Nghia M Vo1, Rebecca Trocki1. 1. From the Office of Extramural Research and Priority Populations, Division of Scientific Review, Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study documents the first six unplanned virtual review (VR) sessions conducted during the 2012 hurricane season at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and their effects on review outcomes. It also compares these VR sessions with five face-to-face (FF) sessions. METHODS: In the first part of this study, six VR sessions are analyzed in terms of feasibility, reproducibility, and reviewers' responses to a questionnaire about VR. In the second part, the VR sessions are compared with five other FF meetings in terms of costs and duration per discussed application. RESULTS: Despite their technical novelty, all of the VR sessions have been successfully conducted to the satisfaction of reviewers and agency organizers. Special emphasis panel reviewers are more receptive to the new technology than study section reviewers: 75% versus 42%, respectively (P<0.05). Although the duration per discussed application is comparable to FF, the cost per reviewer is much lower for VR sessions than FF sessions. CONCLUSIONS: VR has successfully been used in six review sessions with a maximum of 34 discussed applications per session, special emphasis panel reviewers are more receptive to VR than SS reviewers, VR is a duplicable and low-cost method of review, and practitioners and scientists are urged to serve as reviewers because doing so may assist them in receiving funding.
OBJECTIVES: This study documents the first six unplanned virtual review (VR) sessions conducted during the 2012 hurricane season at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and their effects on review outcomes. It also compares these VR sessions with five face-to-face (FF) sessions. METHODS: In the first part of this study, six VR sessions are analyzed in terms of feasibility, reproducibility, and reviewers' responses to a questionnaire about VR. In the second part, the VR sessions are compared with five other FF meetings in terms of costs and duration per discussed application. RESULTS: Despite their technical novelty, all of the VR sessions have been successfully conducted to the satisfaction of reviewers and agency organizers. Special emphasis panel reviewers are more receptive to the new technology than study section reviewers: 75% versus 42%, respectively (P<0.05). Although the duration per discussed application is comparable to FF, the cost per reviewer is much lower for VR sessions than FF sessions. CONCLUSIONS: VR has successfully been used in six review sessions with a maximum of 34 discussed applications per session, special emphasis panel reviewers are more receptive to VR than SS reviewers, VR is a duplicable and low-cost method of review, and practitioners and scientists are urged to serve as reviewers because doing so may assist them in receiving funding.