ABSTRACT SELECTION CRITERIA

Submission Guidelines

Abstracts will be reviewed according to the scoring system below. This will determine whether the abstract is declined or accepted into the conference program for an Oral Presentation or a Poster Presentation.

OPTION ONE: RESEARCH-BASED
This option is used for scientific/research studies.

OPTION TWO: PRACTICE-BASED
The second option is most suited to critical reflections on and evaluations of health care, community mobilisation, peer education and policy, with a view to improving policy and practice.

Reviewing Guidelines

OPTION ONE RESEARCH-BASED

Appropriateness of the methodology and Study design (0-5)

  • Is the study design appropriate to the hypothesis or aims/objectives of the study?
  • Is the methodology used appropriately for that study?
  • Are the data analysis and the inference done appropriately?

OPTION TWO PRACTICE-BASED

Quality of the Experience/Presentation (0-5)

  • Are the aims/approaches appropriate to the issue/theme?
  • Does the project or policy address the purpose/aims?
  • Does the impact or significance clearly relate to the aims and approach?

OPTION ONE RESEARCH-BASED

Clarity of Purpose and objectives of the study (0-5)

  • Is the background of the study appropriate and updated?
  • Are the Objectives clear and well presented?
  • Are the conclusions clear and appropriate to the study?

OPTION TWO PRACTICE-BASED

Clarity of the reported experience/observations (0-5)

  • Is the description of the background and purpose clear?
  • Is the description of the approach clear and well presented?
  • Is the statement of impact clear and appropriate to the project or policy?

OPTION ONE RESEARCH-BASED

Significance of contribution (0-5)

  • Does it provide innovative/new insights from any perspective?
  • Applicability of the study
  • Importance to the Australasian Sexual and Reproductive Health Conference?
  • What might be the implications for health policy or programming?

OPTION TWO PRACTICE-BASED

Significance of the contribution (0-5)

  • Does the contribution provide significant and useful information?
  • Are there benefits for other partners in the sector from hearing about the work?
  • Is there potential for adoption in other settings or other impacts of the initiative/program?
  • Does this address an issue of importance to the Australasian Sexual and Reproductive Health Conference?

Scoring Guidelines

Research-based abstracts:

  • Research is based on an original concept, methodology and study design appropriate.
  • Data analysis is clear and provides clear, high-quality results.
  • Important or new results with the potential to change practice.

Practice-based abstracts:

  • Contribution is innovative, and the topic area highly relevant to sexual and reproductive health
  • The approach is clear and has some distinctive value
  • Statement of impact offers practical insights that are likely to change practice
  • Practice led to demonstrable and desired changes in knowledge, behaviours or beliefs in the target audience

Research-based abstracts:

  • Objectives, methodology and study design are clearly described/appropriate.
  • Data analysis provides clear, good quality data.
  • Results are strong and relevant to the conference.

Practice-based abstracts:

  • Contribution is clearly described and of interest to sexual and reproductive health
  • Approach is clear
  • Statement of impact, and that the impact has some implications for practice
  • Abstract describes how evidence and data have informed practice, and the feedback loop to inspire further research has been facilitated
  • Abstract contains information from which colleagues within the same field of interest can learn
  • Abstract takes a common approach used in practice across Australia but takes a different approach to implementation that provides new insights
  • Redundant research/information.
  • Poor quality of data or analysis, insufficient detail.
  • No substantial improvement in knowledge.
  • Abstract is formally incorrect, and prescribed sections are missing.
  • Insufficient information to assess research question, methodology or results.