Q1 What type of member are you?

Transcription

1 Q1 What type of member are you? Answered: 64 Skipped: 1 Organisational Individual Associate 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Organisational Individual Associate 76.56% % % 0 TOTAL 64 1 / 18

2 Q2 Do you normally attend the G-I-N conference? Answered: 65 Skipped: 0 Sometimes 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Sometimes 50.77% % % 21 TOTAL 65 # COMMENTS: DATE 1 I have never attended any of the G-I-N Conferences. Was introduced to G-I-N during the 2017 Global Evidence Summit in Cape Town. 10/6/2017 9:47 AM 2 Due to economic constraints, last years we could not attend 10/3/ :27 AM 3 I think we only missed Amsterdam and Australia conferences since /2/ :15 PM 4 Depends on cost 10/2/2017 8:19 PM 5 Missed Philadelphia since I became a member 10/2/2017 5:03 PM 6 When funding is available from my organisation. 10/2/2017 5:02 PM 7 Active member (vice-chair) of a WG 10/2/2017 9:43 AM 8 Lake of time 10/2/2017 7:10 AM 9 I didn't have opportunity because of unavailability of funds. 9/30/2017 1:32 AM 10 When I have to share a survey or a work 9/29/2017 8:22 PM 11 Since G-I-N s foundation 9/29/2017 8:13 PM 12 once 9/29/2017 5:45 PM 13 rth American GIN conference 9/29/2017 5:41 PM 14 I have attended regularly in the last 8 years 9/29/2017 5:01 PM 15 I have been a member only the last 4 years or so 9/29/2017 4:44 PM 16 I usually visit the conferences held in Europe, for economy reasons 9/29/2017 3:56 PM 17 We attend when the conference is in the US. 9/29/2017 3:48 PM 2 / 18

3 18 when held in rth America, and webinars 9/29/2017 3:42 PM 3 / 18

4 Q3 Did you attend the Global Evidence Summit in Cape Town? Answered: 65 Skipped: 0 (please skip to... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% (please skip to question 4) 55.38% % 29 TOTAL 65 4 / 18

5 Q4 If not, why not? (tick all that apply) Answered: 26 Skipped: 39 Cost Distance Length of conference Content not considered... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cost Distance Length of conference Content not considered relevant enough 80.77% % % % 3 Total Respondents: 26 # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE 1 I attended the Global Evidence Summit (GES) /6/2017 9:47 AM 2 X 10/4/2017 8:29 AM 3 family reasons (death of sister in law) 10/3/2017 9:21 AM 4 I attended - skip logic didnt work 10/2/ :15 PM 5 N/A 10/2/2017 5:02 PM 6 I was not formally named as the representative person of my institution when the conference was held 7 I would have loved to attend the GES. The content of the conference was very interesting and relevant to my line of work, however, we did not have the funds to accommodate travel 8 would have LOVED to go, generally our research funding doesn't allow for international travel outside rth America, sometimes our center can pick up profession conference travel, but the cost and time to get to this one was prohibitive 10/2/2017 7:12 AM 9/29/2017 9:23 PM 9/29/2017 3:42 PM 9 Conflict with other activities 9/29/2017 3:37 PM 5 / 18

6 Q5 Did you consider the conference good value for money? Answered: 54 Skipped: 11 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 24.07% % 41 TOTAL 54 # ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: DATE 1 Сost too much 10/17/2017 2:40 PM 2 Was impressed with knowledge sharing and networking opportunities. 10/6/2017 9:47 AM 3 It was very interesting having so many perspectives. The registration costs seemed reasonable given the caliber of the conference venue, the AV support, the multitude (too many) of course selections and the food/beverage and social events. 10/2/ :15 PM 4, for the staff who attended. But we sent fewer staff because of the cost. 10/2/2017 9:34 PM 5 When I'm able to attend, these conferences are the best available for guideline related topics. 10/2/2017 8:19 PM 6 It was a costly conference though. But great it was held here. 10/2/2017 9:43 AM 7 Expensive 10/2/2017 9:23 AM 8 idea 10/2/2017 7:10 AM 9 Money relates to time as well as the actual conference. This year, I could not justify the travel time as well as the expense of the conference and housing after attending the prior 3 years. 10 There were too many competing sessions and the same speakers presented the same talk in different venues (long oral, workshops, special sessions). This was very annoying as there were so many sessions at one time. 10/1/2017 6:33 PM 9/30/2017 9:14 AM 11 Could not evaluate 9/30/2017 8:18 AM 12 More like average value for the money; typical conference pricing 9/30/ :05 AM 13 Excellent networking opportunity - organisations engaging in the different sections of the evudence ecosystem simply must collaborate 9/29/2017 8:13 PM 14 did not attend 9/29/2017 8:07 PM 15 doubt. In the GES, it was unusally costly due to the distance to arrive in 9/29/2017 5:01 PM 6 / 18

