BIGSPD Abstract submissions are now closed.
Thanks to everyone who submitted.
Please click here to view the preliminary programme
The quality of the scientific programme depends on your submissions and we thank you for choosing this conference to present your work.
Deadlines for receipt of submissions
BIGSPD Admin office must be in receipt of all submissions by 5pm on Friday 6th December 2019.
- Complete the form at the end of this document in full and email to firstname.lastname@example.org no later than 6th December 2019. Email receipt of submission will be provided.
- You will be informed of the decision of the referees within four weeks of closing date for submissions.
REGISTERING TO ATTEND THE CONFERENCE:
- All presenters and co presenters need to register and pay to attend the 3 day conference by completing and returning a registration form.
- Registration forms and further details about this will be sent with all acceptance letters.
TYPE OF PRESENTATION:
The types of work we would like to see presented include:
– Research. This kind of work usually generates new knowledge where there is no or limited research evidence available. Research usually has the potential to be generalisable or transferable i.e. the data is collected in such a way that the findings are likely to hold true in other contexts e.g. other services, other parts of the UK, or internationally. It involves collecting novel data, or analysing data that others have collected, using scientifically robust methodology.
– Service development, service evaluation, or quality improvement projects. This involves local changes to clinical practice or evaluations of existing clinical practice. It mainly aims to evaluate what is happening in a particular clinical service rather than to produce any findings that are generalisable in other contexts. It can however be an opportunity to highlight good practice and cost effectiveness.
– User involvement projects. These can include involving service users or carers in the design, conduct, delivery, analysis or dissemination of research, service development, service evaluation or quality improvement. The most active form of user involvement is when service users or carers play a lead role in conducting a research project or lead in developing, delivering or evaluating a clinical service.
FORMAT OF PRESENTATION:
Work can be presented as an oral symposium, a standalone oral presentation, a workshop or a poster.
Symposia provide an opportunity to bring together a number of focused presentations on a particular topic. They are typically 90 minutes in length in total. We reserve the right to ask some presenters to reduce the total length of their symposium. Your symposium should consist of three or four oral presentations from different authors on a related theme. After the presentations, a discussant may provide an overview of the main issues and facilitate a general discussion of the topic by the audience and authors. The symposium submission must include an overview plus a structure abstract for each presentation. All the submission forms for the symposium must be submitted together by the symposium convenor.
Standalone oral presentations are typically 10 to 20 minutes long.
Posters allow contributors to present very recent or small-scale work. This helps to keep the conference programme responsive to emerging issues and developments. Posters may include pilot studies or examples of practical application. Further information regarding the dimensions of the poster boards and suggestions of how to display poster material will be supplied to presenters who have their posters accepted. We reserve the right to ask some individuals who have applied to give an oral presentation, to instead present their work as a poster.
Workshops allow contributors to use an interactive format to help participants improve their skills, knowledge or understanding in a particular topic area relevant to clinical practice. They may include group exercises or discussions.
Content (maximum 250 words)
The following are some ideas for how to structure abstracts for 1) Research projects, 2) Service development or user involvement projects, 3) Workshops. These are only ideas – not all may be relevant to your piece of work.
1) Research project abstracts
c) Background (Were you addressing a particular gap in the research literature? Were you testing a particular theory? Did you draw on any previous work on the topic to inform your objectives and your methods? )
If applicable, include details of participants, interventions, data collection, measures, data analysis
f) User involvement (How were service users or carers involved in the design, conduct, analysis or dissemination of this piece of work? Will any service users be involved in presenting this work at the conference? N.B. Presenters from NHS or educational establishments, who are involving service user or carer co-presenters, will be expected to obtain the cost of conference attendance from their own organisation rather than applying for the BIGSPD free service user/ carer places.)
Due to the earlier opening of abstract submission this year, we understand that some research projects may not yet have results, but anticipate having results by the time of the conference.
2) Service development, service evaluation, quality improvement or user involvement projects
b) Type of project
c) Objectives. (What were you trying to achieve with this piece of work?)
d) Background. (Were you addressing a particular gap in service provision or in user involvement? Did you draw on any previous work on the topic to inform your objectives and your methods? )
e) Methods. (How did you carry out this piece of work?). You could include some or all of the following:
i) Participants. (E.g. how many people took part; were the participants service users, staff or the general population; what were the key characteristics of the participants)
ii) Intervention. (Did you change, explore or evaluate a particular aspect of clinical practice? E.g. a psychological intervention, medication, service development, service delivery, service user involvement, an assessment tool, a referral pathway.)
iii) Data collection. (What kind of data did you collect to evaluate the success of your project? How did you collect this data?)
iv) Analysis. (How did you analyse the data you collected?)
f) User involvement. (How were service users or carers involved in the design, conduct, analysis or dissemination of this piece of work? Will any service users be involved in presenting this work at the conference? N.B. Presenters from NHS or educational establishments, who are involving service user or carer co-presenters, will be expected to obtain the cost of conference attendance from their own organisation rather than applying for the BIGSPD free service user/ carer places)
g) Results. (What did you find? )
h) Limitations. (What were the limitations of the design or methods of your piece of work? How would you improve it next time?)
i) Conclusions. (What are the implications of your findings for understanding personality disorder or improving clinical practice?)
b) Objectives (What will be achieved by the end of this workshop?)
c) Rationale (Is your workshop addressing a gap in understanding or clinical practice?)
d) Content (What materials, theories, research findings or resources will your workshop drawn upon?)
e) Delivery. (How will the content be delivered? E.g. interactive discussions or exercises?)
f) Justification for workshop format (What will participants gain from this being delivered as an interactive workshop rather than an oral presentation?)
g) Limitations. (What are the limitations of what you can achieve in this workshop?)
CRITERIA FOR JUDGING ABSTRACTS:
– Clarity: Does the abstract clearly, concisely and comprehensively explain the rationale, design, methods, results and conclusions of the piece of work?
– Relevance: Is this piece of work relevant to understanding or advancing the care of people with personality disorder? Does it illustrate good practice or demonstrate innovative ways of thinking about or working with personality disorder?
– Rationale: Were the objectives, design and methods of this piece of work informed by a sound rationale?
– Data collection: Was the methodology for data collection scientifically robust, reliable and valid? (This criterion is not relevant for workshops. Service development or user involvement development projects are more likely to be selected if they have collected data to evaluate the success of the project).
– Analysis: Was the method of data analysis scientifically robust? (This criterion is not relevant for workshops. Service development or user involvement development projects are more likely to be selected if they have collected and analysed data to evaluate the success of the project).
– Generalisability: Are the findings likely to be applicable to wider numbers of service users or services across the UK? (Work based on findings from large numbers of participants, with sociodemographic and clinical characteristics reflecting the diversity of service users across the UK, is more likely to be generalisable).
– User involvement: Were service users or carers involved in the design, conduct, analysis or dissemination of this piece of work? Will any service users be involved in presenting this work at the conference? N.B. Presenters from NHS or educational establishments, who are involving service user or carer co-presenters, will be expected to obtain the cost of conference attendance from their own organisation rather than applying for the BIGSPD free service user/ carer places
– Limitations: Does the abstract acknowledge the limitations of the piece of work?
– Conclusions: Do the conclusions match the findings? Try not to over-state the implications of your findings. (This criterion is not relevant for workshops).