Abstract Selection Criteria

All abstracts will be reviewed by three independent peer reviewers. Abstracts will be scored out of 20 points based on the following criteria

Background and clarity of objectives of the study (0-5)   
Is the background of the study and objectives clear and well-presented?  

  • Excellent (score 5) – The background/rationale is exceptionally clear, the research is novel and fills a significant gap in the literature, and there is a very clearly stated objective   
  • Very good (score 4) – The background/rationale is very clear, the research is novel and fills a significant gap in the literature, and there is a very clearly stated objective   
  • Good (score 3) – The background/rationale is clear, the research is interesting, and fills a gap in the literature, and there is a clearly stated objective   
  • Average (score 2) – The background/rationale is stated, the research confirms previous findings, and the objective is stated   
  • Below average (score 1) – The background/rationale is not well stated, the research is not very novel, and the objective is not well stated   
  • Very poor (score 0) – The abstract has no background/rationale, the research is not relevant, and the abstract is missing a clearly defined objective .

     

Appropriateness of the study design and methodology (0-5)   
Is the methodology and study design appropriate for the hypothesis or aims/objectives of the study?  

  • Excellent (score 5) – The methods are exceptionally clear, the study design and methodology are entirely appropriate to evaluate the stated objectives, and the statistical analyses are entirely appropriate.   
  • Very good (score 4) – The methods are very clear, the study design and methodology are very appropriate to evaluate the stated objectives, and the statistical analyses are very appropriate.   
  • Good (score 3) – The methods are clear, the study design and methodology are appropriate to evaluate the stated objectives, and the statistical analyses are appropriate.   
  • Average (score 2) – The methods lack some clarity, there are limitations to the study design and methodology for evaluating the stated objectives, and the statistical analyses have some limitations.   
  • Below average (score 1) – The methods lack clarity, there are major limitations to the study design and methodology for evaluating the stated objectives, and the statistical analyses have major limitations or are incorrectly applied for the intended aims.   
  • Very poor (score 0) – The methods are not clear, there are major limitations to the study design and methodology for evaluating the stated objectives which make the study uninterpretable, and the statistical analyses are very poor and/or are incorrectly applied for the intended aims. 
     

 Appropriateness of the study results (0-5)   
Are the results appropriate for the hypothesis or aims/objectives of the study?  

  • Excellent (score 5) – The results are very well presented, do an excellent job at supporting the aims/objectives of the study, and provide very novel findings.   
  • Very good (score 4) – The results are very clearly presented, do a very good job at supporting the aims/objectives of the study, and provide very novel findings.   
  • Good (score 3) – The results are clearly and adequately presented, do a good job at supporting the aims/objectives of the study, and provide interesting findings.   
  • Average (score 2) – The results lack some clarity in presentation, or some required results were not reported, do a reasonable job at supporting the aims/objectives of the study, and provide some interesting findings with some limitations in how they are presented.   
  • Below average (score 1) – The results lack clarity in presentation, or most required results were not reported, do not support the aims/objectives of the study, and provide a lack of interesting findings with major limitations in how they are presented.   
  • Very poor (score 0) – The results are not clear, or all required results were not reported, do not support the aims/objectives of the study, and provide a lack of interesting findings with major limitations in how they are presented.
          

Conclusions (0-5)   
Are the conclusions clear, are they supported by the findings and does this work significantly contribute to the literature?  

  • Excellent (score 5) – The conclusions are exceptionally well presented and are well-supported by the findings. The work is an excellent contribution to evidence-based knowledge in the field.   
  • Very good (score 4) – The conclusions are very clearly presented and are well-supported by the findings. The work is a very good contribution to evidence-based knowledge in the field.   
  • Good (score 3) – The conclusions are clearly presented and are supported by the findings. The work is a good contribution to evidence-based knowledge in the field.   
  • Average (score 2) – The conclusions are adequately presented and are partially supported by the findings. The work contributes somewhat to evidence-based knowledge in the field.   
  • Below average (score 1) – The conclusions lack clarity in their presentation and do not support the findings. The work does not contribute to evidence-based knowledge in the field.   
  • Very poor (score 0) – The conclusions are not at all clear in their presentation and do not support the findings. The work does not contribute to evidence-based knowledge in the field. 
          

 Note: Research Abstracts may be favoured at review if they incorporate: 

  • Completed rather than future work   
  • Original data of high quality.   
  • An analysis that extends existing knowledge   
  • Clarity of methodology, analysis and presentation of results   
  • Specific rather than general findings   

 

Background and clarity of objectives of the model of care/program (0-5)  
Is the background to the development of the model of care clear and well-presented? Are the objectives of the model of care clear and well-presented?  

