Inside Investigator Meetings (Part 3 – The Survey)

In previous blogs, I mentioned issues mentioned with regards to collecting feedback via surveys. However, I was able to collect a significant amount of data from attendees at various investigator meetings (21 in total, all Phase III studies). I used two different sets of standardized surveys throughout: internal (sponsor focused) and external (site focused).

At the end of each meeting, we gave the internal and external surveys to sponsor and site personnel. We asked that respondents rate their meeting on a number of dimensions. These dimensions ranged from the quality and delivery of meeting material to logistical aspects such as location and accommodations.

Investigator Meetings – Survey Results

Of the responses from sponsor staff, nearly 90% said that the meetings needed at least some improvement. There were more than 80 negative characteristics identified which included:

  • boring meetings
  • inadequate meeting content
  • poor presentation skills
  • ineffective session design
  • a lack of attention paid to attendee comprehension

From an external perspective, the meeting ratings were highly variable. This depended largely on the venue and location, as well as presentation skills and the experience of the sponsor staff running the meeting. The highest rated meetings were those that had interactive components. Meetings that used an audience response system, protocol “Q&A” sessions or discussions on enrollment strategies rated higher.

Next time I’ll take a closer look at some of this feedback and discuss some ideas for how these meetings can be improved.

Leave a Reply