Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cancer multi-disciplinary team meetings (MDTM) assemble clinical experts to make diagnostic and treatment recommendations. MDTMs can take place in person, virtually, or in a hybrid format. Virtual and hybrid MDTMs have been in use for over two decades. This systematic scoping review aims to map the evidence on virtual and hybrid MDTM formats over time, providing insights into their quality, and the facilitators and barriers to their effective delivery. METHODS: The PRISMA scoping review checklist has been followed. A systematic search of PubMed, PsychINFO, and Embase between 1990-2023 identified 9399 records. These were independently screened by two researchers to identify primary research of any design that assessed quality or effectiveness of cancer VMDTMs. Results were narratively synthesised. RESULTS: Eight quantitative, two qualitative and three mixed-methods studies were included. All were observational and most were retrospective (n = 8). Varied outcome measures were used to evaluate meeting quality, including treatment recommendations, survival, time from diagnosis, and overall attendance. VMDTMs were superior (N = 6) or sometimes equivalent (N = 4) to face-to-face meetings. Studies identified implementation factors critical to their effective delivery, including internet-stability and chairing. CONCLUSION: The heterogeneous literature suggests VMDTMs offer some benefits over face-to-face meetings. Training and infrastructure are key to prevent risks to patient safety. A definitive comparative evaluation is needed to inform best practice.