What Is the Utility of Posters? Qualitative Study of Participants at a Regional Primary Healthcare Conference in Asia.

Background: Posters are used extensively as a mode of presentation at scientific conferences, but little is documented about their value to presenters or viewers. The study aimed to explore conference delegates' views and experiences of poster presentations, and their perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of posters compared with oral presentations, and also to identify ways to enhance the educational value of posters. Method: This was a qualitative study using brief, semi-structured, face-to-face interviews amongst delegates at a 3-day Asia Pacific regional academic primary care conference in Singapore. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and their contents analysed thematically. Results: Eighty-nine interviews were analysed. Respondents were mainly early career researchers (58%), and a third were presenting (poster or oral) at the conference. Many positive attributes of posters were identified. For the viewers, these included the ability to gain a rapid overview of research activity (for "benchmarking", "updating", and "inspiration"); the ability to choose who to engage with and when, in contrast to the tightly scheduled oral sessions; and opportunity to discuss content in a leisurely and detailed fashion with the presenter. Presenters considered posters "less threatening" than oral presentations and valued posters for the networking opportunities they created. However, posters were reported to be more demanding on the skills of précis and their preparation was considered arduous and more expensive than an oral presentation. Posters were also perceived to have lower academic status and dominate the presenter's time at the conference, reducing the opportunities for them to see the work of others. Suggestions for incorporating technologies to enhance the impact of posters included QR codes to access more detailed information, pre-recorded presentations, and online interactive clarification sessions with poster authors. Conclusion: Posters are perceived as a valuable mode of presentation at scientific conferences by presenters and viewers. Their unique strengths challenge the perception that posters are somehow inferior to oral presentations, suggesting a need for their advantages to be promoted by researchers and conference organisers. The incorporation of technology within the traditional display may enhance poster utility. Given the time and money spent on academic conferences there is an urgent need to evaluate the different styles of presentation used at conferences and how they differ in their ability to impact on medical science knowledge and evidence-based clinical practice. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-022-01657-z.

Outcome Measurements Used in Randomized Controlled Trials of Teledermatology: A Systematic Mapping Review.

Assessment of the effectiveness of teledermatology has been hampered by the variety of outcome measures used, limiting the possibility for meta-analysis. This systematic mapping review classified the outcome measurement instruments used in randomized controlled trials of teledermatology conducted between 2008 and 2018 using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy. Sixteen articles describing 12 studies were identified. Each trial used a mean of 3.7 outcome measurements (range 2-7) , with a total of 55 different instruments employed. Most instruments mapped on the "skin and subcutaneous tissue outcomes" domain. The most frequently used instrument (Dermatology Life Quality Index) was used in only 3 studies. Over 60% of the instruments used did not cite any evidence of validation. This mapping review provides a list of outcome measurement instruments that can be used as a resource when designing teledermatology trials in the future and provides the foundation for the development of a core outcome set.

Patient preferences for hepatitis B therapy.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about patient preferences for selection of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) treatment. This issue is important as it affects the therapeutic choices available for patients and, in the long term, the health of CHB patients. METHODS: The study was a questionnaire-led survey directed at patients attending a CHB follow-up clinic. Patients were asked questions regarding their knowledge on CHB treatment, preferred route and frequency of administration, duration of treatment, cost, adverse events, viral resistance, efficacy and whether treatment options were discussed with doctors. Patients were also asked to rank their priorities when selecting treatment for CHB. In addition, a summary of the profile of current agents was shown to patients who were then asked to select their preferred therapy. Finally, patients were asked questions regarding their willingness to pay for CHB treatment and expectations of treatment. Questionnaires were self-administered and statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 10.0). RESULTS: Lamivudine was the best-known drug among patients. Only 30% of patients were treatment-naive. Most patients preferred oral therapy with once-daily dosing and a fixed duration of treatment. Drug efficacy was considered the most important factor in drug selection. When shown the profile of the different drugs available for the treatment of CHB, entecavir was the preferred choice of therapy. The majority of patients were willing to spend no more than S$10 (USD 8) daily for therapy with expectation of cure for their disease. Overall, 92% of patients would follow doctor's recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' preferences are important in evaluating drug selection for CHB.