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.
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/DISCUSSANTS: A workshop is comprised of a Discussion Leader and a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 3 discussants. All discussion leaders and discussants will be asked to provide any previous, relevant speaking/publication experience.
Discussion Leaders maintain communication with discussants and ISPOR staff regarding the development and delivery of the session.
- Amongst the Discussion Leader and Discussants, a diversity of stakeholders, work environments and/or geographic locations is strongly encouraged to provide different perspectives on the topic.
- Only 2 discussants per organization is permitted
- Provide the names, degrees, positions, city, state, country, and email addresses for the discussants.
- 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.
Clinician Reported Outcomes
Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy
Clinician Outcomes Assessment
Relating Intermediate to Long-term Outcomes
Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies
Budget Impact Analysis
Thresholds & Opportunity Cost
Trial-based economic evaluation
Work & Home Productivity - Indirect Costs
Value of Information
Novel & Social Elements of Value
Safety & Pharmacoepidemiology
Prevalence, Incidence, & Disease Risk Factors
Disease Classification & Coding
Approval & Labeling
Pricing Policy & Schemes
Reimbursement & Access Policy
Insurance Systems & National Health Care
Public Spending & National Health Expenditures
Coverage with Evidence Development & Adaptive Pathways
Health Disparities & Equity
Hospital and Clinical Practices
Pharmacist Interventions and Practices
Quality of Care Measurement
Treatment Patterns and Guidelines
Systems & Structure
Value Frameworks & Dossier Format
Decision & Deliberative Processes
Diagnostics & Imaging
Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Predictive Analytics
Confounding, Selection Bias Correction, Causal Inference
Modeling & Simulation
PRO & Related Methods
Academic & Educational
Best Research Practices
Geographic & Regional
Adherence, Persistence, & Compliance
Stated Preference & Patient Satisfaction
Health State Utilities
Patient-reported Outcomes & Quality of Life Outcomes
Patient Behavior and Incentives
Instrument Development, Validation, & Translation
Data Protection, Integrity, & Quality Assurance
Health & Insurance Records Systems
Distributed Data & Research Networks
Reproducibility & Replicability
Pragmatic Trials & Large Simple Trials
Prospective Observational Studies
Electronic Medical & Health Records
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)