Login Search
Printed from: http://www.napcrg.org/Conferences/AnnualMeeting/AnnualCallforPapers

45th NAPCRG Annual Meeting Call for Papers

Student, Resident & Fellow Call for Papers 

NOW ACCEPTING Student, resident, and fellow Works-in-Progress Submission. Deadline for submissions is August 1, 2017

The submission deadline for the general call for papers closed April 17, 2017. 

 

You are invited to submit a proposal to present a paper, poster, workshop or forum at the 45th NAPCRG Annual Meeting in Montreal, Canada on November 17-21, 2017. Proposals on any topic relating to primary care research are welcome from researchers throughout North America and the rest of the world.  Regarding poster submissions, we give considerable time to poster sessions, have more space than is normal at meetings, and as such you are likely to receive more direct feedback and potential collaborators from a  poster presentation than from an oral presentation in a parallel session.


Reviewers are wanted: If you’re interested in serving as a reviewer for NAPCRG 2017, email us at pnoland@napcrg.org.


NEW IN 2017:

Starting in 2017, our CME will require each submission to include at least 2 learning objectives. Please follow these instructions! 

Learning Objectives: List at least 2 learning objectives using these guidelines:

  • Clearly describe what you want learners to take away and implement after the session in active, measurable terms (e.g. - define, interpret, explain, apply).
  • Each objective must be specific, concise, and limited to one sentence.
  • Example - "On completion of this session, participants should be able to identify and describe the three primary tenets of the Patient Self-Efficacy Model."

 

               


General Rules for All Submissions

If you would like a group of papers to be considered for presentation together (for example on particular topic area), then please email pnoland@napcrg.org at the time of submission giving the titles of the papers and the presenting author. The program committee will consider the request but each paper will still be considered individually for acceptance on its own merits. Submissions must be entered using the online submission process located at www.napcrg.org no later than April 17, 2017.

Submissions must meet all the requirements of the proposed category. A non- refundable submission fee of $20 US is required for each submission. NAPCRG accepts Visa, MasterCard, and American Express. Research that has been published at the time of abstract submission or presented at a national or international meeting is not acceptable. All presenters must register for the conference and pay the appropriate registration fees.

To accommodate as many presenters as possible, the NAPCRG Program Committee reserves the right to limit each presenter to only one presentation. However, anyone may be listed as a co-author on multiple papers and may present another person’s paper if the original presenter is not able to attend. Acknowledgment of receipt of submissions will be emailed automatically after you complete your submission. Letters of acceptance will be emailed by August 4, 2017. 


Questions? Contact us at 888- 3716397/913-906-6000, ext. 5410 or via email at pnoland@napcrg.org.

 


Submission Categories

Oral Presentation on Completed Research

If you are submittinan abstract in this category, the research musbe complete at the time of the Call for Papers submission deadline.  Oral presentations will be given in concurrent sessions and will be grouped by topic based on the categories selected during the submission process. A maximum of 15 minutes  10 for presentation and 5 for discussion and transition to the next paper  will be allottefor individual oral presentations. The Program Committee reserves the right to convert “Oral Presentations on CompletedResearch” from podium presentations to “Posters on Completed Research” based on suitability and/or the need to limit each presenters podium presentations.

Distinguished Paper

Selected high impact, high quality oral presentations will be selected for presentation in an extended format to a larger audience as a Distinguished Paper”. The authors of the top 20 rated abstracts will be contacted by August 5th to submit a 2-page extended abstract by August 29, 2017. These extended abstracts will be reviewed by the Program Committee, which will select the final distinguished papers. Several selection factors are considered, including overall excellence, quality of research methods, quality of the writing, relevance to primary care clinical research, and overall impact of the research on primary care and/or clinical practice. These papers will be presented from the podium in an extended format (15 minute for presentation plus 5 minutes for questions). Some of these papers will also be eligible for international travel award for presentation at other meetings.

 

Poster on Completed Research:

If you are submitting an abstract in this category, the research must be complete at the time of the Call for Papers submission deadline. Poster presentations will be scheduled to avoid any overlap with oral presentations or other events, to maximize contact between researchers. Presenters are asked to attend their posters during designated times during NAPCRG.

 

Poster on Research in Progress:

If you are submitting an abstract in this category, the research must be in progress at the time of the Call for Papers submission deadline. If your research is in progress at the time of the submission deadline but will be complete by the meeting, you should still submit your abstract as a poster on research in progress. Poster presentations will be scheduled to avoid any overlap with oral presentations or other events, to maximize contact between researchers. Presenters are asked to attend their posters during designated periods.


Workshops:

Workshops will be scheduled as 90-minute sessions and will run concurrently with other sessions. Workshops should be presentations on research methodology or research skills development that must involve audience participation.


Forums:

Forums are informal 3-hour sessions designed to provide researchers with an opportunity to discuss methodological challenges encountered while applying for funding or conducting a project. Researchers with similar interests can share ideas regarding methodology, sampling, statistical methods, planning studies, etc.


Preconference Workshop:

Preconference workshops are for a select group of halfday or full-day sessions that do not fit into the format of the conference schedule. Preconference workshops should be presentations on research methodology or skills development that involve audience participation. (See below for additional requirements.)



