INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF ABSTRACTS

Deadline for submission: 15 October 2018

Abstracts can only be submitted using the electronic abstract form.

 

IAHPC Traveling Scholarships:

•    The IAHPC will be announcing the number of scholarships available shortly.
•    The IAHPC gives preference to those individuals who will be presenting a poster
     and/or an oral presentation.


The Importance of Abstracts


The Scientific Committee will build a considerable part of the conference programme on submitted abstracts. For this reason, the abstract deadline is set early.

There will be two types of presentations:

•    Poster presentations (Some posters may be selected for dedicated Poster
     discussion sessions)
•    Free communications as oral presentations

All accepted abstracts (both oral and poster presentations) will be available in a special online abstract book on the congress website. Authors have the option to publish an email address with the abstract to enable interested parties to contact them directly. The email address will be the one given when submitting the abstract.


Purpose of the abstract

Authors should remember that the abstract allows the reviewers and the Scientific Committee to make an informed decision about the quality of the research and its suitability for inclusion in the scientific programme. Abstracts also provide conference participants with written information about each presentation.


Criteria for abstract submission


Abstracts should meet the following criteria:


•    The abstract text cannot exceed 2000 characters (incl. spaces, excl. title and authors).
•    Abstracts must be written in English, explained abbreviations may be used. 
     Please check spelling and grammar carefully as this may impact on reviewers decisions regarding acceptance.
•    The abstract text must not contain any information about the presenters or institutions involved, in order to facilitate the blind
     review process.
•    The number of authors should not exceed twelve.
•    References are not required. If supplied, they must be included in the character count.
•    Although case reports will be considered by the scientific committee, such abstracts will be given a low priority.
•    Abstracts reporting on studies at a very early stage or study protocols will not be accepted.
•    Drugs should be referred to by their generic name. The use of trade names should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.
•    Only one table may be included per abstract.
•    The main source of funding of a study should be indicated at the end of the abstract.
•    The abstract must not have been published at an international congress before.
•    The abstract must not have been published in any international or national journal.


Abstracts of empirical studies, secondary analysis and systematic reviews should be structured and should outline the:

•    Background
•    Aims
•    Methods (design, data collection, analysis)
•    Results
•    Conclusion / Discussion

Abstracts for NON empirical work must outline the:

•    Aim or goal of the work
•    Design, methods and approach taken
•    Results
•    Conclusion / lessons learned


Abstract categories

The Scientific Committee have prepared a list of categories (topics) in order to group the abstracts into various themes. Many abstracts may fit more than one category but a single category should be selected. Accepted abstracts may be re-categorised by the Scientific Committee in order to shape the final programme.

Authors must choose one category from the following list that most closely describes the content of their submission:


Symptoms

•    Pain
•    Breathlessness
•    Fatigue / weakness / cachexia
•    Other symptoms

Topic areas

•    Assessment & measurement tools
•    Audit & quality improvement
•    Basic & translational research
•    Bereavement
•    Communication
•    Development and organisation of services
•    Education
•    Ethics
•    Family & care givers
•    Health economics
•    Health services research
•    International developments
•    Medical sociology
•    Policy
•    Primary health care & primary care
•    Public Health & Epidemiology
•    Research methodology
•    Spirituality
•    Social care and social work
•    Psychology and Psychiatry
•    Volunteering

 

Specific pathologies & patient groups

•    Oncology and Haematology
•    Non-malignant conditions
     o  Organ failure (heart, respiratory, kidney, and liver diseases)
     o  Neurological conditions
     o  Frailty
     o  Multimorbidity
•    Pharmacology & polypharmacy
•    Palliative care for older people
•    Palliative care in children and adolescents
•    Palliative care for prisoners
•    Homelessness & Palliative care
•    Palliative care for refugees and migrants
•    Other patient groups

Presentation type

Authors must indicate if they are willing to give an oral presentation if their abstract is chosen. The final decision about the type of presentation will be made by the Scientific Committee.


Review Process

All abstracts will be reviewed by three independent reviewers. The review process will be blind. Only country and profession of the first author will be disclosed.


The review will be carried out according to the following criteria:

•    Aims-Background-Context:
     Relevance of hypothesis, clearly state aims.
•    Quality of Method:
     Sampling, data collection, analytical strategy; stringency of theoretical position, reference to relevant knowledge base etc.
•    Relevance to Palliative Care:
     All abstracts should demonstrate relevance to some aspect of palliative care practice, policy or research work, or make a
     contribution to a relevant theoretical or methodological debate.
•    Originality of Research:
     The presentation of new data or new concepts, stringency of arguments when repeating previous work.
•    Clear Presentation of Results:
     Data interpretation, statistical power, application to palliative care practice, etc.
•    Conclusions:
     Supported by the data presented, quality of interpretation of own work.

Handling Procedures

•    Once the abstract has been electronically submitted, the corresponding author will receive an automatic confirmation by email with
     an abstract number. This number should be used for any enquiries. If you do not receive an automatic message after submission,
     please contact eapc2019@abstractserver.com
•    Any changes after submission (for example withdrawal of abstract, change of presenting author etc.) should be requested by email
     to the scientific secretariat (scicom2019@eapcnet.eu), including complete contact information of any new presenters.
•    Please kindly note that the submission of an abstract does not replace the need to register for the congress. The inclusion in the
     scientific programme and publication of the selected abstract(s) is subject to the payment of the registration fee of the presenting
     author. After the abstract submission is closed, all presenting authors will be invited to register for the Congress with an email
     giving a link to register. If the abstract is not accepted by the scientific committee, the registration fee will be reimbursed.
•    After the review process the abstracts will be allocated to the scientific sessions by the Scientific Committee, and all corresponding
     authors will be notified by email of the decision of the Scientific Committee by end of January 2019.

 


Top 10 tips for getting your abstract accepted for oral presentation


Why write a good abstract?

•    Disseminate your work in an effective way, especially if selected for oral presentation
•    A chance to summarise your work so that others can understand what you have done
•    Other researchers may contact you to learn from you or share their experiences and ideas


How are abstracts scored?

Grade Explanation
4.0 Outstanding - work of highest quality
3.9-3.0 Excellent - work of high quality
2.9-2.0 Very good- work of good quality
1.9-1.0 Good - work of somewhat poorer quality
0.9-0.1 Fair - work of uncertain or marginal quality
0 Unacceptable - should not be accepted due to scientific, ethical or administrative concerns (this score must include a brief comment justifying the decision)

 

Top tips:

  1. Good study - You should report an original, important and topical study
  2. Punchy title - This should catch the reader’s attention
  3. Authorship with contact details - Who did the study, and how can they be contacted?
  4. Succinct background - Why did you do the study, what was the motivation or the evidence gap?
  5. Clear aim - State what you aimed to achieve in 1-2 sentences
  6. Clear methods explained simply - What did you do and how did you do it?
  7. Results presented simply, relating to aim and methods - What did you find? Simply report the data without your interpretation
  8. Brief discussion of meaning - What do the results mean, why are they important, any limitations?
  9. Clear conclusion - What is the take home message in one line?
  10. Check you have followed the instructions - Within word limit, not too short, make sure it’s easy to read
We are using cookies to provide statistics that help us give you the best experience of our site. Read more …