MP41-07: Presentation skills in the virtual meeting era – an analysis of #EAU21

Kenneth Chen, Jonathan O'Brien*, Pocharapong Jenjitranant, Omar Alghazo, Brian Kelly, Renu Eapen, Daniel Moon, Nathan Lawrentschuk, Declan Murphy, Melbourne, Australia

Introduction: The COVID pandemic has rapidly catapulted scientific conferences into a virtual or hybrid format. The format of traditional scientific communication has abruptly changed from physical presentations at conferences, to virtual pre-recorded contributions and participation. We assessed the quality of presentation skills at a major urology conference, the European Association of Urology Annual Meeting (#EAU21), to identify areas for improvement.

Methods: Using the EAU Urosource Resource Centre, we reviewed on-demand sessions posted from the #EAU21 virtual meeting, focusing on Plenary, Industry, Poster, Semi-live and Specialty sessions. Using a pre-defined matrix based on industry experts, a panel of reviewers rated presentations using quality criteria including camera angle, audio quality, virtual content optimised for virtual viewers which was assessed on both laptop and iphone to replicate typical viewer experiences. Levels of quality were defined from Level I (minimum standard), to Level 3 (excellent).

Results: We reviewed 138 on-demand sessions (7 plenary, 44 poster, 11 industry, 9 semi-live, 67 specialty) posted from #EAU21. Of 2068 virtual appearances assessed, 1710 (82.7%) failed to meet the minimum defined quality standard of Level 1, with poor camera angle being the most common offence (91.7% of cases). Of those who attained level 1 standards, 39/358 (10.8%) reached Level 2, out of which only 4 (10.3%) presentations met level 3 standards. Deficiencies in audio and content presentation domains were equally common (55.9% and 55.1%, respectively) in those with level 1 standards who did not reach level 2, while video elements were less common (51.5%). There was high inter-observer agreement in the scoring (87-91.3%). Even after excluding professional studio recordings provided by EAU, there was a consistent trend of chairpersons and moderators outperforming presenters in terms of level 1 standards (31.6% vs 13.7%, p<0.001). The only exception was seen in the industry sessions where more presenters met level 1 standards (48.1% vs 30.8%, p=0.29). Qualitative analyses revealed a wide range of styles used including the interesting use of automated voice-over narrations seen only in poster sessions (1.2%) which could overcome language barriers. In the presentations that met level 3 standards, the use of professional video and audio editing tools was evident and helped optimised the delivery of the scientific content for viewers.

Conclusions: A high proportion of virtual presentations did not achieve a reasonable minimum standard for scientific communication during the virtual #EAU21 meeting. Simple technical measures can significantly improve the quality of virtual presentations and ensure a better viewer experience. Further training will help the scientific community communicate more effectively in the virtual and hybrid meeting era.

Source of Funding: Nil