SUBMISSION INFORMATION

  • ISPOR workshops are designed to share novel and innovative experiences in either the conduct of pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research studies or the interpretation and use of pharmacoeconomics outcomes information in health care policy development.
  • An ISPOR workshop is similar to a one-hour short course with an audience participation element.
  • Standard and advanced methods topics workshop submissions follow the same review process.
  • Example of a workshop proposal submission is available here.

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Workshop submissions should be organized as follows:

  • TITLE: Provide a title that accurately describes your workshop. The title should be in all CAPS.Examples:
    • FIXING THE TOWER OF BABEL: ESTABLISHING A COMMON METRIC FOR PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES
    • OPTIMAL ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES IN MANAGING MEDICAL DEVICE PORTFOLIOS
    • ADJUSTING FOR BETWEEN-TRIAL DIFFERENCES IN THE SCHEDULE OF ASSESSMENT FOR DISEASE PROGRESSION IN IMMUNO-ONCOLOGY AND ITS IMPACT ON INDIRECT TREATMENT COMPARISONS
  • DISCUSSION LEADERS: A workshop is comprised of a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 4 discussion leaders.
    • Diversity of stakeholders, work environments and/or geographic locations is strongly encouraged to provide different perspectives on the topic.
    • Only 2 discussion leaders per organization is permitted
    • Provide the names, degrees, positions, city, state, country and email addresses for the discussion leaders.
  • PURPOSE: Provide a clear definition of the workshop’s objective. (Ensure that the purpose(s) is achievable in 60 minutes.)
  • DESCRIPTION: Provide background information and details on the material to be presented. Include speaker presentation length, e.g., 10 minutes, especially if there is concern that objective cannot be met in 60 minutes. It is helpful to include which stakeholders will benefit from attending.
  • LENGTH of PROPOSAL (Purpose and Description): 300 words
  • AUDIENCE INTERACTIVE ELEMENT: This is an important criterion to fulfill.
    • Example 1: Each speaker will present a schematic of how patient preference data are included in their respective regulatory processes. The audience will participate in the evaluation exercise drawing on the pros versus cons of each arrangement to develop an ‘ideal’ process for using this data in healthcare decision making.
    • Example 2: The workshop will use real-time polling to work through the examples and conclude with an audience discussion about the opportunities and challenges of using these different methods for portfolio selection.
    • Example 3: The discussion leaders will conduct a real-time test of the validity of audience members’ preferences and help the audience evaluate the implications of such validity failures for regulatory decision making.

TOPIC CATEGORIES AND SUB-CATEGORIES FOR WORKSHOP SUBMISSIONS
Select the topic/subtopic that best describes your proposal from the list below:

Clinical Outcomes

Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy

Performance-based Outcomes

Clinician Outcomes Assessment

Relating Intermediate to Long-term Outcomes

Economic Evaluation

Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies

Cost-comparison/effectiveness/utility/benefit Analysis

Budget Impact Analysis

Thresholds & Opportunity Cost

Trial-based economic evaluation

Work & Home Productivity - Indirect Costs

Value of Information

Novel & Social Elements of Value

Epidemiology & Public Health

Safety & Pharmacoepidemiology

Public Health

Prevalence, Incidence, & Disease Risk Factors

Disease Classification & Coding

Health Policy & Regulatory

Approval & Labeling

Pricing Policy & Schemes

Reimbursement & Access Policy

Insurance Systems & National Health Care

Public Spending & National Health Expenditures

Procurement Systems

Coverage with Evidence Development & Adaptive Pathways

Risk-sharing Approaches

Health Disparities & Equity

Health Service Delivery & Process of Care

Hospital and Clinical Practices

Prescribing Behavior

Pharmacist Interventions and Practices

Formulary Development

Telemedicine

Quality of Care Measurement

Disease Management

Treatment Patterns and Guidelines

Health Technology Assessment

Systems & Structure

Value Frameworks & Dossier Format

Decision & Deliberative Processes

Medical Technologies

Medical Devices

Digital Health

Diagnostics & Imaging

Implementation Science

Methodological & Statistical Research

Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Predictive Analytics

Missing Data

Confounding, Selection Bias Correction, Causal Inference

Modeling & Simulation

PRO & Related Methods

Survey Methods

Organizational Practices

Academic & Educational

Industry

Ethical

Best Research Practices

Geographic & Regional

Patient-Centered Research

Adherence, Persistence, & Compliance

Stated Preference & Patient Satisfaction

Health State Utilities

Patient-reported Outcomes & Quality of Life Outcomes

Patient Behavior and Incentives

Patient Engagement

Instrument Development, Validation, & Translation

Real World Data & Information Systems

Data Protection, Integrity, & Quality Assurance

Health & Insurance Records Systems

Distributed Data & Research Networks

Reproducibility & Replicability

Study Approaches

Clinical Trials

Pragmatic Trials & Large Simple Trials

Prospective Observational Studies 

Electronic Medical & Health Records

Registries

Administrative Claims Data

Surveys & Expert Panels

Decision Modeling & Simulation

Literature Review & Synthesis

Meta-analysis & Indirect Comparisons

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF WORKSHOPS:

Overall, workshop acceptance is based on the quality of the proposal and the topic’s importance for inclusion and discussion in this conference’s scientific program. Standard and advanced methods topics workshop submissions follow the same review process.
All workshop submissions are judged according to these criteria:

  • The information / issue(s) presented are valuable to the health economic & outcomes researcher or the healthcare decision-maker.
  • The information / issue(s) presented are novel or innovative. .
  • There is a clearly defined audience interactive element in the workshop.
  • The workshop purpose(s) are clearly stated.
  • The purpose(s) can be achieved in the 60 minutes allotted for this workshop.
  • The workshop presentation should contain original scientific content and not just report on the routine use of a single instrument or tool.
  • Examples should be drawn from a number of sources and not just the presenter(s)' own studies.
  • The workshop does NOT appear to be advertising the presenter's company's services or products. 
    [Note: ISPOR recognizes that a primary purpose of workshops is to allow the presenter(s) to demonstrate their competence in a topic or subject area. However, attendees expect a scientific discourse, so it is important that these workshops are not used as a marketing platform for the presenter's company's products or services.]

Submit An Abstract - ISPOR 2019