Workshop Proposal Submission Information

SUBMISSION INFORMATION
  1. The AFSM2019 congress will see participation from a wide range of disciplines: sports medicine’s clinicians, sports scientists, researchers, nurses, medical and allied medical students and sports enthusiasts from the society. We therefore encourage proposals involving speakers from different institutions and represent a variety of perspectives.
  2. AFSM 2019 Pre-congress workshops are designed to provide an interactive and focused platform for researchers, practitioners, clinicians, and participants from the industry, government, and other related parties to present and discuss novel ideas and innovations in sports medicine.
  3. Workshop can be designed and delivered in 4 hours (half day) or 8 hours (full day) format.
  4. All workshop submissions will follow the same review process.
  5. An example of a workshop proposal submission is available at the end of this document.
SUBMISSION INFORMATION
Workshop submissions should be organized as follows:
  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. PURPOSE: Provide a clear definition of the workshop’s objective. (Ensure that the purpose(s) is achievable in selected time slot.)
  4. DESCRIPTION: Provide background information and details on the material to be presented. Include speaker presentation length.
  5. LENGTH of PROPOSAL (Purpose and Description): 300 words
  6. 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.

Topic Categories And Sub-categories For Workshop Submissions

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 time-slot 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: AFSM 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.]

Topic Categories And Sub-categories For Workshop Submissions

Title

(capital letters)

STATED PREFERENCES IN DRUG EVALUATION: A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE USE OF STATED PREFERENCE IN THE US, CANADA, AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

Discussion Leaders

(Its recommended to have a minimum of 2 leaders from one or more organizations, though an individual can also take part in workshop; please include name(s), degree(s), institution(s), city, state, & country)

Axel C. Mühlbacher, PhD, MBA, Professor, Health Economics and Health Care Management, Institute Health Economics and Health Care Management, IGM, Hochschule Neubrandenburg, Neubrandenburg, Germany; Kevin Marsh, PhD, Executive Director, Evidera Ltd, London, UK

Workshop purpose

(Provide a clear definition of the workshop’s objective. (Ensure that the purpose(s) is achievable in the workshop time-slot.)

To compare decision makers’ use of stated preference research in the medical technology approval and reimbursement in the US, EU and Canadian regulatory environment drawing good practice lessons from the best elements of each.

Workshop description

(Provide background objectives and details on the material to be presented, including which stakeholders will benefit from attending. It is useful to include speaker presentation length.)

Decision makers responsible for approving, reimbursing, and pricing drugs, are piloting and using stated preference methods, as well as encouraging manufacturers to generate patient preference data for their submissions. Prominent examples include: the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health using patient preference data to inform approval decisions, IQWiG’s requirement that economic evaluations be informed by patient preference data, and IMI PREFER’s consideration of how and when it is best to include patient preferences in decision making. The diversity of decision makers’ requirements means that the effective generation of preference evidence requires a good understanding of: 1) how these data might be used; 2) the stakeholders from whom preferences should be elicited (e.g., citizens versus patients); 3) the elicitation method that should be used; and 4) when this data should be generated–when in the drug evaluation process and at what stage of disease should preferences be elicited. An overview of the respective regulatory processes will be presented with case examples for illustration. Discussion on the use of stated preference research in the US will include: FDA use of patient-preference information in approvals for the Maestro weight-loss device and Exondys 51 for treating Duchenne muscular dystrophy. EU-based examples will include EMA’s and IQWiG’s pilot programs. Examples from Canada will include Health Canada and CADTH’s use of patient preference data.

Audience interactive element

(Clearly explain the workshop’s audience participation element. This is an important criterion to fulfill)

Each speaker will present a schematic of how patient preference data are included in their respective regulatory process. The audience will participate in the evaluation exercise drawing on the pros and cons of each arrangement to develop an ‘ideal’ process for using this data in healthcare decision making.