The Carbon Costs of In-Person Versus Virtual Medical Conferences for the Pharmaceutical Industry: Lessons from the Coronavirus Pandemic

Digital learning, face-to-face learning and climate change

Debates about digital learning, face-to-face learning and blended learning often focus on their effectiveness in achieving a few core educational outcomes. The cost or convenience of using different methods to achieve certain outcomes have increasingly come into the educational framework over the past two decades. However, only rarely do educators or learners consider the climate footprint of their various activities. This is an important shortcoming, as all learning activities can contribute to our overall climate footprint. Providers of education should do their best to minimise the carbon footprint associated with their learning. But learners also have responsibility to ensure that how they access learning is also associated with minimal environmental cost. Both providers and learners should focus on activities that are likely to have the greatest impact. This is relevant both to face-to-face education and digital learning.

Self-directed learning among general practitioners in the German-speaking part of Switzerland: a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews

AIMS OF THE STUDY

This research aimed to investigate the self-directed learning (SDL) habits of Swiss general practitioners from the German-speaking part of Switzerland, understanding how they acquire new knowledge, exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these habits and identifying optimisation strategies for their future self-directed learning.

METHODS

We employed a qualitative study design, conducting semi-structured interviews with 16 general practitioners from 30 May 2022 to 06 July 2022. Thematic analysis based on a mixed deductive/inductive approach was used to gain insight into the learning activities and self-directed learning practices of the practitioners.

RESULTS

The interviewed general practitioners demonstrated a versatile approach to self-directed learning, where peer communication emerged as the most predominant learning method. It is noteworthy that the younger generation in particular showed a strong inclination for peer learning and is well prepared for the integration of advanced digital solutions for peer communication. Furthermore, a significant shift was observed in media-based self-directed learning, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Digital platforms and repositories for practical learning were mentioned as educational mainstays by many interviewees, reflecting a profound technological shift observed over the past 25 years and especially since the pandemic. The primary motivation for pursuing new knowledge remains patient care, although personal development and staying up-to-date with medical and technological advancements are also key motivators. Although the pandemic has undeniably accelerated the transition towards digital learning, it has also brought with it challenges such as information overload and technical difficulties. There was an evident decline in formal learning venues and physical presence during the pandemic, yet the reported value of in-person interactions remains high. Suggestions for optimising self-directed learning included enhancing digital offerings, fostering stronger peer networks and integrating more practical content.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic has catalysed a transformation in the self-directed learning practices of general practitioners in the German-speaking part of Switzerland, underlining the importance of a balanced approach between digital and traditional learning methods. As the digital realm of self-directed learning grows, it is essential to address existing challenges and capitalise on potential advantages. Both individual networking efforts like general practitioner quality circles and initiatives from official authorities like informal self-test opportunities can play pivotal roles in refining self-directed learning practices. The findings from this study offer valuable insights for enhancing learning resources and environments that align with general practitioners' needs and preferences. Future research should investigate the ongoing impact of advanced digital technologies on self-directed learning to understand the evolving landscape in a post-pandemic world.

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

BACKGROUND

To 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.

METHODS

Between 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.

RESULTS

A 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%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although 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.

Virtual Learning Decreases the Carbon Footprint of Medical Education

INTRODUCTION

The environmental impact of holding in-person academic conferences and continuing medical education (CME) programs can be significant. In-person conferences provide a unique social and professional platform to engage in networking and foster professional development; however, there is an opportunity for hybrid and virtual platforms to provide CME for broader audiences looking to improve their clinical skills and strengthen their knowledge base. This study seeks to describe the reduction in carbon emissions associated with a webinar hosted by an online dermatology-focused medical education platform.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used the location of deidentified virtual attendees of a webinar to predict the carbon emissions produced if attendees had instead traveled to the location of the most recent Integrative Dermatology Symposium (Sacramento, CA). Following collection of each virtual attendee's location, the mode of transportation was predicted on the basis of each participant's distance to the conference.

RESULTS

The estimated carbon emissions were calculated for 576 participants. The total estimated, unadjusted carbon emissions for both attendees predicted to fly or drive was 370,100 kg CO2. The emissions produced per participant from those expected to fly to an in-person CME after adjusting for all additional passengers on every flight were 4.5 kg CO2. The emissions produced per participant from those expected to drive were 42.7 kg CO2.

CONCLUSION

The use of a virtual CME webinar led to a significant reduction in travel-related carbon dioxide emissions when compared to running the same program in-person event. When accounting for all passengers traveling via plane on any flight, driving to an event produced more emissions per participant than flying.

The carbon footprint of American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America national meetings

Background

The health care sector contributes substantially to carbon emissions. Estimating the carbon emissions of an event can help determine its climate impact. This study calculates the carbon footprints of the 2019 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Annual Meeting and the 2019 Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA) Annual Meeting.

Methods

Data regarding attendance volume, geographic origin of attendees and vendors, hotel room nights, event space, and duration of meetings were obtained from AAOS and POSNA. Data were entered into an online calculator designed to measure the carbon footprint of large events (www.terrapass.com).