7 16 Interesting and valuable for me personally, but the focus on LMIC contexts made it less useful to me coming from the U.S; setting. The conference was expensive to attend given the distance to travel as well so that goes into my "value" calculation. 9/29/2017 4:10 PM 17 t applicable 9/29/2017 4:00 PM 18 I did not visit the conference 9/29/2017 3:56 PM 19 NA didn't attend 9/29/2017 3:42 PM 7 / 18

8 Q6 Do you normally attend any of the other partner s conferences? Answered: 61 Skipped: 4 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 44.26% % 34 TOTAL 61 # PLEASE LIST THEM HERE: DATE 1 Cochrane 10/18/2017 8:51 PM 2 Cochrane GIN 10/11/2017 6:54 AM 3 htai 10/10/2017 3:21 PM 4 I have attended Impact Evaluation Conferences organized by the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie). 10/6/2017 9:47 AM 5 Cochrane 10/5/2017 2:07 AM 6 Cochrane 10/4/ :53 PM 7 Cochrane 10/4/2017 8:29 AM 8 GRADE, Cochrane 10/3/ :27 AM 9 JBI 10/3/ :54 AM 10 I would consider them in the future possibly though. 10/2/ :15 PM 11 G-I-N rth America 10/2/2017 8:19 PM 12 t that I know of. But if I knew I would try to attend 10/2/2017 5:03 PM 13 ACOEM 9/30/ :15 PM 14 Cochrane 9/30/2017 9:14 AM 15 AWMF: Ärzte und Juristen 9/30/2017 8:18 AM 16 t sure what this question refers to, specifically 9/30/ :05 AM 17 Cochrane 9/29/2017 6:59 PM 18 Cochrane colloquium 9/29/2017 5:02 PM 19 Cochrane Collaboration's colloquium 9/29/2017 4:44 PM 20 Cochrane 9/29/2017 4:10 PM 8 / 18

9 21 Cochrane 9/29/2017 3:44 PM 22 I have been to Cochrane meetings 9/29/2017 3:42 PM 9 / 18

10 Q7 Did you find the content relevant? Answered: 55 Skipped: 10 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 89.09% % 6 TOTAL 55 # ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: DATE 1 I am certain that it would have been 10/11/2017 6:54 AM 2 I have always been interested in joining the other Conferences, but I never had the opportunity. 10/8/2017 8:39 PM 3 Very relevant content. 10/6/2017 9:47 AM 4 Too many presentations on systematic reviews 10/4/ :44 AM 5 I did get confused on the course listing. I tried to get out of my comfort zone and did so, whether on purpose or not! 6 I found it more useful as the broad remit meant it appealed to a wider range of topics and specialites which is increasingly important in evidence synthesis. 10/2/ :15 PM 10/2/2017 5:02 PM 7 It was a bit top heavy with presenters from the GRADE working group. 10/2/2017 9:55 AM 8 Great to have discussions on methodological detail more closely intertwined with trying to address real-world problems in de quality of care! 10/2/2017 9:43 AM 9 idea 10/2/2017 7:10 AM 10 did not attend 9/29/2017 8:07 PM 11 Excellent topics and mix of plenaries, workshops, oral presentations, etc. 9/29/2017 6:59 PM 12 doubt. 9/29/2017 5:01 PM 13 Very interesting but There were a lot of sessions concerning Systematic reviews and not enough guidelines But with the caveat that the focus on LMIC was not so useful. I'm used to the plenaries being very useful, but only one (the Post-Truth one on last day) was truly useful as opposed to interesting. 9/29/2017 4:10 PM 9/29/2017 4:10 PM 15 t applicable 9/29/2017 4:00 PM 16 Did not visit the conference 9/29/2017 3:56 PM 17 NA didn't attend 9/29/2017 3:42 PM 10 / 18

