PART 1: Program Evaluation

Question Title

* 1. The conference met the stated learning objectives

  Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Objective 1: After active engagement in this program, participants will be able to contribute to the Department’s variety of mental health research advances.
Objective 2: After active engagement in this program, participants will be able to develop and continue to present to colleagues innovative activities or original research, either in progress or completed.
Objective 3: Active engagement in this program helped build a sense of community amongst our department members by bringing academic and practicing clinicians, residents, graduate students, researchers and administrators working in psychiatry together.
Objective 4: After active engagement in this program, participants will develop and share their clinical expertise and research skills through oral and poster presentations and through the informal exchange of information among peers.

Question Title

* 2. Please rate the following aspects of the conference:

  Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Was relevant to my discipline/profession
Met my expectations 
Was well organized
Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest was clearly communicated
There were adequate opportunities to interact with my peers
I will use the information I learned in my practice

Question Title

* 3. Did you perceive any degree of bias in any part of the conference?

Question Title

* 4. Did you find that the conference was accessible?

Question Title

* 5. Did you find that the conference was inclusive?

The conference will encourage me to consider changes in my current practice

Question Title

* 6. YES, The changes I am considering are:

Question Title

* 7. NO, because:

Question Title

* 8. What suggestions do you have for improving the conference

Question Title

* 9. Please list any topics you would like to see addressed in future conference

Question Title

* 10. For physicians only: please indicate which CanMEDS/CanMEDS-FM roles you felt were addressed during this conference

PART 2: Session Evaluation

Question Title

* 11. Please assess the keynote speaker and plenary session presenters by choosing the appropriate number. ( 1 = Poor 2 = Fair 3 = Good 4 = Very Good 5 = Outstanding)

  Met Stated Objectives Content Enhanced My Knowledge Balanced & Unbiased Relevance to Practice Overall Time for Active Learning
Dr. Sophia Frangou (Keynote)
Dr. Katharine Dunlop
Drs. Daniel Felsky and Mohamed Abdelhack
Dr. Rachel Mitchell
Dr. Joshua Rosenblat
Dr. Sanjeev Sockalingam

Question Title

* 12. Please assess the poster presentations session by choosing the appropriate number. ( 1 = Poor  2 = Fair  3 = Good 4 = Very Good 5 = Outstanding)

  Met Stated Objectives Content Enhanced My Knowledge Balanced & Unbiased Relevance to Practice Overall Time for Active Learning
Poster Viewing Session

Question Title

* 13. Please assess afternoon oral presentations and presenters for sessions you attended by choosing the appropriate number. ( 1 = Poor 2 = Fair 3 = Good 4 = Very Good 5 = Outstanding

  Clarity of Oral Presentation Clarity of Visual Presentation Balanced & Unbiased Relevant to Practice Overall Time for Active Learning
Xiaoyu Men
Helena Kim
Christopher Morrone
Daniel Kapustin
Niki Akbarian
Kevan Clifford
Jennie Pouget
Ayesha Rashidi
Kody Kennedy
Mikaela K. Dimick
Nidhi Kulkarni
Nicholas Neufeld
Lindsay Oliver
Venice Cheng
Ayan Dey
Maria Teodora Secara
Andreea Diaconescu
Daniel Sanchez Morales
Prudence Po Ming Chan
Jennifer Ma
Samantha Mason
Emytis Tavakoli
Caleb Browne
Ankita Das
Sara Sadat Afjeh
Thomas Prevot
Sheldon Bereznick
Meghan Chenoweth
Giselle Mirfallah
Jessica Muha
Nedra Peter
Xinyue Jiang
Alexia Polillo
Madunisha Sivasritharan
Saadia Sediqzadah
Amy Gajaria
Claire Stanley
Justin Graffi
Kathleen Sheehan
Stanley Wong
Renee Lawson
Paula Ravitz
Masoud AhmadzadAsl
Abigail Ortiz
Mahavir Agarwal
PART 3: Conference Logistics

Question Title

* 14. Please rate the following aspects of the conference:

  Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
The registration process was easy to use
The abstract submission process was intuitive and easy to use
Information about the conference on the website was useful
The venue met my expectations
The food met my expectations
PART 4: About You

Question Title

* 15. Department Affiliation

Question Title

* 16. How did you find out about Research Day

T