Abstracts
Find information pertinent to abstract submission, an abstract sample and a link that will allow you to submit your abstract. We look forward to hearing from you.
The abstract deadline has now passed. We are no longer accepting submissions. If you have submitted an abstract you will hear back around 15 November.
The HSRPP Abstract Adjudicating Committee encourages all researchers and practitioners, of all levels of experience, to submit an abstract for the HSRPP Conference 2020. As well as receiving submissions from experienced researchers, we are particularly keen to receive submissions from:
- practitioners new to research
- practitioners who have investigated new innovations or tried out new ways of doing things in practice
- those evaluating new services
- PhD students and other research staff.
Abstracts will be accepted as either Practice Research or as part of the Health Services Development Showcase (HSDS).
Abstract submission
- Please upload your abstract no later than 5pm Friday 4 October 2019.
- Abstracts will be judged using the Abstract Judging Criteria shown below. Please review these before uploading your abstract.
- Your abstract will be judged anonymously by the committee reviewers. Your name and work affiliation will be removed from the abstract when being judged. Please also ensure that the title and main body of your abstract does not contain any identifying details (e.g. instead of saying 'Cardiff & Vale NHS Trust', say 'a large NHS trust').
- All applicants will be informed of the adjudicating committee’s decision by Friday 15 November 2019. For those abstracts requiring further revision before acceptance, authors will have until 25 November 2019 to submit the required revisions. Authors of conditionally accepted abstracts will receive final notification of the outcome of their abstract in the week commencing 6 January 2020.
- Included in the abstract submission process is a question regarding whether your research has received ethical approval or requesting information on why ethical approval was not required. For this reason, information on ethical approval does not need to be included in the abstract.
- All first authors on accepted abstracts must register for the conference.
- If you have any queries, please email: hsrpp@cardiff.ac.uk
- Upload abstracts here
Abstract format
- Type abstracts in text size of 11 point font. It should ideally fit on one A4 page with the main body of the abstract not exceeding 500 words. One table can be included. The table and up to two references will not be included in the word count. References need to be in the Vancouver referencing style (number in brackets in text linked to the reference below the abstract).
- The main body of the abstract should include the following headings:
- Introduction
- Aim
- Methods
- Results
- Conclusion
A sample abstract can be seen in the Related Downloads section of this page.
Oral communication or poster
- Abstracts will be accepted as either oral communications or posters. Further details on the format of presentations and posters will be provided after acceptance, including poster snapshot (Pecha Kucha) sessions where appropriate.
- Please indicate on the Abstract Form if you would accept oral or poster or either format.
- There will be prizes in both the poster and oral presentation categories.
Topics
Papers on the conference theme of Transforming Healthcare: Keeping the Patient at the Centre are encouraged, although any aspect of pharmacy practice or health services research relevant to medicines or pharmacy are invited.
Abstract review process
Abstracts are welcome from qualitative and quantitative research projects, systematic reviews, trials, secondary analyses of datasets and mixed methods studies.
Abstract judging criteria
| Headings | Quantitative and qualitative studies | Systematic reviews* |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Title | Does the title fully represent the study? | The title should fully represent the study. Should identify the research as a systematic review, meta-analysis or both. |
| 2. Introduction | Is the phenomenon and its significance clearly described? | Does the review identify its PROSPERO registration number? |
| 3. Objectives | Are the objectives clear and achievable? | Do the objectives reflect what the review intended to evaluate/compare in terms of outcome (benefit/harm) in the context or population being studied? |
| 4. Research design and methods | a) Is the design appropriate? b) Is the data collection process appropriate? (including recruitment, sampling and data collection procedures) c) Are the data analysis procedures appropriate? | a) Does the review report the criteria for inclusion? b) Does the review identify the key databases searched and the last date searched? c) Does the review describe the methods for assessing bias? |
| 5. Results | a) Are the main findings clearly described? b) Are the findings supported with evidence? | a) Does the review give details of the number and type of included studies? (to include a PRISMA diagramme) b) Does the review include the results for the main outcomes? |
| 6. Conclusion/ discussion | a) Are the study’s broader implications for practice, research and/ or policy discussed? b) Are the study’s strengths and limitations discussed? | a)The discussion should discuss the implications for practice, research and /or policy. b)Should summarise strengths and limitations of evidence |
| 7. Overall acceptability | Does the research contain any ‘fatal flaws’ which means it should not be accepted? |
For further information on judging quality in research abstracts, please see the Equator website.
* The systematic review criteria have been taken from: the Equator network.
Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, et al. PRISMA for Abstracts Group. PLoS Med 2013;10(4):e1001419. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419. Epub 2013 Apr 9. PRISMA for Abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts.