Do HCPs really want the return of in-person meetings?

It is easy to assume that healthcare providers (HCPs) all want to go back to in-person meetings after having been confined to Zoom and Microsoft Teams meetings during the pandemic years. Anecdotally, however, we heard different things: many HCPs highlighted the convenience of the virtual format and considered this a silver lining from the long months of social and physical distancing.

In a recent study by our group, the authors sought to understand this. They asked the very important question: what do HCPs really prefer when it comes to pharma-sponsored small-group meetings, such as advisory boards?

Preferred meeting format of HCPs

When asked about their preference for future advisory board meetings, a whopping 76% of surveyed HCPs opted for meetings with a virtual component (hybrid, real-time web, and/or asynchronous meetings). Less than a quarter of respondents preferred in-person–only meetings. Interestingly, the most popular meeting approach was found to be a mix of synchronous (real-time) and asynchronous (over-time, anytime) meetings. This finding highlights the importance of using varied formats to cater to all preferences and to avoid digital fatigue.

Another interesting finding was that the preference for hybrid meetings almost doubled between 2022 and 2023, while the preference for in-person–only meetings remained stable. In other words, while many HCPs undoubtedly do still enjoy in-person engagements, giving them the choice of how to attend will help ensure that everyone is happy.

Meeting frequency and follow-up preferences

In terms of their preferred meeting frequency, almost 40% of HCPs stated that they would like to engage with the pharma team two to three times a year in a small-group setting, while over half of respondents would like to meet quarterly or more often. On the flip side, very few people wanted to meet only once a year. This is another argument against the traditional pharma model of once-yearly in-person–only advisory board meetings.

Interestingly, the authors also found that almost nine out of 10 respondents wanted to receive continuous updates from the pharma team on how their insights are being used, further supporting the case for regular meetings of varying formats throughout the year.

Why the preference for meetings with a virtual component?

In an attempt to elucidate the why behind the apparent preference for virtual and hybrid meetings among HCPs, the authors looked at the perceived benefits thereof. Unsurprising to most, and in accordance with previous research, the superior convenience/flexibility of the virtual meeting format was identified as the top benefit. To a large degree, virtual meetings can overcome challenges such as childcare difficulties, busy work and/or personal schedules, and poor work-life balance.

What might come as a surprise to some, however, was the relative importance placed on sustainability by HCPs. In fact, after the superior convenience and not having to take time off work, the minimal environmental impact was voted as the top-3 benefit of virtual meetings. If pharma needed more reasons to lower their environmental footprint, this is it. It is literally what your customers want. Luckily, virtualising in-person meetings can be considered low-hanging fruit on the journey to carbon-neutrality: replacing them with virtual conferencing can reduce the carbon footprint and energy use of the meeting by a staggering 94% and 90%, respectively.

Finally, approximately a quarter of HCP respondents considered the fact that more diverse voices can be heard during virtual meetings to be a key advantage. Among many other benefits on diversity, asynchronous meetings allow participants from remote or underserved communities to participate more easily, and time zone differences are no longer issues. This format also enables multidisciplinary feedback and ensures that everyone gets an equal say, irrespective of seniority, comfort with spoken English, or extroversion status.

Potential downsides of virtual and hybrid meetings

Despite the many and clear advantages of virtual and hybrid meetings, the authors acknowledged that they also have some important drawbacks. These include a lack of face-to-face networking opportunities, a potential lack of reliable internet connections in remote areas, and the risk of “Zoom fatigue” if opting for a web meeting–only approach.

Takeaways for pharma

Considering what we now know, making in-person meetings hybrid by default and offering participants the option to attend in-person meetings remotely should be a no-brainer. This not only ensures that the participants get a choice in how to attend, but also lowers the meeting’s environmental footprint and provides a back-up plan in the event of flight cancellations or delays due to extreme weather conditions secondary to global warming.

In general, opting for a mix of at least three live (hybrid or synchronous virtual) and asynchronous meetings per year to maximise flexibility and allow HCPs to contribute on their own time should cater to the majority’s preferences. Ideally, though, because no two groups of HCPs are the same, the pharma team should really be asking their participants about their future meeting preferences and adapting their strategies accordingly to build long-term, authentic relationships.