Results

The AAOS 2019 annual meeting was attended by 29 448 people, requiring 66 000 hotel room nights and 2 308 800 ft2 of convention center space for 5 days. We estimated 7179 short, 8374 medium, and 13 421 long-haul round-trip flights. The POSNA 2019 annual meeting was attended by 1103 people, requiring 1932 hotel room nights and 52 100 ft2 of convention center space for 4 days. We estimated 501 short, 280 medium, and 280 long-haul round-trip flights. The AAOS 2019 meeting emitted 26 075 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), while the POSNA 2019 meeting emitted 544 metric tonnes. Eighty-one percent of the carbon emissions from AAOS and 80% from POSNA came from flight travel alone. Carbon neutralization of in-person AAOS and POSNA annual meetings would require carbon-offset purchases of approximately $273 700 and $5700, respectively.

Conclusions

Annual orthopaedic meetings contribute to climate change through their large carbon footprint. Leaders in the field of orthopaedics should consider strategies to mitigate the impact of such meetings, examples of which include transitioning to hybrid formats when appropriate and by purchasing carbon offsets for essential in-person participation.

Key Concepts

1)Calculating the carbon footprint of an event estimates its total carbon dioxide emissions to help determine how to reduce its climate impact.2)The AAOS 2019 meeting emitted 26 075 metric tonnes (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), while the POSNA 2019 meeting emitted 544MT, with ∼80% coming from air travel alone.3)Carbon neutralization of in-person AAOS and POSNA annual meetings would require carbon-offset purchases of approximately $273 700 and $5700, respectively.

Level of Evidence

IV.

American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Annual Meeting All-in-person Attendance Results in Immense Carbon Expenditure

BACKGROUND

Professional society conferences are integral to the medical profession. However, airline travel is a major contributor to greenhouse gas production, and the environmental impact of in-person attendance at an orthopaedic conference has yet to be described. With growing concern about the climate crisis, we sought to quantify the carbon footprint of in-person attendance to help potential attendees more consciously consider in-person attendance, inform strategies to minimize greenhouse gas emissions during travel to annual meetings, and increase awareness about and momentum for efforts in orthopaedic surgery to reduce the carbon footprint of society conferences.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What was the magnitude of greenhouse gas production resulting from all-in-person 2019 American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) annual meeting attendance in Chicago, IL, USA? (2) What was the magnitude of greenhouse gas production resulting from the all-virtual 2020 AOFAS annual meeting, and how does it compare with the 2019 AOFAS annual meeting carbon footprint? (3) To what extent could an alternative in-person meeting model with four or seven hubs decrease greenhouse gas production resulting from round-trip air travel compared with the 2019 AOFAS annual meeting?

METHODS

A list of the postal codes and countries of all 1271 registered participants attending the four-day 2019 AOFAS annual meeting in Chicago, IL, USA, was obtained from AOFAS headquarters. The 2019 conference was chosen because it was the last pre-COVID meeting and thus attendance was more likely to resemble that at prepandemic in-person conferences than more recent meetings because of pandemic travel restrictions. We estimated carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO 2 e) production from round-trip air travel using a publicly available internet-based calculator (Myclimate: https://co2.myclimate.org/en/flight_calculators/new ). Emissions produced by the conference venue, car travel, and hotel stays were estimated using published Environmental Protection Agency emission factors. To estimate emissions produced by the all-virtual 2020 AOFAS annual meeting (assuming an equal number of attendees as in 2019), we used the framework published by Faber and summed estimated network data transfer emissions, personal computer and monitor emissions, and server-related emissions. Using the 2019 registrant list, we modeled four-hub and seven-hub in-person meeting alternatives to determine potential decreased round-trip air travel greenhouse gas production. Meeting hub locations were selected by visualizing the geographic distribution of the 2019 registrants and selecting reasonable meeting locations that would minimize air travel for the greatest number of attendees. Registrants were assigned to the nearest hub location. Myclimate was again used to estimate CO 2 e production for round-trip air travel for the hub meeting models.

RESULTS

The total estimated emissions of the all-in-person 2019 AOFAS annual meeting (when accounting for travel, conference space, and hotel stays) was 1565 tons CO 2 e (median 0.61 tons per attendee, range 0.02 to 7.7 tons). The total estimated emissions of the all-virtual 2020 meeting (when accounting for network data transfer emissions, personal computer and monitor emissions, and server-related emissions) was 34 tons CO 2 e (median 0.03 tons per attendee). This corresponds to a 97.8% decrease in CO 2 e emissions compared with the in-person conference. The model of a four-hub in-person meeting alternative with meetings in Chicago, Santiago, London, and Tokyo predicted an estimated 54% decrease in CO 2 e emissions from round-trip air travel. The seven-hub meeting model with meetings in Chicago; Washington, DC; Dallas; Los Angeles; Santiago; London; and Tokyo was predicted to diminish the CO 2 e emissions of round-trip air travel by an estimated 71%.

CONCLUSION

The 2019 AOFAS annual meeting had an enormous carbon footprint and resulted in many individuals exceeding their annual allotted carbon budget (2.5 tons) according to the Paris Agreement. Hosting the meeting virtually greatly reduced the annual meeting carbon footprint, and our hub-based meeting models identified potential in-person alternatives for reducing the carbon footprint of conference attendance.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Professional societies must consider our responsibility to decarbonizing the healthcare sector by considering innovative approaches-perhaps such as our multihub proposals-to decarbonize carbon-intensive annual meetings without stalling academic progress.