.Methods and materialsTwitter was searched for all tweets containing the terms “artificial intelligence” and “radiology” from November 2016 to October 2017. Users posting the tweets, tweet content, and linked websites were categorized.ResultsSix hundred and five tweets were identified. These were from 407 unique users (most commonly industry-related individuals [22.6%]; radiologists only 9.3%) and linked to 216 unique websites. 42.5% of users were from the United States. The tweets mentioned machine/deep learning in 17.2%, industry in 14.0%, a medical society/conference in 13.4%, and a university in 9.8%. 6.3% mentioned a specific clinical application, most commonly oncology and lung/tuberculosis. 24.6% of tweets had a favorable stance regarding the impact of AI on radiology, 75.4% neutral, and none were unfavorable. 88.0% of linked websites leaned toward AI being positive for the field of radiology; none leaned toward AI being negative for the field. 51.9% of linked websites specifically mentioned improved efficiency for radiology with AI. 35.2% of websites described challenges for implementing AI in radiology. Of the 47.2% of websites that mentioned the issue of AI replacing radiologists, 77.5% leaned against AI replacing radiologists, 13.7% had a neutral view, and 8.8% leaned toward AI replacing radiologists.ConclusionThese observations provide an overview of the social media discussions regarding AI in radiology. While noting challenges, the discussions were overwhelmingly positive toward the transformative impact of AI on radiology and leaned against AI replacing radiologists. Greater radiologist engagement in this online social media dialog is encouraged.     

Radiology in Medical Education: A Pediatric Radiology Elective as a Template for Other Radiology Courses

PurposeTraditionally, the pediatric radiology elective for medical students and pediatric residents constituted a morning teaching session focused mainly on radiography and fluoroscopy. A more structured elective was desired to broaden the exposure to more imaging modalities, create a more uniform educational experience, and include assessment tools.MethodsIn 2012, an introductory e-mail and formal syllabus, including required reading assignments, were sent to participants before the start date. A rotating weekly schedule was expanded to include cross-sectional imaging (ultrasound, CT, MR) and nuclear medicine. The schedule could accommodate specific goals of the pediatric resident or medical student, as requested. Starting in 2013, an online pre-test and post-test were developed, as well as an online end-of-rotation survey specific to the pediatric radiology elective. Taking the Image Gently pledge was required. A scavenger hunt tool, cue cards, and electronic modules were added.ResultsPre-test and post-test scores, averaged over 2 years, showed improvement in radiology knowledge, with scores increasing by 27% for medical students and 21% for pediatric residents. Surveys at the end of the elective were overwhelmingly positive, with constructive criticism and complimentary comments.ConclusionsWe have successfully created an elective experience in radiology that dedicates time to education while preserving the workflow of radiologists. We have developed tools to provide a customized experience with many self-directed learning opportunities. Our tools and techniques are easily translatable to a general or adult radiology elective.     

Effects of Changing the Reporting System from Decentralized/Modality-Based to Centralized/Subspecialized Radiology on Radiologists,Radiologic Technicians and Referring Physicians of a Multi-Center Radiology Network

Objectives:To determine the effects of reorganizing a radiology institute from decentralized/modality-based to centralized/subspecialized radiology on radiologists, radiologic technicians, and referring physicians at a multi-center radiology network.Material and Methods:In 2017/2018 our multi-center radiology network was changed from decentralized/modality-based to centralized/subspecialized reporting. A survey was conducted among radiologists, technicians and two groups of referring physicians (main hospital and non-main hospitals). The following items were tested: Overall satisfaction, perceived quality of radiological reports, subjective productivity/efficiency, confidence of radiologists in their subspecialty, availability of radiologists and turnaround time. Two of five answering options on a 5-point Likert scale were considered to represent agreement. The Mann-Whitney-U-test served for statistical analyses in agreement before and after reorganization in each group.Results:For radiologists, a significant difference was observed in perceived quality of radiological reports 42/46 (91.3%) compared to 51/52 (98.1%; p = 0.013).For technicians, no significant differences were observed. In the group of main hospital referring physicians, significant differences were observed in overall satisfaction 129/152 (84.9%) compared to 164/174 (94.3%; p < 0.001) and in perceived quality of radiological reports 125/148 (72.8%) compared to 157/170 (92.4%; p = 0.001). In the group of non-main hospital referring physicians no significant differences were observed.Conclusion:The reorganization resulted in a significantly higher perceived quality of radiological reports for the groups of radiologists and main hospital referring physicians besides overall satisfaction for main hospital referring physicians. Specialized main hospital referring physicians value reports of specialized radiology, whereas less specialized, non-main hospital referring physicians did not experience any significant effect.     