  • Excellent (score 5) – The background/rationale is exceptionally clear and well-presented and there are well-defined objectives to support development of the model of care  
  • Very good (score 4) – The background/rationale is very clear and there are very clearly stated objectives  
  • Good (score 3) – The background/rationale is clear and there are clearly stated objectives  
  • Average (score 2) – The background/rationale is stated and objectives are stated  
  • Below average (score 1) – The background/rationale is not well stated and the objective is not well stated  
  • Very poor (score 0) – The abstract has no background/rationale and the abstract is missing a clearly defined objective .
     

Description of the model of care/intervention (0-5)   
Is the model of care/intervention well described? Is the model of care/intervention innovative in its setting, population, messaging or implementation?   

  • Excellent (score 5) – The model of care/intervention is exceptionally well described and is very innovative in its setting, population, messaging or implementation  
  • Very good (score 4) – The model of care/intervention is very well described and is very innovative in its setting, population, messaging or implementation   
  • Good (score 3) – The model of care/intervention is well described and is innovative in its setting, population, messaging or implementation   
  • Average (score 2) – The model of care/intervention lacks some clarity and is not very innovative in its setting, population, messaging or implementation   
  • Below average (score 1) – The model of care/intervention lacks clarity and is not innovative in its setting, population, messaging or implementation   
  • Very poor (score 0) – The model of care/intervention is not clear and is not innovative in its setting, population, messaging or implementation .

Appropriateness of the study effectiveness (0-5)   
Is the data presented appropriate for monitoring the effectiveness of the model of care/program/intervention?  

  • Excellent (score 5) – The data is exceptionally well presented and entirely appropriate for monitoring the effectiveness of the model of care/intervention   
  • Very good (score 4) – The data is very clearly presented and very appropriate for monitoring the effectiveness of the model of care/intervention   
  • Good (score 3) – The data is clearly presented and appropriate for monitoring the effectiveness of the model of care/intervention   
  • Average (score 2) – The data lacks some clarity in how it will be appropriate to monitor the effectiveness of the model of care/intervention, but may work   
  • Below average (score 1) – The data lacks clarity and is unlikely to be appropriate for monitoring the effectiveness of the model of care/intervention   
  • Very poor (score 0) – The data is not clear and will not be appropriate for monitoring the effectiveness of the model of care/intervention .

Conclusions and next steps (0-5)   
Are the conclusions clear, are they supported by the findings from the model of care/program implementation? Are key learnings from this model clearly defined? Are the next steps for this model clearly defined? Does this work significantly contribute to the field?   

  • Excellent (score 5) – The conclusions are very clearly presented and well supported by the findings. Key learnings and next steps for the model are very clearly defined. The work is an excellent contribution to the field.   
  • Very good (score 4) – The conclusions are very clearly presented and are well-supported by the findings. Key learnings and next steps for the model are clearly defined. The work is a very good contribution to the field.   
  • Good (score 3) – The conclusions are clearly presented and are supported by the findings. Key learnings and next steps for the model are clearly defined. The work is a good contribution to the field.   
  • Average (score 2) – The conclusions are adequately presented and are partially supported by the findings. Key learnings and next steps for the model are somewhat defined. The work contributes somewhat to the field   
  • Below average (score 1) – The conclusions lack clarity in their presentation and do not support the findings. Key learnings and next steps for the model are not clear. The work does not contribute to the field   
  • Very poor (score 0) – The conclusions are not at all clear in their presentation and do not support the findings. There are no stated key learnings or next steps for the model. The work does not contribute to the field. 

 Note: Practice-based Abstracts may be favoured at review if they incorporate:   

  • A project or policy change that is new, innovative and/or of high impact   
  • A project that has been successfully implemented (either completed or ongoing)  
  • An analysis of the project or policy change that extends current thinking or ideas   
  • Clarity in which the project purpose, approach, impact and significance has been described 

Rationale and aims for the symposium/panel/debate are clear, and relevant/up to date (1-5)   

