Abstract Submission Criteria

The following Criteria apply to ALL Abstracts submitted:

 

1

 Only abstracts with FULL results will be considered for Platform Presentation

2

 ALL abstracts MUST have interim results to be considered for Poster Presentation

3

 The abstract text cannot exceed 300 words

4

 15 Word Limit on the Length of the Abstract Title

 Abstracts must be written in English

6

 Acronyms and abbreviations must be explained

 The abstract text must not contain information about the presenters or institutions    involved, in order to facilitate the blind review process

8

 Graphs are not allowed in the abstract

9

 Generic drug names are preferred. The use of trade names should only be used when  absolutely necessary

10

 The author will be asked and is required to indicate the source of funding (if applicable)  in the submission process

11

 The author is required to indicate if their research has been presented elsewhere

12

 The author is required to indicate if their research will be presented elsewhere in  advance of the Seminar in 2018

13

 Ethical Approval must be obtained and noted where appropriate

 

Research Abstracts must follow the following layout:

  1. Title; 
  2. Background; 
  3. Aims and Objectives; 
  4. Methods; 
  5. Findings/Results; 
  6. Conclusion(s).

Clinical Audits will be accepted provided they adhere to the submission criteria detailed in Section 1.1

Case Reports/Case Series will be accepted provided they adhere to the submission criteria detailed in Section 1.2

 

1.1 Submission Criteria for Clinical Audits

The IAPC Education and Research Forum welcomes the submission of Clinical Audits.

However please note the following Criteria for the Submission of Clinical Audits:

 Abstracts must follow the following layout:

  1. Background & rationale for audit; 
  2. Aim(s); 
  3. Standard(s); 
  4. Methodology;
  5. Conclusions; Recommendations and Action Plan; 
  6. Results & Re-Audit of Implemented Recommendations - There should be evidence in the abstract that a re-audit cycle was completed and that implemented changes were examined and a set of new recommendations and action plans are laid out.


 Audits will only be accepted if the audit cycle has been completed.

Clinical Audits should follow the SMART Guidelines

SMART Guidelines

Specific - Clear, unambiguous and jargon-free. A standard should only mean one thing to all people who read them.

Measurable - Is the information required to answer your standard available? For example, "information leaflet should be given to patients". If data is collected retrospectively, how will you know if it's a failure of practice or a failure of documentation?

Agreed - By all concerned with delivering that aspect of care.

Relevant - To area of care being audited / concern that has been raised.

Theoretically sound - Based on evidence about best practice, reviewed and updated as new evidence becomes available.


 

1.2 Submission Criteria for Case Reports and Case Series:

The IAPC Education and Research Forum welcomes the submission of Case Reports and Case Series.

However please note the following Criteria for Submission. Abstracts in this category must be structured using subheadings as follows:

  1. Background; 
  2. Case Presentation; 
  3. Management and Outcomes
  4. Discussion, Learning Points, What this Study Adds
  5. Conclusions 

Background: Identify the issue the case study/report addresses, why this case is important, current knowledge on the topic, and some indication of the case relevance to practice and research.

Case Presentation: Presenting features of the case(s) and working/differential diagnoses. Brief summary of case(s) history, examinations and investigations etc.

Management and Outcomes: Details of any treatment/intervention given and a description of the course/outcome(s) of the clinical issue(s) being reported. Details of any outcome measures used.

Discussion:/Learning Points/What This Study Adds: Description of lessons learnt from the case(s) and implications for future clincial practice or research. It is particularly important that the learning points from the case are clearly spelt out.

Conclusions

 

PATIENT CONSENT : You must clearly indicate in your submission that you have signed informed consent from patients (or relatives/guardians) before submitting an Abstract to the IAPC.

All information which could potentially identify the patient/case must be anonymized, e.g. specific ages, ethnicity, occupations.

 

 

Researcher Strands

The IAPC Education and Research Forum seeks to foster research activity among early researchers while also promoting larger scale research/audit among more experienced researchers, and provide a forum for disseminating and debating large scale research/audit, and/or innovative research designs.

The Researcher Strands are intended to enable the IAPC Education and Research Forum to respond in a positive and developmental manner to the current state of research activity within palliative care in Ireland.

This process also enables the IAPC to play an active role in promoting research activity across the different strands and thereby the different stages of research careers among presenters. The strands are also intended to enable abstracts to be reviewed on a more equal footing according to whichever strand the lead author self-assigns him/herself.

The IAPC Education and Research Forum are aware that researchers in Ireland are at different stages in their career with varied exerience and exposure to the palliative care research environment in Ireland. Authors must choose the strand from the following list that best describes the level they feel they are at as a researcher in line with the details below. The Abstract Review Group may query/review an author's strand selection.

First time or novice researcher

Abstracts that were led by a researcher who is inexperienced in undertaking research projects. This applies to a lead author who:

  • does not have a PhD or MD Degree
  • has not previously competed successfully as a Prinicple Investigator for a fellowship award or research grant
  • has not previously presented a platform paper at a multidisciplinary national or international conference

The lead author may have been supervised in his/her research by an experienced researcher(s). However, the literature review informing the work, elements of design development, data collection and analysis, and discussion on findings should have been undertaken by the lead author.

 

Junior researcher

Abstracts that were led by a researcher who has some, albeit limited research experience. This implies the researcher:

  • does not have a PhD or MD Degree
  • has not previously held grants as PIs 
  • may have recently undertaken or be currently undertaking research training
  • has a record of, or is currently undertaking research that has clear contribution to local service/policy/clinical
  • previously had a paper accepted for platform/oral presentation at a national or multidisciplinary international conference

The lead author may have been supervised in his/her research by an experienced researcher(s). However, the literature review informing the work, elements of design development, data collection and analysis, and discussion on findings should have been completed by the lead author.

 

Experienced researcher

Abstracts that were led by an established researcher. This researcher may have previously held research grants or led projects as PI. The experienced researcher strand reflects a record in research training and activity and the researcher:

 

  • may have completed or be undertaking doctoral studies
  • has an established research record
  • has had papers accepted for platform/oral presentation at multi-disciplinary national and international conferences 
  • has had paper(s) accepted in peer reviewed journals
  • has previously undertaken or is currently undertaking research with clear national implications and relevance

The abstract submitted by the lead author may have a number of co-authors and may represent all, or an element, of large scale funded research.

 

 

Full time researcher or research department or institute

This strand is intended for abstracts on work led out by full-time researchers, senior academics (at the level of senior lecturer or higher) regular grant holders and/or research institutes or departments.

 

For further details on the criteria applicable to the abstract strands, click here 

 

&nbps;
&nbps;