Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 25–29

The Next Wave: Confexting

Article

Abstract

Radiology conferences enable participants the opportunity to ask experts questions through question and answer (Q and A) sessions or individually. Given the time limitations and intimidating circumstances, we incorporated conference text messaging (confexting) as a method of increasing interactivity between the audience and speakers. During a 5-day radiology conference, text messaging was utilized for anonymous interactivity between the audience and speakers during Q and A sessions. There were 324 text messages; 76 of these were either follow-up statements or questions related to earlier text messages. Forty-two questions were submitted via paper notes. There was a general trend of an increasing number of text messages and a decreasing number of paper notes. The anonymous text messaging system was found to be an effective method for interactivity between the audience and the speakers. The questions and answers could be presented in a PowerPoint format at the formal Q and A sessions. Questions texted to the authors during their talks could be immediately answered or addressed in subsequent talks. Although difficult for some individuals to embrace technology, confexting allows for interactivity and prompts discussion. Confexting is an effective method for interactivity between the audience and speakers not previously utilized in a conference setting. The anonymity and asynchronous communication enable conference participants to submit more questions than in the traditional setting. The speakers may be able to explain more thoroughly difficult concepts more thoroughly with additional slides at Q and A sessions or may immediately answer texted questions during their talks.

Keywords

Teaching Continuing medical education Computer hardware Communication Education Medical Experiential Imaging informatics User interface 

References

  1. 1.
    Rosenberg M, ed: E-learning: strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM: The impact of E-learning in medical education. Acad Med. Mar 81(3):207–212, 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tidmarsh PJ, Cummings J, Hersh WR, Freidman CP: Distributed medical informatics education using internet2. Proc AMIA Symp 2002:787–791Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davidson HC, Wiggins RH: Radiology teaching presentation tools. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 24(6):420–427, 2003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wiggins RH: Personal digital assistants. J Digit Imaging 17(1):5–17, 2004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rowell MR, Johnson PT, Fishman EK: Radiology education in 2005: world wide web practice patterns, perceptions, and preferences of radiologists. Radiographics 27(2):563–571, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education www.accme.org. Accessed 20 May 2011
  8. 8.
    Weiner SJ, Jackson JL, Garten S: Measuring continuing medical education outcomes: a pilot study of effect size of three CME interventions at an SGIM annual meeting. J Gen Intern Med 24(5):626–629, 2009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology and NeurosurgeryUniversity of Utah Health Sciences CenterSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Utah Health Sciences CenterSalt Lake CityUSA
  3. 3.Department of Radiology Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, and BioMedical InformaticsUniversity of Utah Health Sciences CenterSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations