Proceedings of the Influenza Research Priorities Workshop
Appendix 6: Abridged Workshop Evaluation
The following is an abridged version of the final Evaluation Summary Report for the Influenza Research Priorities Workshop, held in Ottawa on August 31 and September 1, 2005. A complete version of the evaluation, including participant comments, can be requested of the Immunization and Respiratory Infections Division (IRID) of the Public Health Agency of Canada.
Evaluation results:
At the conclusion of the workshop, participants were asked to complete a two-page evaluation form to provide feedback and rate various aspects of the workshop, including: plenary presentations, break-out sessions, overall process and objectives, logistical arrangements, and facilitators preparedness. Participants were also asked to comment on gaps in the workshop and suggest improvements for future research priorities workshops.
The evaluation was distributed to 74 workshop participants, and 44 people completed and returned the evaluation, reflecting a 59.5% response rate.
Plenary sessions:
"The plenary session topics were appropriate and useful for a basis of discussion."
"The time allotted in the plenary sessions was sufficient."
Break-out sessions:
For the questions pertaining to 'Break-Out Sessions', respondents were asked to specify which 2 of the 6 break-out groups he/she attended.
The number of respondents who submitted an evaluation, by break-out is as follows:
| Break-out session |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
Not |
Total |
| # Responses |
14 |
13 |
12 |
15 |
12 |
13 |
4 |
83 |
"The break-out session moderators were well prepared to facilitate the discussions and meet the objectives".
"The number of participants and level of expertise was appropriate for interactive discussions in the break-out session."
"The summary presentations from the break-out sessions covered appropriate topics to inform the selection of research priorities."
"The time in the break-out session was sufficient to make appropriate recommendations"
Day 1:
Note: This question is categorized into respondents (n=44), since all participants were in the concurrent break-out sessions for the same amount of time.
Day 2:
Overall:
"The overall process in developing consensus on research priorities for influenza was appropriate."
"In general, the overall objectives of the workshop were achieved and distinct next steps were identified."
"The logistical arrangements were adequate i.e. venue/hospitality/presentation material/
room set-up etc."
"The Facilitators were well prepared to moderate the discussions and meet the objectives."
Analysis of Participant Comments:
In general, participants commented very favorably to the format of the workshop, the networking opportunities, and the plenary presentations were well received. Participants felt that the workshop resulted in a very comprehensive summary of the necessary research areas for pandemic and inter-pandemic preparedness. The logistical arrangements and details were rated very high as well. Some commented that a plenary session focused more on the 'real' threat of a pandemic may have resulted in pandemic-related research being placed higher on the priority list. There was also a suggestion that we separate pandemic from inter-pandemic as the urgency for these periods differs.
Future workshops will need to make more effort to ensure all participants (in break-out sessions and in plenary) actively participate. There were some comments that groups may have felt overwhelmed by strong personalities in break-out sessions, and that the reporting back sessions needed more discussion.
The criteria rating for the priorities seemed unclear to some participants and the ranking was rather arbitrary. There was some question as to the appropriateness of seeking "consensus" at a research meeting where the participants are from various backgrounds and specialties.
There were several comments on the need to further synthesize and prioritize within the list of ten priority areas, as this list is too exhaustive and would require levels of funding that is not feasible in the current Canadian environment. The list requires some further analysis to identify short and long term priorities as the list (as it stands) is "unactionable". Participants identified the need to discuss funding research infrastructure and research initiatives in the next steps, as well as the need to conduct further ranking of the bullets within the prioritized items.
Many respondents requested a follow-up report of the synthesized material.
