Table 1.

By-factor ranking of statements (St) given in the “spirit of OMERACT” Q study.

To me the “spirit of OMERACT” is…	Factor Scores				Mean Score Across All Participants
To me the “spirit of OMERACT” is…	Factor One	Factor Two	Factor Three	Factor Four	Mean Score Across All Participants
St1: The credible reputation of the conference	0	0	+1	0	+0.46
St2: The open and vociferous discussion	+1	+1	+2	0	+1.31
St3: Everyone’s opinions being treated as equal, regardless of their status	+2	+3	+1	−3	+1.1
St4: The focus on small group discussions rather than presentations	+2	+7	+3	+2	+2.13
St5: Patients being invited to the conference	+4	+5	−3	+1	+1.26
St6: Patients being given the power to drive a research agenda (e.g., fatigue, well-being)	+3	+4	0	−1	+1.24
St7: Helping therapies to get approved	−1	−5	−2	0	−1.86
St8: Its innovative nature	+2	+1	+1	0	+1.02
St9: The opportunity to deal with controversial issues	0	+3	0	+1	+0.79
St10: Volunteers driving the conference	0	−1	−2	−2	−0.48
St11: That it is neutral ground for ideas to be discussed	0	+2	0	−4	+0.59
St12: The commitment to theoretical underpinnings	+2	0	−2	0	+0.32
St13: The involvement of a wide variety of stakeholders	+2	+2	+1	+5	+1.6
St14: The opportunity to hear about progress in areas of work other than my own	0	0	+2	−3	+0.17
St15: The opportunity to convince my peers that my work is satisfactory	−3	−4	−5	−2	−2.4
St16: Having to be thick–skinned	−4	−6	−4	−1	−3.28
St17: The sleepless nights	−5	−6	−6	−4	−3.35
St18: The research being driven by data/evidence	+6	+2	+7	+2	+3.02
St19: The opportunity for interactive discussion	+3	+4	+2	+2	+2.46
St20: The intimacy (small number of delegates)	−1	+5	+3	+4	+0.9
St21: The chance to get the OMERACT seal of approval	0	−1	0	0	−0.37
St22: The chance to get international recognition for my work	−2	−2	−5	+2	−1.45
St23: The focus on outcome measures	+7	+6	+5	+7	+3.82
St24: International collaboration	+5	+3	+4	+6	+2.43
St25: Senior and junior delegates working together	+3	+1	0	+3	+1.27
St26: The opportunity to meet “famous” researchers/rheumatologists	−4	−3	−5	−1	−2.48
St27: The feeling of loyalty	−2	−1	−3	−4	−1.74
St28: The feeling of belonging	−2	+1	−1	0	−0.32
St29: Getting work done to tight time scales	−1	−2	−1	0	−0.71
St30: The organized chaos	−3	+1	−4	+1	+1.5
St31: The special interest groups	+1	0	0	+4	+0.92
St32: Having a fellows programme for novice researchers	+1	−1	−1	−3	+0.25
St33: Having a “buddy” system for new patient delegates	−2	−2	−4	−3	−1.3
St34: The gladiatorial nature (“newbies” have to prove their robustness and worth)	−4	−5	−6	−1	−2.77
St35: The transparency	+5	−2	0	−5	+0.12
St36: The focus on goal setting	0	−1	0	+2	+0.37
St37: The voting process being at the conference itself (enabling decisions to be made there and then)	+3	+2	+5	−3	+1.56
St38: The equal voting process (each person is given an equal vote regardless of their experience/interest in the topic)	+2	+1	+3	−6	+0.88
St39: The focus on striving for consensus	+4	+2	+6	+3	+2.03
St40: The involvement of a core committed group of people	+1	+3	+2	+4	+1.38
St41: The emphasis on striving for global standardization and validation of methods	+6	+5	+6	+6	+3.88
St42: The lively methodological discussion	+4	+4	+3	+4	+2.48
St43: The opportunity to discuss novel unpublished material	−1	0	−2	−2	−0.38
St44: Having less visible egos than at other conferences	−3	−4	−4	−7	−2.71
St45: The beautiful, exotic locations chosen for the conference venue	−5	−3	+1	−3	−2.11
St46: The remote locations chosen for the conference venue (cut off from civilization)	−5	−2	+3	−2	−1.7
St47: The final night entertainment	−6	−5	−3	−6	−3.23
St48: The focus on guiding the conduct of clinical trials	+4	−3	+5	+5	+1.26
St49: That it focuses and drives the research progress made in between meetings	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1.01
St50: Reinforcing the rules for adequate clinical trials	+3	−1	+4	+5	+1.31
St51: The intellectual stimulation	+1	+6	+1	+3	+1.9
St52: That when consensus is achieved it feels hard-won and deserved	0	0	+4	−4	+0.48
St53: The exchange of ideas to address shared goals and challenges in different disease areas	+5	+4	+4	+2	+2.15
St54: The feeling of being part of something unique	−1	+2	+2	−1	+0.54
St55: The use of the Delphi procedure	+1	−2	+3	−2	+0.3
St56: The intensity (sessions from morning until night)	−2	0	−1	+1	−0.9
St57: Being given large amounts of information to read pre-conference	−3	−3	−3	−2	−2.24
St58: The quality of the moderators in the breakout sessions	−1	−1	−2	−5	−0.89
St59: All delegates attending all sessions even if they are about a disease outside of their speciality (e.g., RA patient attending a gout session)	−1	0	0	−1	+0.22
St60: The chance to get away from everything else in my working life	−6	−4	0	−5	−2.71
St61: Being among the first to know about the decisions made	−4	−4	−2	0	−1.97
St62: The minutiae of the discussion and debate	−2	−3	−1	+1	−1.01
St63: The freedom to be a “geek” among others like myself	−3	0	−3	−1	−1.57
St64: Just an elitist clique	−7	−7	−7	+3	−4.28
St65: The opportunity to talk about my work with knowledgeable others from various backgrounds	0	+3	−1	+1	+0.69
St66: The support provided by the leadership to the working groups	0	0	−1	0	+0.21

Statements in bold type show that consensus on the mean participant score was ≥ 2.43 or ≤ –3.23. Reading the table by column shows the comparative ranking of statements that characterize a particular factor. Reading the table by row shows the comparative ranking of a particular statement across factors.