Group Meeting Surveys: You "Talk," We Listen

Having now completed both a spring and fall meeting under our new three-day model (Thursday-to-Saturday, versus the previous Wednesday-to-Saturday plan), the time seems ideal to report out on what these surveys tell us about our members’ meeting experiences in 2025. 

As in the spring, the three-day format last month in Chicago was again well received and is very likely to continue as our standard format for group meetings. 

Although a number of respondents commented on the loss of a fourth meeting day (less time available for informal networking seemed to be the primary downside), they generally spoke highly of the quality and efficiency of the meeting overall (e.g., “The reduced agenda has worked, even though there is less time to interact with others.”)

In addition to trimming our meeting costs by about $100K, the move to a three-day event has allowed us to establish consistent schedules we can repeat each year – one standardized version for the spring and another for fall. This not only reduces scheduling challenges ahead of each meeting, it also offers our members predictability – if you want a preview of what the schedule will look like for the spring 2026 group meeting, you can take a look back at the spring 2025 schedule.

Within the three-day timetable, we’ve also been able to schedule working group sessions for most committees on the same day as their open committee meeting, limiting how long members need to be away from home or clinic. While this does create some session overlaps, the approach has also been well received.

Our fall scores on overall effectiveness were again outstanding, as with the spring meeting, with items such as “in-person meeting technology” and “value and variety of learning opportunities” all scoring roughly an average of 4.5 out of 5 on a 1-5 scale (5 being the best possible score). 

The fall survey included two new subitems in this “how successful” category that also garnered high marks: 4.53 out of 5 for “clarity and accomplishment of program objectives,” and 4.74 out of 5 in agreement that meeting sessions were “free of any commercial influence or bias.”

(Both of these items were previously part of the brief survey completed by attendees applying for Continuing Medical Education credit. Alas, because of substantially increased conflict-of-interest reporting requirements by the accrediting organization The Hope Foundation has worked with since 2012 – requirements we simply lack the staffing to meet – Hope is no longer able to offer CME credits for SWOG events.)

We continue to broadcast most of our group meeting open sessions virtually, providing online attendance options for those who cannot make it in person. Recordings of almost all of these sessions are also available to SWOG members logged in to our website.  

This live-but-virtually-enhanced approach seems to be working well, and the ability to attend most sessions remotely was cited as a strength by numerous survey respondents (e.g., “The virtual format allows more staff at each site to attend.”).

Although we get valuable data from the numerically scored survey questions, which are particularly useful for drawing comparisons from meeting to meeting, your free-form comments and responses on what you see as the meeting’s strengths and weaknesses probably have the greatest impact on our decision-making about future events.

These comments typically include brief assessments of what worked and what didn’t …

• The site coordinator updates and education were exceptional.
• Very well planned and informative.
• One of the best meetings ever, did not see any weaknesses other than the lack of hot coffee throughout the day.
• Very efficiently run.
• The wi-fi was crazy slow.
• Appreciate the shortened time overall, but felt there was a lack of networking time.

 … suggestions for new approaches or features to consider (please know that we read and consider all suggestions) …

• Consider hosting more of the WG [working group] meetings as virtual-only meetings that are held prior to or after the in-person meetings.
• Highlight accrual numbers during group meetings before presenting each trial. Feature the top 10 accruing sites for each trial in the meeting app, if possible.

 … a mix of opinions on the appropriate balance between face-to-face and virtual experiences … 

• The value of in-person meetings is priceless.
• At times, there were some technical issues with the virtual meeting, but in general it was great, and it saves so much time and money.
• Strengths are the communication and connection we have in the meetings. The weakness is the technical use of Zooms and presentations took away from the meetings.
• There was one session I watched from my hotel room on Zoom because of the time change.

 … and straight-up evaluations of some sessions … 

• Plenary itself was well-paced and held my attention – I appreciated the variety of very informative and interesting talks.

 Our post-meeting survey is your opportunity to provide feedback to SWOG leadership that will help shape your experience at future group meetings. Next spring, when that survey invitation arrives in your inbox in early May (spring meeting will be April 30th – May 2nd), please weigh in. Your input matters. The better your feedback, the better our subsequent meetings.