Small Private Online Course in Teaching Oncology—Feedback After 1 Year: What Lessons?

  • Charlotte VaysseEmail author
  • Anne-Laure Fize
  • Fabien Despas
  • Elodie Chantalat
  • Elie Serrano
  • Odile Beyne-Rauzy
  • Marie-Eve Rougé-Bugat


In response to the complexity of medical care in oncology, 2 years ago, we designed a new teaching method (SPOC, Small Private Online Course) to improve cancer treatment and its management by emphasizing the community-hospital interface. The educational objective of this study was to evaluate after 1 year if the interest for this teaching remained constant over the long term to meet both educational and financial requirements. We designed a questionnaire including 18 questions grouped in 3 main parts describing the profile of the participants, his/her own experience, and the current utilization of the SPOC. Of 1574 participants of the 2 first sessions, 182 (11.5%) completed the questionnaire after 1 year. The majority of respondents were between the ages of 31 and 60 and belonged to a paramedical group (47.81%). After 1 year, 84.6% participants were satisfied or very satisfied with the content of the SPOC, 83.6% would recommended it, and 67% would be interested in using an updated SPOC again. Only 4.9% kept some contacts with other participants and 4.9% with teachers. 31.3% considered that the SPOC had a medium impact on their professional activity, 33.5% a lot, and 2.7% completely whereas 24.7% considered that it had little impact. The evaluation at 1 year showed that this digital learning method had a global positive impact on the professional practice of the participants. This study highlighted the empowerment of participants after this kind of teaching, but the network between participants was not enhanced.


Oncology Teaching SPOC Feedback 



We acknowledge the professionals who participated in this SPOC: Emmanuelle Arfé, Roland Bugat, Eric Chetaille, Martine Delannes, Frédéric Despiau, Corinne Grino-Hannotel, Dany Labant, Jean-Jacques Morfoisse, Veronique Pelagatti-Charrade, Fabrice Pereira, Elodie Perez, Bruno Rokoszak, and Virgile Samson.

This SPOC was supported by the education department of the Cancer Pharmacology of Toulouse-Oncopole and Region (CAPTOR (ANR-11-PHUC-001: CAPTOR)) program, a large research project devoted to innovate, evaluate, and market anticancer medications, and for all training courses linked to these domains. The project CAPTOR was financed by the French National Research Agency (“Investissements d’Avenir”) and has been delivered to Toulouse III – Paul Sabatier University and to all its partners: the Toulouse Cancer Research Center (CRCT), the University Hospital of Toulouse (CHU de Toulouse), and the Institute Claudius Regaud (ICR). Thinkovery-Smart Digital Learning Agency, Nantes, France, specializing in MOOC/SPOC, helped with our project videos and the quizzes and tests.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


  1. 1.
    Cave J (2016) Oncology and medical education-past, present and future. Ecancermedicalscience 10:ed54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Payne S, Burke D, Mansi J, Jones A, Norton A, Joffe J, Cunningham D, McVie G, Agarwal R (2013) Discordance between cancer prevalence and training: a need for an increase in oncology education. Clin Med (Lond) 13(1):50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gardair C, Bousquet G, Lehmann-Che J, de Bazelaire C, de Cremoux P, Tran Van Nhieu J et al (2016) Les coulisses d’un Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) sur le diagnostic des cancers. Ann Pathol 36(5):305–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Multon S, Pesesse L, Weatherspoon A, Florquin S, Van de Poel J-F, Martin P et al (2018) A Massive Open Oneline Course (MOOC) on pratical histology: a goal, a tool, a large public! Return on a first experience. Ann Pathol 38(2):76–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vaysse C, Chantalat E, Beyne-Rauzy O, Morineau L, Despas F, Bachaud J-M, Caunes N, Poublanc M, Serrano E, Bugat R, Rougé Bugat ME, Fize AL (2018) The impact of a Small Private Online Course as a new approach to teaching oncology: development and evaluation. JMIR Med Educ 4(1):e6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jordan K (2014) Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. Int Rev Res Open Dist Learn [Internet]. [cited 2017 Jul 16];15(1). Available from:
  7. 7.
    Wewer Albrechtsen NJ, Poulsen KW, Svensson LØ, Jensen L, Holst JJ, Torekov SS (2017) Health care professionals from developing countries report educational benefits after an online diabetes course. BMC Med Educ 17(1):97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rouge-Bugat ME, Lassoued D, Bacrie J, Boussier N, Delord J-P, Oustric S, Bauvin E, Lapeyre-Mestre M, Bertucci F, Grosclaude P (2015) Guideline sheets on the side effects of anticancer drugs are useful for general practitioners. Support Care Cancer 23(12):3473–3480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rougé Bugat ME, Dufossé V, Paul C, Oustric S, Meyer N (2016) Communicating information to the general practitioner: the example of vemurafenib for metastatic melanoma. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 30(12):e192–e194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leonard M (2004) The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Qual Saf Health Care 13(suppl_1):i85–i90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hornstein HA, Law HFE (Reviewing Editor) (2017) Student evaluations of teaching are an inadequate assessment tool for evaluating faculty performance. Cogent Education 4:1.
  12. 12.
    Stark PB, Freishtat R (2014) An evaluation of course evaluations. ScienceOpen Research.
  13. 13.
    Meinert E, Alturkistani A, Brindley D, Carter A, Wells G, Car J (2018) Protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation of a massive open online course on real world evidence. BMJ Open 8(8):e025188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dunham-Taylor J, Lynn CW, Moore P, McDaniel S, Walker JK (2008) What goes around comes around: improving faculty retention through more effective mentoring. J Prof Nurs 24(6):337–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barais M, Laporte C, Schuers M, Saint-Lary O, Frappé P, Dibao-Dina C, Darmon D, Bouchez T, Gelly J (2018) Cross-sectional multicentre study on the cohort of all the French junior lecturers in general practice. Eur J Gen Pract 24(1):99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Houston D, Meyer LH, Paewai S (2016) Academic staff workloads and job satisfaction: expectations and values in academe. J High Educ Policy Manag 28(1):17–30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fox L, Onders R, Hermansen-Kobulnicky CJ, Nguyen T-N, Myran L, Linn B, Hornecker J (2018) Teaching interprofessional teamwork skills to health professional students: a scoping review. J Interprof Care 32(2):127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    El-Awaisi A, Joseph S, El Hajj MS, Diack L (2018) A comprehensive systematic review of pharmacy perspectives on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. Res Soc Adm Pharm 14(10):863–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association for Cancer Education 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Surgery Oncology DepartmentCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Toulouse, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse-OncopoleToulouseFrance
  2. 2.Université Paul Sabatier Toulouse IIIToulouseFrance
  3. 3.PHUC CAPTOR WP4 Research ProgramUniversité Paul Sabatier Toulouse III, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse – OncopoleToulouseFrance
  4. 4.Medical and Clinical Pharmacology UnitCentre Hospitalier Universitaire ToulouseToulouseFrance
  5. 5.Department of Internal MedicineCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Toulouse, Université Paul Sabatier Toulouse IIIToulouseFrance
  6. 6.General Practice DepartmentUniversité Paul Sabatier Toulouse IIIToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations