The pros and cons of virtual networking events: online exploratory survey of psychiatrists' opinions.

We conducted an online questionnaire-based cross-sectional study to clarify psychiatrists' perspectives on virtual networking events. We compared two groups of respondents: those who had participated in virtual networking events (experienced group, n = 85) and those who had not (inexperienced group, n = 13). The experienced group had a greater level of agreement than the inexperienced group that virtual events were generally useful and helped with forming professional relationships and improving professional skills. Respondents in the experienced group considered the ease of participation and low financial burden to be advantages of virtual networking meetings and difficulties in building friendships and socialising to be disadvantages.

Evaluating remote skin cancer multidisciplinary team meetings in the United Kingdom post-COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was concern that virtual or remote multidisciplinary teams (MDT) meetings represented a niche concept that was unlikely to replace traditional face-to-face meetings in the management of cancer. However, the sudden shift to virtual meetings during COVID-19 has been one of the most dramatic changes since the inception of the MDT. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of virtual skin MDTs since the move to virtual meetings. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was sent to all Specialist Skin Cancer MDTs (SSMDTs) and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgeons Skin Oncology Special Interest and Advisory Group. RESULTS: There were 68 responses (55.3% response rate) from 36 SSMDTs in the UK. Respondents felt communication, chairing, and decision-making were similar in virtual and in-person MDTs, but the team working was worse in virtual meetings. Recruitment, data security, and patient confidentiality were maintained in virtual MDTs. Most preferred a hybrid format for future MDTs, with the option to attend virtually. Recommendations for improvement included better connectivity, IT support, training, and staff integration. CONCLUSION: The virtual MDT is here to stay. We highlight the strengths and weaknesses of remote virtual skin MDTs. It is key that we look at ways to retain team working to ensure that the collegiate nature of MDT working, and therefore treatment options for patients, are not lost in this transformation in MDT delivery.

Food for thought on eating while meeting virtually.

This study examines observers' perceptions of employees eating during virtual work meetings. Using a 2 × 3 experimental design, participants (N = 842) were randomly assigned to one of three eating conditions including no one eating, target eating, and everyone eating where they rated either a male or female target. While existing research has demonstrated positive consequences of sharing food in the traditional workplace, our findings demonstrate that individuals who eat during virtual work meetings are perceived as less professional, less competent, and less likely to experience career success. Observers' perceptions of the eater's professionalism are negatively impacted, regardless of whether the target is the only one eating or whether everyone is eating. We offer practical suggestions for HRM professionals working to help managers and employees understand the nuances of videoconferencing.

Creating a Virtual Meeting Platform Via Online Survey Tool: Leveraging Community Engagement Technology in the Early Days of COVID-19.

At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Alabama's Title V Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs (CYSHCN) team was forced to innovate in order to gather community input and to prioritize the findings of the 2020 Title V Maternal and Child Health Five-Year Comprehensive Needs Assessment. On a shortened timeline, the team pivoted from a full-day, in-person meeting of professionals and family representatives to an asynchronous, online "meeting" that included all planned and necessary content, allowed for comment by community members, and resulted in a prioritized list of needs. This needs assessment process showed that by using a platform like the online survey tool, Qualtrics, in an innovative way, programs can capture broader, more diverse perspectives without sacrificing quality of communication, content, or feedback. It shows the possibility for strengthening maternal and child health (MCH) systems and other systems of care though rich engagement. This model can be easily replicated in other survey tools, benefiting other states that are faced with difficulties convening geographically dispersed professionals and communities.

The Virtual Inclusive Digital Health Intervention Design to Promote Health Equity (iDesign) Framework for Atrial Fibrillation: Co-design and Development Study.

BACKGROUND: Smartphone ownership and mobile app use are steadily increasing in individuals of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds living in the United States. Growing adoption of technology creates a perfect opportunity for digital health interventions to increase access to health care. To successfully implement digital health interventions and engage users, intervention development should be guided by user input, which is best achieved by the process of co-design. Digital health interventions co-designed with the active engagement of users have the potential to increase the uptake of guideline recommendations, which can reduce morbidity and mortality and advance health equity. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to co-design a digital health intervention for patients with atrial fibrillation, the most common cardiac arrhythmia, with patient, caregiver, and clinician feedback and to describe our approach to human-centered design for building digital health interventions. METHODS: We conducted virtual meetings with patients with atrial fibrillation (n=8), their caregivers, and clinicians (n=8). We used the following 7 steps in our co-design process: step 1, a virtual meeting focused on defining challenges and empathizing with problems that are faced in daily life by individuals with atrial fibrillation and clinicians; step 2, a virtual meeting focused on ideation and brainstorming the top challenges identified during the first meeting; step 3, individualized onboarding of patients with an existing minimally viable version of the atrial fibrillation app; step 4, virtual prototyping of the top 3 ideas generated during ideation; step 5, further ranking by the study investigators and engineers of the ideas that were generated during ideation but were not chosen as top-3 solutions to be prototyped in step 4; step 6, ongoing engineering work to incorporate top-priority features in the app; and step 7, obtaining further feedback from patients and testing the atrial fibrillation digital health intervention in a pilot clinical study. RESULTS: The top challenges identified by patients and caregivers included addressing risk factor modification, medication adherence, and guidance during atrial fibrillation episodes. Challenges identified by clinicians were complementary and included patient education, addressing modifiable atrial fibrillation risk factors, and remote atrial fibrillation episode management. Patients brainstormed more than 30 ideas to address the top challenges, and the clinicians generated more than 20 ideas. Ranking of the ideas informed several novel or modified features aligned with the Theory of Health Behavior Change, features that were geared toward risk factor modification; patient education; rhythm, symptom, and trigger correlation for remote atrial fibrillation management; and social support. CONCLUSIONS: We co-designed an atrial fibrillation digital health intervention in partnership with patients, caregivers, and clinicians by virtually engaging in collaborative creation through the design process. We summarize our experience and describe a flexible approach to human-centered design for digital health intervention development that can guide innovative clinical investigators.

First allergy conference in Qatar: Let's explore allergy with a new lens.

Allergic diseases are common medical conditions that now show an increasing trend globally and contributes to poor quality of life of the affected individual. Allergies can be fatal in a few instances such as anaphylaxis, severe asthma, and hereditary angioedema if the symptoms are not recognized and treated correctly. (1, 2) The first Allergy Conference in Qatar aimed to highlight the burden of allergic diseases in Qatar and globally with a special focus on educating both the physicians and the community. The preparation for this conference over the past three years threw up a few challenges, mainly owing to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic that affected all forms of face-to-face interactions and social gatherings. Therefore, our conference was held virtually on February 05, 2022, which was more than two years from the first planned date. The conference was sponsored by the Hamad Medical Corporation in partnership with the Qatar Allergy and Immunology Society. In our scientific program, the scientific committees selected topics related to 3 major areas in allergy practice (systemic, respiratory, and skin allergy disorders). Abstract submissions were encouraged in areas related to audits, case reports, service development, and clinical and basic research in the field of allergy. Additional topics were included related to the current COVID-19 pandemic and COVID-19 vaccinations. We received 34 abstracts and accepted 28 for poster abstracts. Among them, 6 received approval for oral presentations; and 6 (21.4%) had the term COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 in their title, which supported the burden related to COVID-19 in our community and association between this new pandemic and our allergy practice and disorders.

An Adaptation of the RAND/UCLA Modified Delphi Panel Method in the Time of COVID-19.

The RAND/UCLA modified Delphi panel method is a formal group consensus process that systematically and quantitatively combines expert opinion and evidence by asking panelists to rate, discuss, then re-rate items. The method has been used to develop medical society guidelines, other clinical practice guidelines, disease classification systems, research agendas, and quality improvement interventions. Traditionally, a group of experts meet in person to discuss results of a first-round survey. After the meeting, experts complete a second-round survey used to develop areas of consensus. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this aspect of the method was not possible. As such, we have adapted the method to conduct virtual RAND/UCLA modified Delphi panels. In this study, we present a targeted literature review to describe and summarize the existing evidence on the RAND/UCLA modified Delphi panel method and outline our adaptation for conducting these panels virtually. Transitioning from in-person to virtual meetings was not without challenges, but there have also been unexpected advantages. The method we describe here can be a cost-effective and efficient alternative for researchers and clinicians.

The Impact of Transitioning From In-Person to Virtual Heart Transplantation Selection Committee Meetings: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Heart transplant selection committee meetings have transitioned from in-person to remote video meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic, but how this impacts committee members and patient outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to determine the perceived impact of remote video transplant selection meetings on usability and patient care and to measure patient selection outcomes during the transition period from in-person to virtual meetings. METHODS: A 35-item anonymous survey was developed and distributed electronically to the heart transplant selection committee. We reviewed medical records to compare the outcomes of patients presented at in-person meetings (January-March 2020) to those presented during video meetings (March-June 2020). RESULTS: Among 83 committee members queried, 50 were regular attendees. Of the 50 regular attendees, 24 (48%) were physicians and 26 (52%) were nonphysicians, including nurses, social workers, and coordinators; 46 responses were received, 23 (50%) from physicians and 23 (50%) from nonphysicians, with 41 responses fully completed. Overall, respondents were satisfied with the videoconference format and felt that video meetings did not impact patient care and were an acceptable alternative to in-person meetings. However, 54% (22/41) preferred in-person meetings, with 71% (15/21) of nonphysicians preferring in-person meetings compared to only 35% (7/20) of physicians (P=.02). Of the 46 new patient evaluations presented, there was a statistically nonsignificant trend toward fewer patients initially declined at video meetings compared with in-person meetings (6/24, 25% compared to 10/22, 45%; P=.32). CONCLUSIONS: The transition from in-person to video heart transplant selection committee meetings was well-received and did not appear to affect committee members' perceived ability to deliver patient care. Patient selection outcomes were similar between meeting modalities.

Global dissemination of knowledge through virtual platforms: Reflections and recommendations from APSA/IPEG.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced the cancelation of conventional in-person academic conferences due to the risk of virus transmission and limited ability to travel. Both the American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) and International Pediatric Endosurgery Group (IPEG) converted to a virtual format for their 2020 annual meetings. The purpose of this article is to review the successful implementation of the APSA and IPEG virtual meetings and reflect upon lessons learned for future virtual conferences. METHODS: Logistics, structure, and attendance statistics were reviewed. Informal interviews were conducted with key stakeholders and the number of presenters and participants were analyzed. Finally, post-meeting attendee surveys were conducted to elicit feedback after both virtual meetings. RESULTS: The meetings were organized in different ways, with APSA spreading a mix of scientific and clinical educational content over several months and IPEG keeping the meeting compressed, similar to previous in-person versions. Both meetings were free and therefore attracted a high proportion of participants (720 for APSA and 834 for IPEG). The meetings were felt to be educationally appropriate by most, although timing and lack of Continuing Medical Education (CME) opportunities were detractors. Most attendees said they would be willing to pay fees similar to in-person amounts. IPEG compressed presentations into four 2-hour sessions spread over 4 weeks, but also made material available on-line through a proprietary application. There was a broad range of international attendees. IPEG attracted a larger percentage of non-members than did APSA (3:1 nonmember to member ratio). Both societies reported net losses, largely due to lost registration revenue and non-refundable costs from having to switch from an in-person meeting. CONCLUSIONS: The main advantage of the virtual meeting was increased participation while disadvantages included the lack of networking. The key lessons learned from the meetings include methods to increase interactivity, adjustments of technical logistics, and creation of enduring material. In the future, hybrid conferences will likely become more prevalent with advantages of both platforms. LEVEL-OF-EVIDENCE: Level V - Expert Opinion.