Influences of Radiology Trainees on Screening Mammography Interpretation

PurposeParticipation of radiology trainees in screening mammographic interpretation is a critical component of radiology residency and fellowship training. The aim of this study was to investigate and quantify the effects of trainee involvement on screening mammographic interpretation and diagnostic outcomes.MethodsScreening mammograms interpreted at an academic medical center by six dedicated breast imagers over a three-year period were identified, with cases interpreted by an attending radiologist alone or in conjunction with a trainee. Trainees included radiology residents, breast imaging fellows, and fellows from other radiology subspecialties during breast imaging rotations. Trainee participation, patient variables, results of diagnostic evaluations, and pathology were recorded.ResultsA total of 47,914 mammograms from 34,867 patients were included, with an overall recall rate for attending radiologists reading alone of 14.7% compared with 18.0% when involving a trainee (P < .0001). Overall cancer detection rate for attending radiologists reading alone was 5.7 per 1,000 compared with 5.2 per 1,000 when reading with a trainee (P = .517). When reading with a trainee, dense breasts represented a greater portion of recalls (P = .0001), and more frequently, greater than one abnormality was described in the breast (P = .013). Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ versus invasive carcinoma or invasive cancer type was not significantly different. The mean size of cancers in patients recalled by attending radiologists alone was smaller, and nodal involvement was less frequent, though not statistically significantly.ConclusionsThese results demonstrate a significant overall increase in recall rate when interpreting screening mammograms with radiology trainees, with no change in cancer detection rate. Radiology faculty members should be aware of this potentiality and mitigate tendencies toward greater false positives.     

Is There Gender Bias in Radiology Job Postings?

BackgroundWords can convey subtle cultural stereotypes and perpetuate subconscious gender biases. Wording in job advertisements that appeals to 1 gender and deters others may unintentionally skew the applicant pool and affect the early phase of the recruitment process. “Masculine” tone can lead to decreased interest among women applicants while ‘feminine’ wording may not affect a man's decision to apply for the job. In this study, we evaluated the presence and extent of subtle gender bias in job advertisements for radiology faculty positions.MethodsAll job postings for faculty radiologists were retrieved from the American College of Radiology Career Center website in July 2020. The complete job advertisement was analyzed using Gender Decoder, a publicly available web-based application, to determine number and percentage of female or male coded words and the overall tone of the ad. The job posts were also stratified by subspecialty, leadership positions and academic versus private practice environments.ResultsOf the 623 job postings reviewed, a little over half (52.0%) of job postings were feminine coded, 26.6% had a masculine tone and 21.3% had a neutral tone. Of the leadership (division director) positions, 50.0% (4/8) had a masculine tone, 37.5% had a feminine tone, and 12.5% had a neutral tone. Among various specialties, pediatric radiology had the lowest percentage of job posts with a masculine tone (10.5%) while nuclear medicine had the highest percentage (41.7%). The most commonly used feminine words were: “support,” “responsible,” “commitment” and the most common masculine words were: “competitive,” “leader,” “active.”ConclusionsMost of the imaging job advertisements were feminine coded, with masculine tone in overall 26.6% posts and neutral tone in about a fifth. Leadership posts had a higher percentage of masculine tone. Awareness of these biases is important to enable diversity in recruitment and to ensure a diverse applicant pool.     

Trends in Gender and Racial Profiles of US Academic Radiology Faculty

ObjectiveTo evaluate gender and racial profiles of US academic radiology faculty.Materials and MethodsThis is a retrospective analysis of the American Association of Medical College database of radiology faculty members from 2006 to 2017 by academic rank, chair position, race or ethnicity, and gender. The data were described with annual proportions and average annual counts and fit to a Poisson regression model. Comparison data were taken from American Association of Medical College on matriculants at US medical schools and from ACGME on radiology residents.ResultsWomen increased significantly in the ranks of professor by 4.5%, associate professor by 4.8%, and assistant professor by 4.8% (P < .05). Asian and multiple race non-Hispanic radiologists increased in the rank of professor by 5.9% and 3.1%, respectively (P < .05). Among department chairs, only women and Asian faculty increased by 6.4% and 7.5%, respectively (P < .05). The proportion of women chairs increased from 10.0% (19 of 191) in 2006 to 17.4% (39 of 224) in 2017. Black and Hispanic chairs collectively represented less than 10% of the total chairs every year.DiscussionThe significant percent annual increase in women faculty in academic ranks and chair positions suggests that the radiology faculty is becoming more diverse. However, the decreasing proportion of women with increasing academic ranks within each year of the study period suggests attrition or lack of promotion of women radiology faculty. The disparity in black and Hispanic faculty members and chairs suggests that emphasis should continue to be placed on tailored recruitment.     