  • Excellent (score 5) There is a strong rationale provided. The aims are well-defined, highly coherent, original in concept or innovative. The abstracts included form a highly coherent group that flows well. The discussion session is described & conceptualised well and highly topical and innovative. The symposium is likely to be executed well and highly engaging and stimulate discussion with the audience. The discussion will provide important, innovative or new information. The symposium contains a well-balanced range of abstracts on the topic.   
  • Good (score 4) A clear rationale is provided. The aims are clear in intent and logical. The discussion session is appropriate, described well, topical and innovative. The abstracts included form a coherent group that flows well. The symposium discussion is likely to be engaging and stimulate discussion with the audience. The discussion will advance knowledge and practice and have the potential to influence practice, communities and policy. The symposium contains a well-balanced range of abstracts on the topic.  
  • Average (score 3) A sound rationale is provided for the presenter symposium. The aims are somewhat clear. The presenter discussion questions are adequately described, somewhat topical but lack innovation. The discussion section has some engaging and interactive elements. The discussion is likely to extend existing knowledge and practice, with some impact on communities, policy and First Nations communities. The abstracts contain relevant knowledge and experience in the field.  
  • Poor (score 2) The rationale for and aims of the of the presenter symposium is unclear. The discussion section is not described well, inappropriate or the content is not relevant. The symposium has few interactive elements and is unlikely to extend existing knowledge or practice and there is no description of implications (or likely benefit to) on communities, practice, policy or First Nations communities. The abstracts contain limited knowledge and experience in the field.  
  • Very poor (score 1) No relation to the conference theme and insufficient information provided on the rationale, aims or approach for the symposium. The basis for the approach is flawed or the abstract does not meet prescribed format etc. The abstracts are of poor quality and no clear discussion strategy is described or the discussion is of limited interest or relevance to the field. No description of implications on communities, practice, policy or First Nations communities. The abstracts contain little or no information, with no discussion section and is not well-balanced.  

The discussion section is described well, appropriate and innovative; procedures for engaging discussion with the audience are clear (1-5)  

  • Excellent (5) Detailed, coherent, and innovative discussion plan. Specific engagement procedures (e.g., structured Q&A, debate, live polling, small-group tasks) are clearly described with roles, timing, and flow. Methods suit the topic and audience; moderation and timekeeping are planned. Feasible within constraints with basic contingencies and a way to capture outputs.  
  • Good (4) Clear, logical plan with multiple engagement methods. Most roles/timings are specified; approaches are appropriate and show some innovation. Likely to be engaging and feasible; minor gaps (e.g., limited contingency or output capture) do not affect overall quality.  
  • Average (3) A basic, serviceable plan with at least one audience engagement procedure. Limited detail on roles, timing, or moderation. Appropriateness is acceptable; innovation modest. Engagement is plausible but not well evidenced.  
  • Poor (2) Vague or loosely described plan. Engagement procedures are unclear, poorly matched to the format, or impractical within the time/setting. Feasibility concerns and weak moderation planning.  
  • Very poor (1) Minimal or unsuitable plan; essentially lecture-style with no workable audience engagement. Not feasible or unlikely to generate meaningful discussion. 

Discussion will likely result in new, innovative or novel ideas; OR make a significant contribution to policy or practice (1-5)  

  • Excellent (5) A clear, credible pathway to tangible outputs or adoption is articulated (e.g., draft recommendations, toolkit, consensus points) with roles, timelines, and next steps. Engagement of relevant end-users/decision-makers is described; feasibility is high and the anticipated impact is significant.  
  • Good (4) Strong potential for innovation or policy/practice contribution. Proposed outputs and an adoption pathway are outlined, though less detailed. Relevant stakeholders are considered; feasibility appears good and impact likely.  
  • Average (3) Some potential for incremental ideas or modest practice insights. Outputs are generic and the path to uptake is only partially specified. Stakeholder involvement and feasibility are plausible but under-developed.  
  • Poor (2) Low likelihood of generating new ideas or meaningful change. Impact claims are vague; no clear outputs or route to adoption. Stakeholder engagement and feasibility are weak.  
  • Very poor (1) No credible contribution to innovation, policy, or practice. Off-topic or impractical; no outputs, no stakeholders, and no plan for translation. 

Symposium contains a well-balanced range of abstracts that flow together and are relevant in the area / Panel contains a well-balanced range of speakers with relevant expertise in the area (1-5)  

  • Excellent (5) Outstanding balance and coherence. Selections cover the key subtopics with complementary perspectives and appropriately varied expertise. Sequencing creates a clear narrative with strong linkages between items; minimal redundancy. Relevance to the field is uniformly high.  
  • Good (4) Clear balance across most key dimensions with strong overall flow. Minor gaps or small overlaps only. Expertise mix is appropriate and well justified; relevance is high for most components.  
  • Average (3) Acceptable mix but with noticeable gaps (e.g., missing a key angle) or some duplication. Flow is serviceable but uneven; rationale for ordering/selection only partly articulated. Relevance generally sound.  
  • Poor (2) Imbalanced or weakly matched selections. Several items are only loosely relevant. Flow is fragmented with unclear connections; expertise is narrow or uneven.  
  • Very poor (1) Lacks balance and coherence. Items are largely disconnected or off-topic, with mismatched or insufficient expertise. Unlikely to provide a meaningful overview of the area.

Background and clarity of objectives of the workshop (1-5)    

  • Excellent (5) Compelling background that defines a clear gap/need and target audience. Objectives are clear, specific, and achievable within the session. They link directly to the background, state expected outcomes/skills, note any prerequisites, and align explicitly with the conference themes.  
  • Good (4) Clear background and logical aims with strong alignment to themes. Objectives are mostly specific and session-appropriate; minor omissions (e.g., brief or implicit outcomes/prerequisites) do not affect overall clarity.  
  • Average (3) Sound but generic background. Objectives are present but partly vague, broad, or only loosely tied to the stated need. Alignment to themes and intended audience is stated but not well developed.  
  • Poor (2) Background is weak or unclear; the need and audience are not well defined. Objectives are vague, inconsistent, or unrealistic for the time available. Limited or unclear alignment to themes.  
  • Very poor (1) Minimal or no background provided. Objectives are absent, irrelevant, or off-theme; submission does not meet basic guidance for clarity.
     

Educational value of the workshop and applicability of content to the conference themes (1-5)   

  • Excellent (5) High educational yield with clearly defined learning outcomes. Content is current, accurate, and directly mapped to the conference themes. Provides practice-ready skills/tools (e.g., checklists, templates, algorithms) with clear use cases and follow-up resources. Strong potential to improve practice or decision-making across settings.  
  • Good (4) Strong relevance to themes and up-to-date content. Delivers useful techniques and examples with some take-away resources. Likely to enhance practice for most participants; minor gaps in specificity or breadth only.  
  • Average(3) Moderately relevant and mostly informational. Outcomes are generic; limited emphasis on skills transfer. Evidence or resources are present but light. Applicability to themes and roles is plausible but under-developed.  
  • Poor (2) Low relevance to themes or dated/superficial content. Educational benefit is unclear; few or no practical take-aways. Limited evidence base and weak connection to participants’ roles.  
  • Very poor (1) Off-theme, promotional, or unreliable content. No meaningful learning outcomes or applicability; unlikely to benefit attendees. 

Quality of the workshop structure, evidence of interactivity, innovative format, methods (1-5)   

  • Excellent (5) Detailed agenda with clear timings, roles, and flow. Multiple, well-matched interactive methods (e.g., case work, role-play/simulation, small-group tasks, live polling) tied to objectives. Innovative but feasible format (e.g., flipped classroom, design sprint) with instructions, materials/tech, room setup, and contingencies specified. Plan to capture outputs and brief participant feedback.  
  • Good (4) Clear structure and several interactive elements; roles/timings mostly defined. Some innovation with good feasibility. Materials/tech and setup noted; minor gaps (e.g., limited contingency or output capture).  
  • Average (3) Basic structure with at least one interactive activity. Limited detail on timing, roles, or instructions. Innovation modest; feasibility acceptable but not well evidenced. Output capture/feedback only partially addressed.  
  • Poor (2) Loose or unclear structure. Interactivity is token or poorly matched to objectives; heavy reliance on lecture. Feasibility concerns (timing, tech, or room setup). No practical plan to capture outputs or manage participation.  
  • Very poor (1) No workable structure; lecture-only or impractical activities. Engagement methods absent; materials/tech/setup unspecified. Unlikely to run successfully within the allotted time. 

 Expertise and experience of proposed speakers/facilitators (1-5)  

  • Excellent (5) Strong subject-matter expertise and proven facilitation/teaching track record. Complementary skills across the team (e.g., clinical, research, implementation) with clearly defined roles. Evidence of prior high-quality workshops or training (evaluations, publications, guideline work). Conflicts declared and managed; availability confirmed.  
  • Good (4) Solid expertise with good facilitation experience. Team mix is appropriate, though slightly uneven or with minor role overlap. Some evidence of prior delivery and outputs. Conflicts addressed; availability likely.  
  • Average (3) Acceptable topic knowledge; limited or mixed facilitation experience. Team skews toward one perspective; roles and responsibilities partially specified. Limited documentation of prior workshops or outputs.  
  • Poor (2) Gaps in subject expertise and little evidence of effective facilitation. Team composition is narrow or mismatched; roles unclear. Minimal proof of prior delivery; conflicts/availability not well addressed.  
  • Very poor (1) Insufficient or irrelevant expertise; no facilitation capability demonstrated. Roles absent, conflicts undeclared, or availability uncertain. Unlikely to deliver a credible workshop. 
  • In balancing the program, the committee may require authors to present their work in an alternate format (e.g. as a poster rather than oral presentation).  
  • We encourage abstracts with an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander focus to be presented by an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person or have an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander co-presenter be included. If this is not possible, please include some information as to whether any member of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community in which the research is based was involved in development of the research protocol or in conducting the research. Where possible, this applies to other population groups as well.