Lessons From the FAOPS 2020 Cancellation During COVID-19

The cancellation of FAOPS 2020 in April 2020 was an early and consequential example of how the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted international scientific exchange. The 21st Congress of the Federation of Asian and Oceania Perinatal Societies was planned for Tokyo alongside PREBIC AA 2020, bringing together clinicians, researchers, and educators working in perinatal and neonatal medicine.

The event’s planned scientific program included speakers, abstracts, registration information, a venue guide, organizing committee details, and travel advice. When the public health emergency intensified, international travel became unreliable, borders began closing, and the conditions required for a safe in-person congress no longer existed. The decision to cancel was therefore tied to patient safety, participant welfare, and responsible event management rather than to a simple change in scheduling.

The archived FAOPS 2020 website remains useful as a record of the congress that had been prepared. It also offers a way to examine what the cancellation revealed about medical meetings, cross-border collaboration, and the need for continuity in fields where research findings can affect newborn and maternal care.

A Scientific Meeting Interrupted

FAOPS 2020 represented more than a calendar entry for a professional society. A regional congress creates opportunities for formal presentations, informal consultations, mentoring, institutional networking, and the comparison of clinical practices across countries. In perinatal medicine, where outcomes can depend on timely adoption of evidence, these interactions have practical value.

The cancellation also affected several groups at once. Researchers may have been preparing abstracts and presentations; trainees may have been expecting feedback and professional contacts; speakers and committee members had invested time in developing the program; and hospitals or universities may have arranged leave, travel, and funding. The disruption reached beyond the host city because international meetings depend on a wide network of institutions and individuals.

The timing made the decision especially difficult. In early 2020, information about transmission, travel restrictions, venue operations, and future public health conditions was changing rapidly. Organizers had to assess risks without the stable forecasts normally used for event planning. Canceling in April avoided asking participants to travel into an increasingly unsafe and uncertain environment, even though the decision carried financial, academic, and emotional costs.

Safety Became the Primary Planning Criterion

A central lesson from the cancellation of FAOPS 2020 is that health protection must outweigh the momentum of an event calendar. Perinatal and neonatal professionals work with vulnerable patients, including premature infants and newborns requiring intensive care. A congress that might increase exposure among healthcare workers could create risks that were inconsistent with the values of the specialty.

Safety assessment also had to account for the entire journey, not just the conference venue. Participants would have used airports, trains, hotels, restaurants, and other shared spaces. Different countries were applying different restrictions, while airlines were reducing routes and quarantine requirements were changing. Even a carefully managed meeting could not fully control these surrounding conditions.

This broader view of risk remains relevant for future congresses. Event organizers need clear thresholds for postponement or cancellation, reliable access to public health advice, and a process for communicating decisions quickly. They also need to recognize that a technically possible event may still be unreasonable if participants cannot travel fairly, safely, or predictably.

The experience demonstrated that cancellation is sometimes a responsible form of continuity planning. Ending an event does not mean abandoning the professional community. It means protecting the people who make the community possible while preserving the scientific work for later dissemination.

The Effects Reached Beyond the Venue

The immediate loss was the face-to-face exchange of knowledge. A scientific program can be published, but a program document cannot reproduce every question after a presentation, every discussion between sessions, or every unexpected connection formed in a hallway. These informal elements often help researchers refine methods, identify collaborators, and translate findings into clinical practice.

There were also administrative and financial consequences. Registration payments, travel reservations, accommodation, exhibition arrangements, catering contracts, and speaker commitments all required review. Participants needed timely information about refunds, postponement possibilities, abstract status, and future communication. When a meeting is canceled during a global emergency, clarity becomes a service in its own right.

The cancellation exposed unequal effects among attendees. Senior researchers with established networks may have had other routes for collaboration, while early-career clinicians, students, and researchers from institutions with fewer resources could lose an especially valuable opportunity. Participants from countries facing visa, travel, or funding barriers were also likely to experience different levels of disruption.

A fair response therefore needed more than a general cancellation notice. It required attention to authors, presenters, trainees, invited speakers, sponsors, and international delegates as distinct groups. The experience encouraged professional societies to think about access, affordability, and communication before a crisis occurs, rather than treating them as secondary issues.

Digital Alternatives Can Preserve Momentum

One of the clearest lessons from the pandemic period was the value of digital communication. Webinars, streamed lectures, virtual poster sessions, recorded presentations, and online discussion forums can keep research visible when travel is impossible. They are especially helpful for people who cannot routinely attend large international meetings because of cost, caregiving duties, disability, visa restrictions, or clinical responsibilities.