The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Diagnostic Radiology: A Survey at a Single Radiology Residency Training Program

PurposeAdvances in artificial intelligence applied to diagnostic radiology are predicted to have a major impact on this medical specialty. With the goal of establishing a baseline upon which to build educational activities on this topic, a survey was conducted among trainees and attending radiologists at a single residency program.MethodsAn anonymous questionnaire was distributed. Comparisons of categorical data between groups (trainees and attending radiologists) were made using Pearson χ² analysis or an exact analysis when required. Comparisons were made using the Wilcoxon rank sum test when the data were not normally distributed. An α level of 0.05 was used.ResultsThe overall response rate was 66% (69 of 104). Thirty-six percent of participants (n = 25) reported not having read a scientific medical article on the topic of artificial intelligence during the past 12 months. Twenty-nine percent of respondents (n = 12) reported using artificial intelligence tools during their daily work. Trainees were more likely to express doubts on whether they would have pursued diagnostic radiology as a career had they known of the potential impact artificial intelligence is predicted to have on the specialty (P = .0254) and were also more likely to plan to learn about the topic (P = .0401).ConclusionsRadiologists lack exposure to current scientific medical articles on artificial intelligence. Trainees are concerned by the implications artificial intelligence may have on their jobs and desire to learn about the topic. There is a need to develop educational resources to help radiologists assume an active role in guiding and facilitating the development and implementation of artificial intelligence tools in diagnostic radiology.     

The Patient Experience in Radiology: Observations From Over 3,500 Patient Feedback Reports in a Single Institution

PurposeTo identify factors associated with the patient experience in radiology based on patient feedback reports from a single institution.MethodsIn a departmental patient experience committee initiative, all imaging outpatients are provided names and roles of all departmental employees with whom they interact, along with contact information for providing feedback after their appointment. All resulting feedback was recorded in a web-based database. A total of 3,675 patient comments over a 3-year period were assessed in terms of major themes. Roles of employees recognized within the patient comments were also assessed.ResultsPatient feedback comments most commonly related to professional staff behavior (74.5%) and wait times (11.9%), and less commonly related to a spectrum of other issues (comfort during the exam, quality of the facilities, access to information regarding the exam, patient privacy, medical records, the radiology report, billing). The most common attributes relating to staff behavior involved patients’ perceptions of staff caring, professionalism, pleasantness, helpfulness, and efficiency. Employees most commonly recognized by the comments were the technologist (50.2%) and receptionist (31.6%) and much less often the radiologist (2.2%). No radiologist was in the top 10% of employees in terms of the number of comments received.ConclusionPatients' comments regarding their experiences in undergoing radiologic imaging were largely influenced by staff behavior and communication (particularly relating to technologists and receptionists), as well as wait times, with radiologists having a far lesser immediate impact. Radiologists are encouraged to engage in activities that promote direct visibility to their patients and thereby combat risks of the perceived “invisible” radiologist.     

Dedicated Diagnostic Radiology/Radiation Oncology Rounds: Added Value Beyond Traditional Tumor Boards

ObjectivesWe aimed to evaluate the impact of collaborative discussion between diagnostic radiologists and radiation oncologists on radiation oncology management for thoracic oncology patients.MethodsWe reviewed cases presented at multidisciplinary thoracic tumor boards (TTB) (n = 122) and diagnostic radiology/radiation oncology rounds (DR/ROR) (n = 45). Changes in planned radiation management following imaging discussion were categorized—no change, timing change, and treatment volume change. Phase of care was also classified. In DR/ROR, radiation oncologists were surveyed regarding (1) change in radiation oncology management and (2) change in confidence (both 5-point Likert scales).ResultsDiscussion of imaging with a radiologist changed radiation oncology management in 31.1% of TTB cases and 68.9% of DR/ROR cases (P < 0.001). Changes to the timing of initiating radiation therapy occurred with similar frequency in the 2 settings (31.1% vs 46.7%, P = 0.063). Changes to target volume occurred more frequently in DR/ROR (35.6% vs <1%), P < 0.001. Over half of imaging discussions in DR/ROR resulted in at least “moderate” change in radiation oncology management, and the level of confidence held by the radiation oncologists increased following discussion with radiologists in 95.6% of cases.ConclusionCollaborative discussions between radiation oncologists and diagnostic radiologists in a multispecialty tumor board and in targeted 2-specialty rounds are not redundant, but result in different management changes and at different phases of care. Our study emphasizes the importance of consultation with physicians as an area where radiologists can add value, specifically the added benefit of smaller collaborative discussions.     

