SUBMISSION INFORMATION

ISPOR is strongly committed to diversity. The Society’s Strategic Plan and core values embrace excellence through encouragement and acceptance of diverse ideas, cultures, and disciplines. Research submissions are encouraged from all stakeholders and are evaluated based on merit. ISPOR also aims to reflect the diversity of its membership in all endeavors and encourages consideration of diversity in abstract submissions. Diversity dimensions include (but not limited to) gender, career stage, ethnicity, race, education, sexual orientation, region/geographic location, physical disability, and religion. Additional information can be found at the Society’s Diversity Policy.

  • 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 title case. 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. All discussion leaders are required to provide any previous, relevant speaking/publication experience.
    • 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

Clinician Reported 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.

Please consider the updated submission criteria when submitting your proposal:

Quality of content

  • Educational value of the session
  • Timeliness of the topic
  • Applicability of content to HEOR practice or principles
  • Effectiveness of incorporated active learning strategies
  • The information/issue presented are novel or innovative
  • Workshop proposals includes examples drawn from multiple sources
  • Unbiased content that does not promote a product, service, or organization; abstracts deemed to be promotional will be excluded from consideration

Quality of proposal

  • Plans for interactivity between the speakers and audience
  • Proposal purpose/issue is clearly defined
  • Issue panel proposals have more than one perspective identified
  • The background information (included in the overview) is clear and concise

Quality of Speakers

  • Expertise/experience of proposed speakers
  • Proposed speakers represent diverse backgrounds (gender, geographic, institutional - refer to ISPOR Diversity policy) and perspectives (multiple organizations are represented)
Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×