11 Q8 Do you believe that G-I-N and guidelines were well enough represented at the conference? Answered: 56 Skipped: 9 Didn t notice 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Didn t notice 53.57% % % 13 TOTAL / 18

12 Q9 Did you find the enhanced networking opportunities valuable? Answered: 49 Skipped: 16 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 77.55% % 11 TOTAL 49 # ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: DATE 1 no comment 10/12/ :33 PM 2 I didn't go... 10/11/2017 6:54 AM 3 Got new friends and professional networks and was informed of the role the Social Scientists can play in Guidelines development. 10/6/2017 9:47 AM 4 As I didn't attend I cannot comment on this 10/5/2017 2:07 AM 5 I did not use them as I could not attend the Conference 10/3/2017 9:21 AM 6 It was interesting from a cultural aspect at the very least. Again, getting out of the comfort zone was one of my objectives for the meeting. 10/2/ :15 PM 7 t sure which are referred to 10/2/2017 9:43 AM 8 t applicable as I did not attend the GES 10/1/2017 6:33 PM 9 could not evaluate 9/30/2017 8:18 AM 10 n/a 9/29/2017 9:23 PM 11 I practically could make best out of it - recruited Cochraners and information specialists to present a national guideline conference to enhance netwrking and advance IT 9/29/2017 8:13 PM 12 did not attend 9/29/2017 8:07 PM 13 n/a 9/29/2017 7:07 PM 14 Networking with G-I-N and colleagues from other related organizations (especially Cochrane) was invaluable. Please hold more joint conferences! 15 I didn't feel there were many networking opportunities? Beyond standard networking at a conference 16 if GIN and guidelines were not enough represented, networking with others avidence actors were nice. 9/29/2017 6:59 PM 9/29/2017 5:41 PM 9/29/2017 4:10 PM 12 / 18

13 17 It was just too big for meaningful networking. I found myself because of the compressed schedule and presenting obligations on the Cochrane side really unable to take advantage of most GIN offerings. 9/29/2017 4:10 PM 18 Did not visit the conference 9/29/2017 3:56 PM 19 NA didn't go 9/29/2017 3:42 PM 13 / 18

14 Q10 Would you be in favour of G-I-N participating in a future joint conference? Answered: 60 Skipped: 5 Don't know 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Don't know 75.00% % % 12 TOTAL / 18