The Integration of Active Learning Teaching Strategies Into a Radiology Rotation for Medical Students Improves Radiological Interpretation Skills and Attitudes Toward Radiology

PurposeIn recent years, there has been increased recognition of the benefits of teaching by active learning. However, there is a paucity of experimental studies utilizing active learning in undergraduate radiology rotations, which is traditionally a passive learning experience. We designed a new radiology rotation that integrated teaching by active learning. We prospectively examined the efficacy of this new rotation compared to our standard rotation in terms of students' radiological competency and attitudes toward radiology, as well as impact on departmental efficiency.MethodsThis was a prospective cohort study involving fourth year medical students completing a 1-week radiology rotation at our department between January and April 2018. One cohort completed a rotational model which incorporated active learning sessions (integrated cohort) while the remainder were taught using traditional passive learning methods (standard cohort). All participants completed a radiology examination before and after the rotation and were surveyed on their attitudes toward radiology.ResultsA total of 105 students enrolled in the study. The mean postrotation competency score obtained by the integrated cohort was significantly higher than that obtained by the standard cohort (82% vs 62%; P < 0.001). The integrated rotation freed up 7 hours of radiologists’ time per week. While the students completing the integrated rotation had a more positive perception of radiology, they were no more likely to express a desire to pursue a career in radiology.ConclusionsThe integration of active learning sessions into an undergraduate radiology rotation results in an improvement in students' postrotation radiological competency and attitudes toward radiology.     

Gender Variation in Invited Presenters at Two National Radiology Specialty Meetings

Rationale and ObjectivesTo assess gender balance amongst invited speakers at 2 national radiology conferences over the past decade.Materials and MethodsThe 2009, 2014, and 2019 Association of University Radiologists (AUR) and American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) conference programs were evaluated for the number and gender of invited speakers, as well as various presentation characteristics. Gender balance was stratified across conferences and years.ResultsThe final analysis included 1657 invited speakers and 45, 602 minutes of presentation. AUR showed a nonsignificant increase in the percent of presentations by women from 42.2% to 46.5% and in the percent of distinct female presenters from 41.6% to 46.0%. For ARRS, percentage of female presenters varied minimally from 36.1% to 38.2%. In AUR 2009, female presenters spoke on average 5.7min less than men (P= 0.042) and 6.5% of women gave lectures over 30 minutes vs 22.2% of men (P = 0.032). Subsequent AUR and ARRS conferences did not demonstrate presentation length disparities. For AUR, no keynote female speaker was identified. For ARRS, there was no significant difference in percentage of keynote speakers based on gender (P ≥0.516). A disproportionately high percentage of presentations before 8am (44.4%-66.7%) were by women.ConclusionFemale representation was greater than among the overall radiology workforce, highlighting a role of national societies in promoting female radiologists. Nonetheless, such representation is confounded by disproportionate underrepresentation in visibility of invited talks. While improvement in some presentation measures were observed, continued efforts are warranted to promote equal opportunities for female radiologists at national conferences.     

Radiology Without Borders: Identifying Global Reach of Radiology Social Media in Africa

ObjectiveTo examine our website and social media audience data to define the number of African users and review the effects of COVID-19 on our viewership from Africa, and look ahead to potential opportunities.MethodsGoogle Analytics was used to investigate the number of CTisus.com users from Africa across a three-year period: April 2018-March 2019, April 2019-March 2020, and April 2020-March 2021. The percent difference between 18/19 – 19/20 and 19/20 – 20/21 was identified. Each country was categorized into North, South, East, West, or Central Africa, based on the United Nations Statistical Division, and the percent difference was calculated for all five regions. The number of followers of our YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter channels in each African country was also analyzed, again classifying each country into regions.ResultsForty-six of the fifty-four countries in Africa, and all four territories, accessed CTisus.com between April 2018 to March 2021. Northern Africa represented 49.87% of our website visits from all African countries. Southern Africa constituted 18.84% of our traffic and Eastern Africa 18.60%, while Western and Central Africa provided 11.90% and 0.79%, respectively. We found a 27% increase in website traffic from Africa between a non-COVID year and a complete pandemic year. Facebook statistics revealed that 20,782 likes to our page came from Africa, and 20,987 of our followers. Similarly, 15,391 of our YouTube views and 728 of our Twitter followers came from Africa.ConclusionWe have been successful in achieving a 27% increase in website traffic from Africa to our radiology social media offerings. This increase since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic is encouraging, especially when noting that we do not have any paid advertising. We look forward to reaching a larger African audience to deliver radiology education in the future.