Abstracts Requirements for all Submissions:

Length: Limit abstract to 300 words. (Do not include the title and authors).

Language: Abstracts must be in English.

Format: Type the body of the abstract as one paragraph. The abstract must be written in third person. The abstract should contain the appropriate subheadings described below. The abstract should not contain references, or acknowledgments. Abstracts will be published as submitted. Before submitting your abstract, check carefully to make sure it contains no spelling or typographical errors. Type your abstract in a text document and then copy and paste it into the abstract field during the online submission process. Do not type your abstract directly into the abstract field as this will take too much time and the page may time out forcing you to restart the process.

 

Abstract Format for Oral Presentations and Posters:

Oral and poster presentations should use a structured abstract as described below. It should be formatted in a single paragraph, again as shown below:

 

Context: The abstract should begin with a sentence or two summarizing the rationale for the study, providing the clinical (or other) reason for the study question. In addition, the author should give a sentence or two about the importance of this work to family medicine/primary care. Objective: State the objective or study question/hypothesis addressed (e.g., to determine whether ….). If more than one objective is addressed, the main objective should be indicated and only key secondary objectives stated. Design: Describe the basic design of the study. Use descriptors such as for quantitative studies: double blind, placebo controlled RCT, cohort, case control survey, case series, cost-effectiveness analysis, and for qualitative studies: ethnographic, grounded theory, phenomenological etc. For new analyses of existing data sets (secondary data analysis), the data set should be named and the basic study design disclosed. Setting: Describe the study setting(s) such as general community, a primary care or referral center, private or institutional practice, or ambulatory or hospitalized care. Patients or Other Participants: State the important eligibility (inclusion and exclusion) criteria and key sociodemographic features of patients. Provide numbers of participants and how they were selected. Intervention/Instrument (as pertinent): Describe the essential features of any interventions. The intervention should be named by its most common clinical name (e.g. the nonproprietary drug name propranolol). Main and Secondary Outcome Measures (if any): Give the primary study outcome measurements. Measurements that require explanation for a general medical readership should be defined. Results: Give the main results of the study. The results should be quantified, including confidence intervals (e.g., 95%) or P values where appropriate. If research is in progress, state anticipated results. Conclusions: Report only those conclusions of the study that are directly supported by the evidence, along with any implications for clinical practice. Avoid speculation and overgeneralization. Equal emphasis should be given to positive and negative findings of equal scientific merit. If research is in progress, state methodological or conceptual problem that is being posed. Note: For brevity, parts of the abstract should be written in phrases rather than complete sentences. (e.g., Design: Double-blind randomized trial,” rather than Design: The study was conducted as a double-blind, randomized trial.”)

 

Abstract Format for Preconference Workshops, Workshops & Forums:

Abstracts for preconference workshops, workshops, and forums should use a structured abstract as described below. It should be formatted in a single paragraph, again as shown below:

Objectives of the session. Content of the session. Method of and extent of audience participation. Prerequisite Knowledge, if any, is required If the submission is a preconference workshop, a proposal must also be submitted with the following information: Audience Describe your audience, who and how many you expect to attend, and basis to this estimate. Rationale What is the proposed content area and why is it important to members of NAPCRG? Schedule Describe the schedule, including the time frame, content of each section, and method of evaluation. Why a Preconference? Explain why this program should be presented as a preconference workshop rather than taking place within the normal meeting format (i.e., workshops and forum). Endorsement – Preconference workshops must be endorsed by the chair of a NAPCRG Special Interest Group or Committee if the workshop topic relates to an existing SIG or committee. This is intended to facilitate communication  and awareness of members and groups working on activities of common interest.


Review Criteria:

The Program Committee and reviewers will use this submission rating scale, from 5 (best) to 1 (worst):


Relevance to primary care:

5 = very relevant, 3 = somewhat relevant, 1 = not at all relevant

Description of research methods:

5 = very clear, 3 = somewhat clear, 1 = unclear

Validity of results:

5 = no significant validity concerns, 3 = minor validity concerns, 1 = major validity concerns

Clarity of abstract’s writing and organization:

5 = very clear, 3 = somewhat clear, 1 = unclear

Newsworthiness of findings:

5 = very newsworthy, 3 = somewhat newsworthy, 1 = not newsworthy

The Program Committee and reviewers will use this submission rating scale, with submissions rated from 5 (best) to 1 (worst). Specific additional criteria by study design for validity are shown below:

 

Cohort / observational studies: Inclusion criteria clear; sample size probably sufficient; validated measures used; response rate 80%+; follow-up rate 80%+ (if longitudinal); statistical analysis appropriate; conclusions justified by findings.


Clinical Trials: Inclusion criteria clear; allocation randomized; randomization concealed; blindness considered; sample size probably sufficient; validated measures used; follow- up rate 80%+; statistical analysis appropriate; conclusions justified by findings.


Qualitative studies: Approach informed by theory; sampling justified (purposive, theoretical, snowball, opportunistic etc.); data transcribed; type of analysis described (framework, thematic, grounded theory, etc.); conclusions justified by findings.

 

Questions?

Contact: Priscilla Noland at pnoland@napcrg.org