Dataset Information

Will "Hybrid" Meetings Replace Face-To-Face Meetings Post COVID-19 Era? Perceptions and Views From The Urological Community.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To understand the preference and role of 'hybrid' urological meetings compared to face-to-face and online meetings during and after COVID-19 pandemic. The secondary outcome was finding out the most preferable webinar setting.

Methods

An online global survey was done between June 06 and July 05, 2020, using SurveyMonkey. The target participants were urology healthcare providers. The survey was disseminated via mailing lists and the Twitter platform.

Results

A total of 526 urology providers from 56 countries responded to the survey and it was completed by 73.3%. Participants' overall experience was better in a face-to-face meeting, followed by a hybrid and webinar only meeting. While opportunities for networking was identified as high in face-to-face meeting, online webinars were more cost effective, and learning opportunity and reach of audience was higher for hybrid meetings. For online webinar format, Zoom platform was used by 73% and majority (69%) saw it on their laptop or desktop. The preference was for a 1-hour webinar in the evenings with 3-5 speakers. Urology residents rated face-to-face meetings to have better cost-effectiveness when compared to consultants. Post COVID-19, more than half of all respondents would prefer hybrid meetings compared to the other formats.

Conclusion

While there will be a place for face-to-face meetings, COVID-19 situation has led to a preference towards hybrid meetings which is ideal for a global reach in the future. It is plausible that most urological associations will move towards a hybrid model for their meetings.

SUBMITTER: Hameed BZ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8556060 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo understand the perceptions of program directors (PDs) and fellowship applicants regarding the virtual interview process for orthopaedic surgery sports medicine fellowship programs.MethodsAn anonymous online survey was distributed through the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) to applicants and PDs of orthopaedic surgery sports medicine fellowship programs following the 2020-2021 fellowship application cycle.ResultsA total of 40 responses were received from PDs for a response rate of 47% (40 of 85) and 72 responses were received from applicants for a response rate of 27% (72 of 271). All of the surveyed PDs (40/40, 100%) agreed/strongly agreed that the applicant's interview carries significant weight in determining where an applicant is ranked on the match list. Fifty-eight percent (23 of 40) of PDs agreed/strongly agreed that virtual interviews negatively affected their personal connection with the fellowship interviewee. The presence of virtual interviews allowed 80% (57 of 71) of applicants to go on more interviews. Seventy-three percent (51 of 70) of applicants were able to save greater than $5,000 on travel expenses and 63% (25 of 40) of fellowship programs were able to save greater than $2,500 by conducting virtual interviews.ConclusionsVirtual interviews allowed fellowship programs and applicants to complete more interviews, but both PDs and applicants stated that interviewing in-person was important for applicants to meet faculty and tour the institution where they may be spending a year. In contrast, significant financial savings resulted due to the transition to virtual interviews. Finally, both PDs and applicants were in favor of having the option of interviewing virtually, suggesting that virtual interviews may continue to play a role in future application cycles.Clinical relevanceThis study may be valuable to fellowship programs that will continue to implement virtual interviews into future application cycles.

