Best | Worst |
---|---|
Understanding the concept of OMERACT filter 2.0 | Knowledge gap and challenges regarding OMERACT Filter 2.0 |
“Useful to review OMERACT process and policies in Filter 2.0 session” | “Do not understand Filter 2.0” |
“Intellectual challenge especially with Filter 2.0” | |
“Struggling with Filter 2.0 and how to incorporate into research” | |
“Executive members are involved in development on Filter 2.0” | “Apart from the OMERACTers, F2.0 will be extremely complicated to use as opposed to basic TDF” |
“Challenge in F2.0 SIG: the word parsimony did not translate to other countries” | |
Networking and Intellectual Stimulation | Voting Issues/challenges Questions |
“Finding people who think the way I would like to think” | “Questions to vote on were not given enough time” |
“Conversations and interaction” | “Difficulty trying to follow decision without the data” |
“Spirit interactivity” | “Uncomfortable feeling in voting process (1/3 of participants were in the room during voting)” |
“Meet people interested in same field, OMERACT is effective work, good to see people interested in same thing” | “Trying to vote on things you didn’t go to” |
“Networking” | |
“Make new friends” | Data presentation skills and challenges |
“Networking face to face - cannot be duplicated virtually especially with people interested in outcomes” | “…slides went too fast no time to digest info that was presented” |
“Similar interests” | “Too much information to digest” |
“Slide availability is not there” | |
“Difficult to review pre-reading materials, too much” | |
Small Group Discussions | Small Group Discussions |
“(liked) Small group discussion after presentation of data” | “Data vs time to discuss it in one of the break-out sessions” |
“liked discussions” | “No data on the topic in one of the break-out sessions” |
“discussions were very informative” | “Rapporteurs and moderators did not move the topic along” |
“Final goal of discussions are not always clear” | |
“…discussion in (one of the) breakouts seemed driven by clinical practice. | |
Struggled with how it works in Clinical Trial — what was the value added?” | |
Patient involvement | Plenary Session |
“Patient involvement in SIG (special interest group) sessions” | “Plenary summaries were not very useful unless you were attendance at the SIG” |
“Patient involvement (was nice)” | “We need to have more votes in the final plenary” |
“Why hear a report from all SIG’s when I already selected the ones I thought were interesting” | |
Learning the science and process of outcomes research | Challenges with OMERACT process |
“Watching sausage get made—looking at how these outcomes get created” | “Understanding the OMERACT process —feels like I have a long way to go” |
“Feel like I have understanding of what is happening” | “Clarity in process assumes an incredible degree of complexity” |
“Process feels like it is getting clearer” | |
“Stimulating discussions” | |
Collegial environment | |
“Friendly people” | |
Physical environment | Physical environment |
“Food is good” | “Weather was bad…” |
“Location” | |
Learning new skills | |
“Learnt how to do an accurate thumb exam” | |
Utility of Newbie Session | |
“Chance to come to newbie session” | |
“Newbie session is very important and it should continue” | |
Other | Other |
“Sense of egalitarianism” | “Limited participation from countries in the East” |
“Being able to talk about topic back to my institution and bring back to Brazil the methodology” | “Lack of sleep” |
“No Abbreviations/Jargon should be used in presentations and program” |
OMERACT: Outcome Measures in Rheumatology; TDF: truth, discrimination, feasibility; SIG: special interest group; F2.0: OMERACT Filter 2.0.