Demographics

A total of 440 participants registered for the distance learning course series and 351 registered participants took part in the lecture series at least once.

The invitation to participate was sent out for the prelecture survey and the postlecture survey to all registered participants via an invitation email, 117 and 47 responses were received (response rate 33.3% and 13.4%, respectively). After data cleansing 101 and 41 responses were used for the analyses. Table 1 shows the sociodemographic characteristics of the survey participants. The majority were male medical students (42.6% and 31.7%). The ratio between female and male medical students is constant for both surveys (prelecture survey: 45.5%/53.5%, postlecture survey: 46.3%/53.7%), which differs from the total Austrian medical student population (53.8%/46.2%).

Table 1 Sociodemographic characteristics of the survey participantsGeneral interest in digitalization in medicine

In this study three statements were used to understand the interests of the participants towards digitalization, “I enjoy working with digital applications”, “Digitalization makes my work more efficient”, “I am interested in using digital products in clinical routine”. In the prelecture survey in each of the 4 groups more than 80.0% agreed or strongly agreed. In the postlecture survey, the results moved towards 90.0%, except for faculty members where the agreement for the statement “Digitalization makes my work more efficient” dropped to 60.0%.

Knowledge self-assessment

For self-assessment the participants answered the question “How satisfactorily can you explain the following terms to an interested layperson?” (The full list of items is shown in Appendix 1).

In the prelecture survey 34.4% of all participants answered the subitems with “fairly” or “very much”. This value increased to 64.7% in the postlecture survey (p < 0.05). Female medical students feel much less confident than the other groups, with their results rising from 21.9% to 47.5%. Male medical students, on the other hand, feel much more confident, with their results rising from 42.1% to 70.2%, which is in line with current scientific findings [26, 27]. The results for faculty member rose from 35.7% to 70.2% and for the participants from industry and public agencies from 33.3% to 67.5%, respectively. Details see Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Knowledge self-assessment “How satisfactorily can you explain the following terms to an interested layperson” Boxplot showing the improvements in knowledge of the four groups analyzed before (prelecture survey) and after (postlecture survey) the lecture series, measured using a 5-point Likert scale (Y‑axis)

Attitude towards the future development of digitalization in medicine

Two questions were analyzed in this section: “Please rate the current importance of the following applications within your (intended) specialty.” and “Please estimate which digital applications will be particularly important in the next 5 years within your (intended) specialty.” (The full list of items is shown in Appendix 1).

In the prelecture survey, the Wilcoxon test showed a significant difference (p < 0.05) between current importance and importance in 5 years. The postlecture survey showed a much higher rating of current importance of digitalization in medicine and a similar importance in 5 years resulting in a nonsignificant (p = 0.15) result.

In the prelecture survey the four groups in total rated “the current importance” of 8 applications above the threshold, where “telemonitoring”, “medical databases” and “big data” were rated by 2 groups, 13 applications were rated as “will be particularly important within 5 years”, where “digital imaging”, “telemedicine”, “medical database” and “big data” were rated by 2 or more groups.

In the postlecture survey, the 4 groups in total rated “the current importance” of 11 applications above the threshold, where “digital diagnostics”, “digital imaging”, “medical databases” and “big data” were rated by 2 or more groups. Of the applications 18 were rated as “will be particularly important in 5 years”. “digital diagnostics”, “digital imaging”, “telemedicine”, “medical database” and “big data” were rated by 2 or more groups.

Attitude towards the future importance of digitalization in medicine for various specialties

Question 3 prompted participants to estimate “Which medical specialty will particularly benefit from digitalization in the future?” (All options are shown in Appendix 1).

In the prelecture survey “medical genetics” were rated by all four examined groups above the threshold. “Radiation therapy-radiation oncology” was rated by three groups. There was no specialty rated by two groups. Female medical students, male medical students and faculty members identified only two out of 19 specialties as most likely to experience significant benefits from digitalization in medicine.

In the postlecture survey nine specialties were identified by a minimum of two groups. “Surgical special subjects” were identified by all four groups. “Medical genetics”, “Pharmacology and toxicology” and “public health” were identified by three groups. “Ophthalmology and optometry”, “neurology”, “Radiation therapy-radiation oncology”, “radiology” and “nuclear medicine” were identified by two groups. The female medical students identified seven specialties, while the male medical students identified five specialties. Faculty members continued to name two specialties, which represents a relatively low expectation of the possibilities of digitalization in medicine. Members of industry and public agencies are the most positive group, naming nine specialties as most likely to be positively impacted by digitalization.

Attitude towards education in undergraduate trainings

The participants got four questions to rate: “Should informatic basics be part of the compulsory curriculum?”, “Should knowledge about specific digital applications be part of the compulsory curriculum?”, “Should lectures about digitalization in medicine only be elective?” and “There is no need for additional training, digital knowledge from the high school is sufficient”.

In the prelecture survey 75.0% of all participants consented that informatics basics should be part of the compulsory curriculum and 80.7% consented knowledge about concrete digital application should be part of the compulsory curriculum. The group with the highest support for digitalization in the compulsory curriculum were members of the industry and public agencies (100.0%, 100.0%, respectively). The group with the least support were male medical students (68.4%, 68.4%). The results for female medical students (88.5%, 76.9%) and faculty members (87.5%, 75.0%) were close to each other.

In the postlecture survey, 73.0% of all participants consented that informatics basics should be part of the compulsory curriculum and 67.6% consented knowledge about concrete digital application should be part of the compulsory curriculum. Male medical students were again the group with the least support (53.8%, 61.5%) and 23.1% of male medical students consented that elective lectures or high school training is sufficient. Female medical students were more interested in compulsory basics than application trainings (100.0%, 75.0%), whereas members of the industry and public agencies rated applications higher than basics (83.3%, 100.0%). Faculty members (60.0%, 60.0%) were similar to male medical students, but 40.0% of faculty members selected electives are sufficient training for future physicians.