Search

Objective: This study compared the utilization and outcomes of face-to-face (F2F) vestibular support groups and online support communities (OSC) for individuals with vestibular disorders., Methods: We distributed a 31-question anonymous electronic survey through the Vestibular Disorders Association (VeDA) to F2F participants, categorizing user involvement in F2F, OSCs, or both and assessed impact on medical decision-making, psychosocial benefits, and goals achieved., Results: The F2F cohort consisted of 97 individuals comprising primarily of non-Hispanic White women (mean age = 57 years, SD ± 14 years) with diagnoses including persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (19%), Meniere's disease (15%), and vestibular neuritis (13%). Most participants were diagnosed by an otolaryngologist (65%) and attended F2F meetings monthly or less frequently (78%). The OSC group comprised of 551 individuals, primarily of non-Hispanic White women, but was younger in age (mean age = 50 years, SD ± 13 years). OSC participants notably engaged more, with 36% participating on a daily basis and 32% multiple times a week. F2F participants were older (mean age 57 years vs 50 years, P  < .001) and more commonly referred by medical professionals (22% F2F vs 6% OSC, P  < .001). Both groups had similar achieved goals, including hearing from others with the same diagnosis (84% vs 89%, P  > .05) and similar impact on medical decision-making (75% vs 78%, P  > .05). More F2F participants reported increased development of coping skills (79% F2F vs 69% OSC, P  = .037). OSC participants typically found the group via an online search (75%), compared to 51% for F2F. OSC participants had higher daily engagement (36%) compared to F2F (1%)., Conclusion: F2F users are older and more commonly referred by medical professionals. Despite less frequent engagement, F2F participants reported similar influences on achieved goals, medical decision-making, and impact on psychosocial benefits. These findings highlight the importance of both F2F and OSC support groups for individuals with vestibular disorders., Competing Interests: Author’s NoteRyan S. Ziltzer, MD is also affiliated to Department of Head and Neck Surgery, West Virginia University, West Virginia, USA. Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objective: To compare the effect of virtual and in-person head and neck physical examination training events on medical student confidence in performing examination maneuvers and seeking mentorship from otolaryngology faculty and residents., Methods: Training events were held with first-year medical student volunteers in 2020 (in-person) and 2021 (virtual). Participants in both cohorts were given didactics on head and neck cancer, trained to perform a head and neck physical examination, and demonstrated their clinical skills to otolaryngology faculty and residents. Pre- and post-training surveys were utilized to assess the following outcomes: participant head and neck cancer knowledge, confidence in performing examination maneuvers, and confidence in seeking mentorship in otolaryngology. Differences in outcomes between training settings were assessed by comparing participant survey responses pre- and post- training., Results: Both in-person and virtual training modalities improved participant confidence in performing the physical examination. There was no significant difference in the degree of improvement between training types. In-person training significantly increased participant confidence in seeking mentorship from otolaryngology faculty and residents ( P  = .003), while virtual training did not ( P  = .194)., Conclusion: Virtual training modalities are feasible methods of teaching the head and neck physical examination. Instruction through a video conferencing platform has the potential to be incorporated into traditional in-person medical education in a permanent fashion. This pilot study can inform future studies directly comparing in-person and virtual physical examination training modalities.

Objective: Medical podcasts are becoming increasingly available; however, it is unclear how these new resources are being used by trainees or whether they influence clinical practice. This study explores the preferences and experiences of otolaryngology residents with otolaryngology-specific podcasts, and the impact of these podcasts on resident education and clinical practice., Methods: An 18-question survey was distributed anonymously to a representative junior (up to post-graduate year 3) and senior (post-graduate year 4 or greater) otolaryngology residents at most programs across the US. Along with demographic information, the survey was designed to explore the preferences of educational materials, podcast listening habits and motivations, and influence of podcasts on medical practice. Descriptive statistics and student t -tests were used to analyze the results., Results: The survey was distributed to 198 current otolaryngology residents representing 94% of eligible residency programs and was completed by 73 residents (37% response rate). Nearly 3-quarters of respondents reported previous use of otolaryngology podcasts, among which 83% listen at least monthly. Over half of residents changed their overall clinical (53%) and consult (51%) practice based on podcast use. Residents rank-ordered listening to podcasts last among traditional options for asynchronous learning, including reading textbooks and watching online videos., Conclusions: While other asynchronous learning tools remain popular, most residents responding to this survey use podcasts and report that podcasts influence their clinical practice. This study reveals how podcasts are currently used as a supplement to formal otolaryngology education. Results from the survey may inform how medical podcasts could be implemented into resident education in the future.