Project description:ObjectivesTo trial a simplified, time and cost-saving method for remote evaluation of fellowship applications and compare this with existing panel review processes by analysing concordance between funding decisions, and the use of a lottery-based decision method for proposals of similar quality.DesignThe study involved 134 junior fellowship proposals for postdoctoral research ('Postdoc.Mobility'). The official method used two panel reviewers who independently scored the application, followed by triage and discussion of selected applications in a panel. Very competitive/uncompetitive proposals were directly funded/rejected without discussion. The simplified procedure used the scores of the two panel members, with or without the score of an additional, third expert. Both methods could further use a lottery to decide on applications of similar quality close to the funding threshold. The same funding rate was applied, and the agreement between the two methods analysed.SettingSwiss National Science Foundation (SNSF).ParticipantsPostdoc.Mobility panel reviewers and additional expert reviewers.Primary outcome measurePer cent agreement between the simplified and official evaluation method with 95% CIs.ResultsThe simplified procedure based on three reviews agreed in 80.6% (95% CI: 73.9% to 87.3%) of applicants with the official funding outcome. The agreement was 86.6% (95% CI: 80.6% to 91.8%) when using the two reviews of the panel members. The agreement between the two methods was lower for the group of applications discussed in the panel (64.2% and 73.1%, respectively), and higher for directly funded/rejected applications (range: 96.7%-100%). The lottery was used in 8 (6.0%) of 134 applications (official method), 19 (14.2%) applications (simplified, three reviewers) and 23 (17.2%) applications (simplified, two reviewers). With the simplified procedure, evaluation costs could have been halved and 31 hours of meeting time saved for the two 2019 calls.ConclusionAgreement between the two methods was high. The simplified procedure could represent a viable evaluation method for the Postdoc.Mobility early career instrument at the SNSF.

Project description:BackgroundIntegrated community case management (iCCM) involves delivery of simple medicines to children with pneumonia, diarrhea and/or malaria by community health workers (CHWs). Between 2010 and 2012, an iCCM intervention trial was implemented by Healthy Child Uganda. This study used qualitative tools to assess whether project stakeholders perceived that iCCM improved access to care for children under five years of age.MethodsThe intervention involved training and equipping 196 CHWs in 98 study villages in one sub-county in Uganda in iCCM. During the eight-month intervention, CHWs assessed sick children, provided antimalarials (coartem) for fever, antibiotics (amoxicillin) for cough and fast breathing, oral rehydration salts/zinc for diarrhea, and referred very sick children to health facilities. In order to examine community perceptions and acceptability of iCCM, post-intervention focus groups and key respondent interviews involving caregivers, health workers, CHWs and local leaders were carried out by experienced facilitators using semi-structured interview guides. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis techniques.ResultsRespondents reported increased access to health care for children as a result of iCCM. Access was reportedly closer to home, available more hours in a day, and the availability of CHWs was perceived as more reliable. CHW care was reported to be trustworthy and caring. Families reported saving money especially due to reduced transportation costs, and less time away from home. Respondents also perceived better health outcomes. Linkages between health facilities and communities were reportedly improved by the iCCM intervention due to the presence of trained CHWs in the community.ConclusionsiCCM delivered by CHWs may improve access to health care and is acceptable to families. Policymakers should continue to seek opportunities to implement and support iCCM, particularly in remote communities where there are health worker shortages.

Project description:BackgroundDetermining whether members follow guidelines, including guidelines prepared to help direct practice management during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, is an important goal for medical associations.ObjectiveTo determine whether practice of urologists is in line with guidelines for the management of common urological conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic produced by leading (inter)national urological associations.Design, setting, and participantsSelf-selected urologists completed a voluntary survey available online from March 27 to April 11, 2020 and distributed globally by the Société Internationale d'Urologie.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisResponses to two survey questions on the (1) management of 14 common urological procedures and (2) priority scoring of 10 common urological procedures were evaluated by practice setting and geographical region using chi-square and one-way analysis of variance analyses, respectively.Results and limitationsThere were 2494 respondents from 76 countries. Oncological conditions were prioritised over benign conditions, and benign conditions were deferred when feasible and safe. Oncological conditions with the greatest malignant potential were prioritised over less aggressive cancers. Respondents from Europe were least likely to postpone and most likely to prioritise conditions identified by guidelines as being of the highest priority. Respondents' priority scoring of urological procedures closely matched the priorities assigned by guidelines. The main limitation of this study is that respondents were self-selected, and access to the survey was limited by language and technology barriers.ConclusionsPrioritisation and management of urological procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic are in line with current guidelines. The greatest agreement was reported in Europe. Observed differences may be related to limited resources in some settings.Patient summaryWhen deciding how best to treat patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, urologists are taking into account both expert recommendations and the availability of important local resources.