Virtual versus in-person meetings for practice guideline panels: A qualitative study.

Introduction: Traditionally, practice guidelines panel meetings were conducted in-person. During the COVID-19 pandemic, meetings transitioned to the virtual format. While guideline developers appreciated the increased flexibility and reduced expenses, they were concerned about reduced engagement and networking possibilities.

Objectives: To understand the experiences with virtual and in-person panel meeting formats, and to explore their views on the relative advantages, disadvantages, and impact on recommendation quality.

Methods: We interviewed individuals from different 'interest-holder' groups who have participated in both the in-person and virtual formats of panel meetings. These included panelists, chairs, staff of a guideline-developing organization, guideline methodologists, and systematic reviewers. We recruited participants until data saturation was reached. We used Quirkos for data analysis in accordance with Braun and Clarke's principles for effectively identifying and reporting emerging themes.

Results: We reached data saturation after interviewing 16 individuals with diverse career backgrounds and roles in guideline development. Six major themes were generated from the interviews. Four themes relate to the comparison between the virtual and the in-person formats: resources and logistics, engagement, impact on recommendations, and optimizing virtual meetings. The remaining two themes related to the hybrid format, and mixing formats. While the virtual format was favored in relation to less resource use and environmental friendliness, the logistics of online connectivity were a concern. The in-person format allowed better engagement in terms of discussion and informal interactions. Despite the risk of lower participation from key members in virtual meetings, there were no concerns about the impact of either format on the quality of the guideline. Online tools (e.g., online chatting, virtual hand raising, polling, screen sharing, virtual break out rooms, and recording capabilities) can enhance the efficiency of not only virtual meetings, but also in-person meetings. Participants had varying but generally negative views on hybrid meetings but favored mixing formats, typically starting with an in-person meeting.

Conclusion: Participants in our study typically preferred the in-person format over the virtual format and did not favor the hybrid format. Mixing formats and use of online tools even for in-person meeting can create efficiencies. We build on the findings to propose an approach for deciding on the format of the guideline panel meeting.