Article type
Abstract
Background: Traditionally, practice guidelines panel meetings were conducted in person. During the COVID-19 pandemic, meetings transitioned to the virtual format. Guideline developers appreciated the associated increased flexibility and reduced expenses but were concerned about reduced engagement and networking possibilities.
Objectives: To assess the relative advantages and disadvantages of virtual, in-person, and hybrid formats and to explore their effect on recommendation quality and potential mitigation strategies
Methods: We interviewed individuals representing different "interest holder" groups who have participated in both the in-person and virtual formats of panel meetings (ie, panelists, chairs, guideline methodologists, systematic reviewers). We recruited participants until data saturation was reached. We used Quirkos for the analysis of data, which was conducted in accordance with Braun and Clarke's principles, with the objective of effectively identifying and reporting emerging themes.
Results: We reached data saturation after interviewing 14 individuals. Table 1 provides a description of the emerging themes. These include momentum, engagement, group dynamics, formal interactions, and informal interactions, which were favored in in-person meetings. Other themes include budget and logistics, which were more favorable in virtual meetings, as in-person meetings usually require additional effort and a larger budget to plan. Participants unanimously favored mixed meetings, which combine the strengths of both formats, over hybrid meetings, where attendance options are varied. Table 1 also summarizes some mitigation strategies that were suggested to improve the overall flow and quality of the meetings. We also propose in Figure 1 an approach for deciding on the format of the meeting.
Conclusion: Our study explored interest holder perspectives on guideline panel meeting formats. Participants typically preferred the in-person format over the virtual format, particularly for discussion-heavy steps. Although the virtual offered a few benefits, the hybrid format was not favored.
Relevance and importance to patients: Practice guidelines and recommendations directly influence daily clinical decisions and patient care; as such, it is critical to ensure that the format guideline panel meetings are conducted in provides optimal quality and outcomes.
Objectives: To assess the relative advantages and disadvantages of virtual, in-person, and hybrid formats and to explore their effect on recommendation quality and potential mitigation strategies
Methods: We interviewed individuals representing different "interest holder" groups who have participated in both the in-person and virtual formats of panel meetings (ie, panelists, chairs, guideline methodologists, systematic reviewers). We recruited participants until data saturation was reached. We used Quirkos for the analysis of data, which was conducted in accordance with Braun and Clarke's principles, with the objective of effectively identifying and reporting emerging themes.
Results: We reached data saturation after interviewing 14 individuals. Table 1 provides a description of the emerging themes. These include momentum, engagement, group dynamics, formal interactions, and informal interactions, which were favored in in-person meetings. Other themes include budget and logistics, which were more favorable in virtual meetings, as in-person meetings usually require additional effort and a larger budget to plan. Participants unanimously favored mixed meetings, which combine the strengths of both formats, over hybrid meetings, where attendance options are varied. Table 1 also summarizes some mitigation strategies that were suggested to improve the overall flow and quality of the meetings. We also propose in Figure 1 an approach for deciding on the format of the meeting.
Conclusion: Our study explored interest holder perspectives on guideline panel meeting formats. Participants typically preferred the in-person format over the virtual format, particularly for discussion-heavy steps. Although the virtual offered a few benefits, the hybrid format was not favored.
Relevance and importance to patients: Practice guidelines and recommendations directly influence daily clinical decisions and patient care; as such, it is critical to ensure that the format guideline panel meetings are conducted in provides optimal quality and outcomes.