A virtual format does not replicate every feature of an in-person congress. Time-zone differences can exclude participants from live sessions, unstable internet connections can affect access, and online fatigue can reduce engagement. Poster discussions and spontaneous conversations also require deliberate design rather than simple conversion of a physical program into a video schedule.

The strongest alternative is often a thoughtful hybrid or distributed model. Key talks can be recorded, abstracts can remain searchable, and small-group discussions can be scheduled at more than one time. Moderators can collect questions in advance and afterward, while digital certificates and accessible materials can support trainees and presenters.

FAOPS 2020 also suggests that online communication should begin before an emergency. A society with an active year-round platform can circulate research updates, host educational sessions, and maintain working groups even when a major congress is canceled. Digital continuity is more effective when it supplements professional relationships over time instead of appearing suddenly during a crisis.

Communication Builds Trust During Disruption

Cancellation decisions are judged partly by how they are communicated. Participants need to know what happened, why the decision was made, what will happen to their submissions and payments, and where future updates will appear. A short notice with no practical details can generate additional anxiety, especially when people are already dealing with uncertainty in their workplaces and communities.

The most reliable communication is timely, consistent, and audience-specific. Organizers should use the official website, direct email, society channels, and relevant institutional contacts while ensuring that the core message remains aligned. Frequently asked questions can reduce repetitive inquiries, and a named administrative contact can help resolve individual cases.

The wording should acknowledge disappointment without minimizing public health concerns. It should also avoid making promises that depend on unknown conditions. If postponement is being considered, it should be described as a possibility rather than a certainty until dates, venue availability, and travel conditions are confirmed.

Communication after cancellation matters as well. Participants deserve updates about abstract archiving, certificates, refunds, future programming, and opportunities to present their work elsewhere. Maintaining contact shows that the congress community still has value even though the original meeting cannot proceed.

Resilience Requires More Than a Backup Date

A simple postponement plan is insufficient for a crisis that affects borders, healthcare systems, economies, and daily life simultaneously. Future congress planning should include several operating scenarios: an in-person meeting, a hybrid event, a fully online program, and cancellation with continued scientific dissemination. Each scenario should have decision points, financial assumptions, technical requirements, and communication templates.

Organizers should also separate the scientific identity of a congress from its physical location. If a venue becomes unavailable, the program can still have meaning through an online abstract collection, recorded sessions, working-group meetings, or a later publication. Protecting the academic record helps presenters retain recognition for their work and gives the wider field access to important findings.

The pandemic further highlighted the importance of contracts and financial safeguards. Agreements with venues, hotels, technology providers, and exhibitors should address public health emergencies, force majeure provisions, cancellation costs, and data responsibilities. Registration systems should explain refund rules before payment, while sponsors should understand how visibility will be handled if the format changes.

Practical Priorities for Future Events

• Establish health, travel, and attendance thresholds that trigger review or cancellation.
• Offer a digital pathway for abstracts, presentations, networking, and continuing education.
• Publish clear refund, postponement, and submission policies before registration opens.
• Maintain regular updates through a central official channel and direct participant emails.
• Include trainees, lower-resource institutions, and international delegates in access planning.

These measures turn broad resilience goals into operational steps. They also distribute responsibility across the organizing committee, professional society, venue, technology partners, speakers, and participants. No single safeguard can eliminate uncertainty, but a coordinated plan can limit confusion and preserve trust.

Perinatal Collaboration Must Continue

The subject matter of FAOPS 2020 made continuity especially important. Perinatal and neonatal services faced their own pressures during the pandemic, including staff shortages, infection-control changes, altered family access, and interruptions to routine research activity. Clinicians and scientists needed opportunities to compare experiences and evaluate rapidly changing evidence.

Regional societies can support this work through online case conferences, consensus statements, shared registries, research networks, and smaller focused meetings. These channels may lack the scale of a congress, but they can provide more regular contact. They also allow urgent topics to be discussed without waiting for an annual event cycle.

The cancellation revealed that professional communities are sustained by habits of collaboration, not by venues alone. When researchers continue sharing methods, clinicians exchange practical lessons, and trainees receive guidance, the scientific mission remains active. A later in-person congress can then build on that continuity rather than attempting to restart relationships from the beginning.

The legacy of FAOPS 2020 is therefore broader than the loss of one meeting in Tokyo. It is a reminder that responsible event leadership includes preparation for interruption, respect for public health, equitable access to knowledge, and careful stewardship of participant trust.

Professional societies and congress organizers can use this experience to review their own emergency policies, digital infrastructure, contracts, and communication plans. Preserving scientific exchange during disruption is a collective responsibility, and the next crisis will be easier to navigate when those systems are built before they are needed.