Are Your Clinical Study Meetings Building Momentum, or Wasting Time?

In clinical research, a poorly executed study meeting doesn’t just waste time; it can stall a study altogether.

From Investigators’ Meetings to protocol rollouts, the right structure, agenda and timing can spark the clarity and energy needed to move studies forward. But far too often, these meetings become bloated with slides, burdened by logistics or treated as mere formalities.

What if meetings weren’t just checkpoints, but catalysts?

In this Xtalks Spotlight, Saimah Awan, Executive Vice President of Meeting Operations at Scout, reveals what truly drives engagement in life sciences meetings, and why it begins long before the meeting starts.

Whether it’s ditching the 200-slide deck, designing breakout discussions that surface real challenges or engaging sites and patients before protocols are finalized, Saimah challenges long-standing industry habits.

She makes the case for meetings that are designed with purpose, participation and momentum in mind, not just information. Because when meetings energize rather than exhaust, they can align teams, accelerate timelines and support trial success from day one.

Clinical Study Meetings That Do More Than Inform, They Energize

Too often, clinical trial meetings are mainly focused on logistics: hotel bookings, AV setup, food and beverage. But as Saimah explains, these are just the basics, the outer layer.

“At best, the meetings are just operational milestones,” she said. “They bring people together at critical moments in a study and can either move things forward or even stall them out.”

True impact lies in how a meeting aligns teams, builds clarity and infuses energy into the trial process.

That’s why every meeting, whether it’s a protocol review, closeout or study kickoff, should be viewed as a strategic inflection point. When executed thoughtfully, meetings can reframe challenges, surface hidden concerns and reignite a sense of purpose among cross-functional stakeholders.

For instance, Saimah explained how one sponsor described a face-to-face meeting held just before enrollment began. The session, designed with focused content and clear interaction points, gave their study a “jolt of energy.” Participants walked out aligned, informed and excited, not just about the protocol, but about the collective effort ahead.

This kind of momentum doesn’t happen by accident. It’s the result of meetings that are built not to check a box, but to shape mindset and action.

In Saimah’s words, “That’s what we’re aiming for. Meetings that don’t just inform, but they energize and they get people excited about the study and about working on the study.”

Redefining Meeting Engagement: From Passive Attendance to Active Participation

In life sciences, the word “engaging” is often used, but rarely defined. According to Saimah, true engagement isn’t about logging in or sitting through a presentation. It’s about how people participate, and whether they walk away ready to act.

“Real engagement goes much deeper than just attending the meeting. It happens when people feel included in the conversation.”

— Saimah Awan

That means moving beyond one-way information delivery and creating space for two-way dialogue. It’s not just about the CRO leading the agenda, it’s about the sponsor showing up and participating, about PIs and site staff having their voices heard and about data teams, regulatory leads and other stakeholders feeling like active contributors, not passive observers.

When meetings are built with this inclusiveness in mind, everyone, from investigators to data managers, leaves with more than just information. They leave with clarity about their responsibilities, confidence in their contributions and a sense of shared ownership over study success.

It’s what turns a meeting from a routine formality into a powerful driver of alignment, motivation and execution.

Why Meeting Format and Agenda Matter

Most clinical research professionals have sat through the classic 200-slide deck: dense and comprehensive, but often more exhausting than energizing.

But for Saimah, the fix doesn’t come from trimming slides after the agenda is built. It begins much earlier, with a shift in mindset: designing meetings with purpose, not just content.

“What do you want people to do differently after this meeting? That should drive everything,” she said. When that end goal is clear, every agenda item becomes intentional.

Instead of filling time with presentations, planners can build sessions that inspire participation. This can be through breakout discussions that tackle real study challenges, live polling to surface group insights or structured prompts that invite diverse perspectives.

Even subtle enhancements, such as rotating facilitators or incorporating real-world case examples, can shift the dynamic from passive listening to active learning.

Without this level of design thinking, meetings risk becoming one-way broadcasts, with missed opportunities for feedback, collaboration and early issue spotting.

As Saimah emphasized, when format and agenda align with the meeting’s purpose, the experience becomes less about information delivery and more about enabling action.

Face-to-Face, Hybrid or Virtual Meetings?

Choosing the right clinical study meeting format isn’t a matter of convenience; it’s a strategic decision that should align with the meeting’s purpose, audience and goals.

At Scout, the planning process always starts with two foundational questions: “What are we trying to achieve?” and “Who needs to feel aligned?”

“Face-to-face is still the gold standard when it comes to building connection and trust,” said Saimah. “Hybrid can be a powerful option as well when done well. And the virtual absolutely has its place still, especially when you plan it intentionally.”

In-person meetings can foster deeper connections and spontaneous problem-solving, the kinds of moments that can spark alignment and accelerate decision-making. They’re particularly valuable for study kickoff events, protocol rollouts or advisory boards where nuance, tone and relationship-building matter.

But in a post-COVID world, not every stakeholder is able or willing to travel. That’s where hybrid and virtual formats, when planned with care, can offer flexible, inclusive alternatives. According to Saimah, success lies in more than just sending out a Zoom link, it’s about curating the experience with the same thoughtfulness as an in-person event.

That means investing in clear technology, ensuring strong moderation and assigning roles ahead of time. Scout often works with sponsors to pre-select key investigators or site representatives to act as “energy anchors,” engaging voices who help drive dialogue during virtual sessions rather than passively observing. This kind of intentional planning turns a screen full of muted participants into an interactive, high-value exchange.

Why Early Engagement Matters

According to Saimah, waiting until the Investigators’ Meeting to engage sites or patients means missing a critical opportunity, one that could shape the direction and success of a clinical trial.

“By that point, so many key decisions have already been made,” she said. “Early engagement gives you a chance to shape those decisions with real-world insight, not just operational assumptions.”

Involving patients early, through focus groups, interviews or advisory boards, brings practical perspectives that might otherwise be overlooked. They can flag protocol pain points that hinder participation: visit schedules that conflict with work or caregiving responsibilities, confusing instructions or logistical burdens that could increase dropout rates.

“It’s not just about being inclusive; it’s about designing protocols that are actually feasible and respectful.”

— Saimah Awan

Sites, too, benefit from early input. Engaging investigators and study coordinators during protocol development builds buy-in and ensures alignment well before the first formal meeting. When site teams have a voice in the planning stages, they’re not just informed, they’re invested.

Importantly, early engagement doesn’t have to mean more complexity. As Saimah points out, much of the logistical heavy lifting, from the patient travel to compliant compensation, can be handled by the right meeting partner.

“When early voices shape the conversation, your meetings become much more focused, more relevant and ultimately more successful,” shared Saimah.

By rethinking the starting line, sponsors and CROs can set the stage for stronger protocols, smoother execution and more meaningful connections with the people who make trials possible.

This article was created in collaboration with the sponsoring company and the Xtalks editorial team.