Hints on Enhancing Proposals to the STFM Annual Spring Conference

1
Hints on Enhancing Proposals to the STFM Annual
Spring Conference

• 2005 STFM Program Committee
• Crystal Cash, MD Karen Connell, MSSam
  Cullison, MD Craig Gjerde, PhD
• Susan Hadley, MD Patricia Lebensohn, MD
• Jim Tysinger, PhD Stephen Wilson, MD

2
Credits

• Modified by Craig Gjerde
• Adapted from a handout by James Tysinger

3
Session Objectives

• 1. Discuss guidelines for session formats
• 2. Describe the proposal review process including
  the evaluation scale items
• 3. Describe why proposals are commonly rejected
• 4. Review a "proposal" and suggest ways to
  improve it

4
Session Plan

• Welcome
• Dr. Gjerde
• Introductions
• Presentation on proposal review
• Drs. Gjerde and Tysinger
• Small group work on proposal review
• Members of Program Committee
• Discussion / Summary / Evaluation

5
How does the process work?

• STFM members submit proposals for the Annual
  Spring Conference
• Three or more reviewers independently rate each
  proposal (criteria later)
• Program Committee uses these ratings to select
  sessions for the Annual Meeting

6
Session Formats

• Reference STFM Program
• Dr. Wilson

7

• We members of the STFM Program Committee offer
  the following suggestions to help members write
  proposals that get accepted

8
General recommendations

• Submit
• A maximum of three proposals
• Proposals for a range of categories (e.g.,
  poster, peer paper, and lecture/discussion)
• Proposals on different topics
• Proposals with two or more presenters from
  different backgrounds, perspectives or levels
• Proposals that have been critiqued by your
  colleagues and fellow presenters

9
10 Specific Recommendations

• These are considered in the reviews

10
1. Relevance to Family Medicine educators

• Propose topics and content that will interest
  proposal reviewers and attract attendees
• Propose a controversial topic, but include
  different perspectives in the proposal

11
2a. Objectives

• Write objectives from the learner perspective,
  starting with the implicit stem At the end of
  this workshop, the learner will be able to
• 1. List the six ACGME general competencies
• 2. Name all members of this committee

12
2b. Objectives

• Write objectives in Magers format (Examples)
• Discuss the components of curriculum development
  as presented in Curriculum Development for
  Medical Education A Six-Step Approach by Kern
  et al.
• Given a simulated patient who has been diagnosed
  with a terminal illness and a member of that
  patients family, conduct a conversation with the
  patient that illustrates effective Advance Care
  Planning skills.

13
2c. Objectives

• Write an appropriate number of objectives for the
  amount of time requested.
• For example, a 90-minute seminar should usually
  contain no more than four objectives.

14
3. Originality and Innovation

• Submit a proposal on a topic that is hot
  and/or of current interest
• Avoid topics (e.g., cultural competency or EBM)
  that are likely to be proposed by many others
  unless you have a unique or evidence-based
  approach

15
4. Content

• Ensure that the content matches the stated
  objectives.
• Ensure that the content is appropriate for time
  requested (e.g., dont cram a workshop into a
  seminar.)

16
5. Teaching Methods

• Use a mix of teaching methods (e.g., brief
  lecture followed by a small group activity).
• Employ teaching methods that are appropriate for
  the objectives and content.

17
6. Clarity and Organization

• Clearly explain what you propose to do Dont
  assume reviewers will give you the benefit of a
  doubt.
• Ensure congruence among the objectives, content,
  and teaching methods.
• Use consistent language

18
7. Audience Involvement

• Involve the audience and get participants ideas
  
• Avoid a 90-minute seminar thats 85 minutes of
  lecture!
• Reviewers look at time allocations to see if they
  are realistic

19
8. Conformity with Call for Papers

• Precisely follow the guidelines set in the call
  for papers
• Provide information in every area Dont refer
  reviewers to earlier or later sections

20
9. Duration of experience / evaluation of
effectiveness

• Submit proposals for which you have some
  experience (i.e., gt6 months)
• Explain your experience (e.g., discuss data you
  have gathered or past evaluations of the program)

21
10. Consideration for a different category

• Indicate that you are open to presenting your
  proposal in a different category.
• Some proposals might fit better in another
  format
• Sometimes a poster is better than nothing

22
You are the reviewers

• Groups of 3-5 persons
• Program Committee as facilitators
• Each person read and rate proposal independently
• Compare evaluations within group
• Rewrite proposal to achieve higher score
• Groups share rewrites with other groups

23
Evaluation items

• a) Topic is relevant to family medicine
  educators
• b) Clear objectives (what audience will learn)
  
• c) Originality and innovation
• d) Content appropriate for time allowed
• Content of proposed presentation (methods clear,
• meets objectives)
• f) Proposal is clearly written and
  well-organized
• g) Audience involvement
• h) Conforms to Call (length, headings)
• Duration of experience/ evaluation of
  effectiveness
• Overall Accept Reject Discuss

24
Summary

• Key points for submitting a successful proposal
• Role of reviews in improving proposals
• Importance of quality submissions for STFM
  meetings
• Importance of quality reviewers by STFM Program
  Committee and others

25
Thank You

26
Time Plan 90 minutes

• Session Introduction (5)
• Introduction of Committee Presenters (3)
• Overview of Session Objectives, Topics, and
  Activities (2)
• Presentation (15) Gjerde and Tysinger
• Description of the Proposal Review Process
• Review of STFM Session Formats
• Discussion of Reasons Why Proposals are Commonly
  Rejected
• Small Group Activity Review of Proposal (15)
• Individuals assess proposal using the scale
• Individuals mark proposal as "Accept, "Discuss,"
  or "Reject"
• Individual identifies ways to improve proposal
• Small Group Discussion of Ratings Facilitated by
  Committee (25)
• Group reviews scale scores and overall acceptance
  of proposal.
• Group writes proposal to address weak points
• Large Group Activity Facilitated by Committee
  (15)
• Discussion of proposal
• Discussion of rewrites
• Review of Tips for Successful Proposals (5)
• Questions and Session Evaluation (5)

27
Evaluation items

• a) Topic is relevant to family medicine
  educators
• b) Clear objectives (what audience will learn)
  
• c) Originality and innovation
• d) Content appropriate for time allowed
• Content of proposed presentation (methods clear,
• meets objectives)
• f) Proposal is clearly written and
  well-organized
• g) Audience involvement
• h) Conforms to Call--length, headings
• Duration of experience/ evaluation of
  effectiveness
• Overall Accept Reject Discuss