Utility of a collaborative hematology oncology (HO) podcast series for post-ASCO updates and teaching critical appraisal.

Abstract

9024 Background: Exploring strategies to share pivotal abstracts from the ASCO Annual Meeting is challenged by a paucity of resources focused on the critical appraisal of these abstracts. Podcasts are a valuable tool in medical education, though little is known on their utility to distribute post-ASCO updates compared to traditional formats (TF) including ASCO electronic updates, newsletters, Twitter, and emails. We sought to assess if a collaborative podcast series between two popular HO podcasts could enhance listeners’ self-perceived comprehension of conference material and improve knowledge in critical appraisal of research methodologies and statistical analysis. Methods: Five abstracts in 5 HO subspecialties (GI, hematology, lung, breast, and GU) presented at ASCO 2023 were selected by the co-authors. Abstracts were selected for high clinical impact and important critical appraisal teaching points. One podcast episode (PE) for each abstract (PROSPECT, SWOG 1826, CONTACT 003, KEYNOTE 671, NATALEE) was developed collaboratively between Two Onc Docs (TOD) and The Fellow on Call (TFOC) to provide background, results, limitations, and a concept in critical appraisal. Episodes were publicly available in July 2023. Between August-September 2023, a REDCAP survey was sent via Twitter to evaluate the efficacy of the PEs in breaking down abstracts and teaching critical appraisal. The survey utilized a 5-point Likert scale (1, “not at all” to 5, “entirely”). Descriptive statistics are presented. Results: A total of 58 individuals participated, including 33 fellows (57%), 7 attending physicians (12%), 6 APPs (10%), 5 residents (9%), 5 pharmacists (9%), and 2 others (3%). Most respondents (57%) did not attend ASCO 2023 while 36% attended in-person and 7% virtually. Prior to listening, there were 15 (26%) who reviewed 0 abstracts, 25 (43%) who reviewed 1-5, and 18 (31%) who reviewed ≥5. At baseline, 31% listened to TOD, 39% listened to TFOC, and 29% listened to both. Prior to the PEs, 43 respondents (74%) reviewed ≤ 2 of the selected abstracts and 7 (12%) reviewed all 5 abstracts. After the PEs release, 41 (71%) listened to ≥ 4 PEs, with 31 individuals (54%) listening to all 5. On a scale of 1-5, the mean response for the utility of the PEs in breaking down abstracts and teaching critical appraisal were 4.76 (SD 0.47) and 4.55 (SD 0.60) respectively. The majority (88%) felt the PEs were more helpful than TFs; 12% felt PEs were equally helpful. A total of 55 (95%) reported they would listen to future collaborative series for post conference information. Conclusions: In this analysis, we highlight listeners’ preference for podcasts over TF to improve comprehension and critical appraisal skills of abstracts presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting. Despite potential respondent bias, this suggests a promising avenue for leveraging established podcasts for post-conference information distribution.