15 Q11 What are your reasons for the previous answer? Answered: 49 Skipped: 16 # DATE 1 This event provides more opportunities, up-to-date information, useful contacts 10/17/2017 2:40 PM 2 good to network 10/12/ :33 PM 3 GIN has a rich network of members across regions who it easily mobilizes to attend relevant conferences 4 The people who attend usually work in systematic reviews and guidelines. The last GIN conference I went to felt like a Cochrane conference, with many of the same people! This is a good thing! 5 there were a lot of people from different backgrounds it was difficult to connect with the right people 6 I want to attend the other Conferences as well. However, there is a need to work on the program. It was difficult to get a good overview on all the parallell sessions. 7 Networking and synergy are the order of the day in this present age. Joint Conferences give this added advantage where several organizations come together with each bringing their expertise in their area of specialisation. 8 The logistics of combined conferences are attractive, however South Africa is difficult to get to and very costly 10/11/2017 6:54 PM 10/11/2017 6:54 AM 10/10/2017 3:21 PM 10/8/2017 8:39 PM 10/6/2017 9:47 AM 10/5/2017 2:07 AM 9 Once every 3 to 5 year will help bridging hte gap between guidleines and systematic reviews. 10/4/ :53 PM 10 Interesting to network with people in relation with our works 10/4/ :44 AM 11 Networking opportunities were great but that was at the cost of content 10/4/2017 8:29 AM 12 I think that all the organizations that work in the development of guidelines/sr should have common projects and places where gather their work 13 I was not there but I heard stories from a few colleagues that it was sometimes difficult to attend some parallel sessions because there were more than one about a related topic at the same time 10/3/ :27 AM 10/3/2017 9:21 AM 14 The networking and collaborative opportunities 10/3/ :54 AM 15 I think collaborations are a good thing overall. As organizations seeking to collaborate on guideline development and use resources widely it just makes sense to co-locate with other organizations so that a high-value venue can be had by all. Then you choose whatever 'track' you wish to follow during the conference - provided that its more clearly designated I think. 10/2/ :15 PM 16 My primary interest is Guidelines. 10/2/2017 8:19 PM 17 Guideline development is only one element of evidence based medicine, and evidence synthesis, and I believe having a broad remit for the conferences enabled for more shared learning opportunities. 10/2/2017 5:02 PM 18 Opportunity to network and link with other organisations is invaluable 10/2/ :25 PM 19 It was useful sitting in on a wider range of presentations, particularly getting an insight into new developments in systematic reviewing from Cochrane and JBI. 20 The wider set of policy/quality questions. So collaboration with Cochrane would be least important to my mind; rather with the other organizations that are closer to realizing change through evidence-based recommendations. 10/2/2017 9:55 AM 10/2/2017 9:43 AM 21 A joint conference will be benefit for alls 10/2/2017 9:23 AM 22 Very large program. Difficult to find and choose the right session/topic 10/2/2017 8:35 AM 23 I think anytime you can merge the efforts of organizations with similar goals it is useful, but for me, that will also depend on location and ease of travel. 10/1/2017 6:33 PM 15 / 18

16 24 Expanding the network and the goals of G-I-N beyond guidelines. 10/1/ :50 AM 25 Expand guidelines issued by ACOEM 9/30/ :15 PM 26 Have not been there 9/30/ :42 PM 27 There were too many competing sessions and GIn was not adequately represented. The meeting was too big. 9/30/2017 9:14 AM 28 do not know enough of your work 9/30/2017 8:18 AM 29 t a good combination because less attention for guideline implementation and meeting other GIN members. 9/30/2017 7:23 AM 30 I think it is more productive. 9/30/2017 1:32 AM 31 The combined conference allowed a bigger picture of evidence based practice to emerge. The field is moving so quickly so having this broader view was very useful. 32 To consolidate travel for people who want to attend both. I'm not convinced that putting both conferences together in one is necessary. Coordinating the location / timing so that it's easy for people to attend both (or, one or the other if they prefer) is ideal - e.g., on back-to-back days in the same or close locations, as is planned for Science must cooperate - especially in an area of post truth. Unexplained different opinions in guidelines and Systenatic Reviews as well duplication of efforts must be avoided. 9/30/ :29 AM 9/30/ :05 AM 9/29/2017 8:13 PM 34 I enjoy GIN conferences 9/29/2017 8:07 PM 35 Efficiency and better networking opportunities 9/29/2017 7:07 PM 36 collaboration 9/29/2017 7:07 PM 37 The networking and educational opportunities are vastly improved with joint conferences, esp. between G-I-N and Cochrane. Also, with travel budgets becoming exceedingly tight, it is more economical that attending different conferences on different dates in different parts of the world. 9/29/2017 6:59 PM 38 september is not a good moment 9/29/2017 5:45 PM 39 Opportunity to obtain information from both organizations at one conference 9/29/2017 5:41 PM 40 Saving money, attending one conference 9/29/2017 5:02 PM 41 It has been very useful to share experiences and learn from partners. 9/29/2017 5:01 PM 42 It makes for more integrated collaboration at the same meeting, saves cost of travel and registration and ensures adequate representation 9/29/2017 4:44 PM 43 only if pourcent scientific programm were specifique to guidelines 9/29/2017 4:10 PM 44 Maybe it would work with a conference where the focus was on guidelines. 9/29/2017 4:10 PM 45 I did not visit the conference 9/29/2017 3:56 PM 46 collaborating with Cochrane in a joint conference would be added value 9/29/2017 3:44 PM 47 more cross pollination and exchange of ideas and the various types of peoples and groups that create, synthesize, and implement evidence into practice needs to happen 9/29/2017 3:42 PM 48 Interaction with other groups 9/29/2017 3:37 PM 49 I liked the wider variety of concurrent sessions and workshops to choose from 9/29/2017 3:35 PM 16 / 18

