Published: 25 January 2023

The future approach to HRB grant review panel meetings

Future HRB panel meetings will be held virtually or in-person depending on the nature of the meeting. Interview-based and high-volume meetings will be primarily in person, while low-volume and short-listing meetings will be held online.

The decision to vary the approach is the result of a survey among the people who assess applications for grants (subject experts, researchers, panel chairs and public, patient and carer representatives), as well as the applicant themselves.

Each year the HRB hosts around 10-20 panel meetings to decide which applications will be recommended for funding. Pre-COVID these meetings were mainly held face-to-face, which changed to an online format at the start of COVID.

According to Dr Anne Cody, Head of Investigator-Led Grants, Research Careers and Enablers;

“The experience of moving to virtual meetings as a result of COVID-19 in March 2020 taught us, and many other people, a lot about the strengths and weaknesses of online working and allowed us to compare virtual panel meetings with our previous experience of mostly in-person panel meetings.

“We had our own views on how we might work into the future, however we really wanted to know what our stakeholders thought.”  

In the survey, we asked panel members and applicants for their preferences in relation to in-person or virtual meetings and the reasons behind them. Among the 178 responses, preferences varied depending on the type of meeting.

However, the following trends emerged.

• There was strong support for interview situations to be in-person.
• There was a general consensus that shortlisting meetings should preferably be virtual.
• For high-volume panels, panel members (researchers and PPI contributors) had a roughly 60/40 preference in favour of virtual formats. However, panel Chairs, who have to manage the efficient conduct of the meeting, showed a preference for in-person meetings.
• For low-volume panels the outcome wasn’t as clear but there was an overall preference for virtual formats.

Many respondents gave reasons including pros and cons for virtual and in-person meetings.

• In-person meetings were preferred for the better quality of interaction and people experiencing Zoom fatigue.
• Frequently mentioned in favour of virtual meetings were time efficiency, reduced costs, better for the environment and the potential to involve panel members who are unable to travel.

Dr Cody continues;

“The responses closely reflected the HRB staff experience. It has been valuable exercise for us to clarify our approach to panel meetings in the future while taking account of our stakeholders needs and preferences.”