Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38942923›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutical medicine2024

Considerations for Planning Effective and Appealing Advisory Boards and Other Small-Group Meetings with Health Care Providers: Importance of Participant Preferences.

Cecilia Petrus, Holly Lam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. "I liked having my voice heard:" a feasible, rapid approach for codesigning a contraceptive counseling curriculum.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Cecilia PetrusImpetus Digital, WaterPark Place, 20 Bay Street, 11th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5J 2N8, Canada. cpetrus@impetusdigital.com.
Holly LamImpetus Digital, WaterPark Place, 20 Bay Street, 11th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5J 2N8, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo optimize cost effectiveness, engagement, reach, inclusivity, insight quality and quantity, and participant satisfaction of pharmaceutical meetings such as advisory boards, the organizers have to carefully weigh the pros and cons of the available meeting formats (in-person, synchronous virtual, asynchronous, hybrid). While budgets and organizer preferences are typically key considerations, participants' preferences are rarely factored into this decision. Hence, the objectives of this study were to gain a better understanding of participants' preferences for meeting format, frequency, and updates.

methodsBetween September 1, 2022, and December 31, 2023, health care providers (HCPs) participating in asynchronous advisory board touchpoints on a proprietary virtual platform were asked to answer between 1-4 survey questions, selected at the pharmaceutical organizers' discretion.

resultsA total of 443 HCPs answered the survey. Among respondents, 76.0% preferred meetings with a virtual component. Overall, the most popular meeting approach was a combination of synchronous and asynchronous virtual meetings over time (34.6%). The preference for hybrid meetings increased from 14.3 to 27.3% between 2022 and 2023. The preferred meeting frequency was 2-3 times a year (39.2%), followed by quarterly (33.2%). According to the respondents, the most important benefits of virtual over in-person meetings include: (i) superior convenience and flexibility (81.0%), (ii) avoidance of time off work and away from patients (62.3%), (iii) the low environmental impact and carbon footprint (32.5%).

conclusionsAlthough these findings are preliminary and from a small dataset, they highlight the importance of customizing each pharmaceutical meeting or program with the target audience in mind.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesHealth PersonnelAdultFemaleGroup ProcessesHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID38942923
PMCPMC11272813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.