17 Q12 If we participate in a future joint conference, which organisations do you think would be the most beneficial to work with? Answered: 45 Skipped: 20 # DATE 1 Cochrane 10/18/2017 8:51 PM 2 Organizations that are leading in the field of evidence-based medicine, the development of methodology for guidelines, data collection and analysis. 10/17/2017 2:40 PM 3 HTAI 10/12/ :33 PM 4 Cochrane 10/11/2017 6:54 PM 5 Colleges/societies, patient advocacy groups, Cochrane etc 10/11/2017 6:54 AM 6 HTAi 10/10/2017 3:21 PM 7 cochrane 10/8/2017 8:39 PM 8 International Initative for Impact Evaluations (3ie); Cochrane International; Campell Collaboration. 10/6/2017 9:47 AM 9 NICE Cochrane 10/5/2017 2:07 AM 10 Cochrane 10/4/ :53 PM 11 HTA 10/4/ :44 AM 12 Cochrane 10/4/2017 8:29 AM 13 GRADE, Cochrane 10/3/ :27 AM 14 Cochrane, 10/3/2017 9:21 AM 15 Cochrane JBI 10/3/ :54 AM 16 I'm thinking Cochrane and Joanna Briggs 10/2/ :15 PM 17 Cochrane 10/2/2017 9:34 PM 18 National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) 10/2/2017 8:19 PM 19 Same ones as in the Cape Town Summit 10/2/2017 5:03 PM 20 Cochrane, JBI, Campell Collaboration 10/2/2017 9:55 AM 21 JBI, Campbell 10/2/2017 9:43 AM 22 SIGN 10/2/2017 9:23 AM 23 Cochrane 10/2/2017 6:52 AM 24 International Conference for EBHC Teachers and Developers 10/1/2017 6:33 PM 25 Cochrane, possibly INAHTA 10/1/ :50 AM 26 In my discipline, ACOEM and SOM 9/30/ :15 PM 27 Perhaps Cochrane. 9/30/2017 9:14 AM 28 AWMF/Germany 9/30/2017 8:18 AM 29 ne 9/30/2017 7:23 AM 30 Cochrane and probably JBI and Campbell 9/30/ :29 AM 31 Strong local host partners are helpful, with representation from local/regional policy, research/academia, and consumer/patient groups. 9/30/ :05 AM 32 Cochrane and G-I-N 9/29/2017 8:13 PM 17 / 18

18 33 AHRQ, ECRI 9/29/2017 8:07 PM 34 G-I-N and Cochrane. Many people are involved in both organizations. 9/29/2017 6:59 PM 35 I think GIN and Cochrane are great -- not sure who else? 9/29/2017 5:41 PM 36 Cochrane 9/29/2017 5:02 PM 37 GIN - Cochrane - WHO. 9/29/2017 5:01 PM 38 GIN and Cochrane Collaboration 9/29/2017 4:44 PM 39 HTAi Cochrane 9/29/2017 4:10 PM 40 Cochrane 9/29/2017 4:10 PM 41 Cochrane, GRADE 9/29/2017 3:56 PM 42 cochrane 9/29/2017 3:44 PM 43 the partners of the global evidence summit, and large learning health organizations 9/29/2017 3:42 PM 44 Cochrane, INAHTA 9/29/2017 3:37 PM 45 Cochrane 9/29/2017 3:35 PM 18 / 18