I received sufficient information on the conference inadvance
Information via Email was effective
Information provided on the website was useful
13 / 23
INEBRIA 2016 - Conference Evaluation
Q10 General Conference Feedback: pleaserate the following statements.
Réponses obtenues : 34 Question ignorée : 0
0,00%0
0,00%0
2,94%1
61,76%21
35,29%12
34
0,00%0
2,94%1
2,94%1
73,53%25
20,59%7
34
0,00%0
5,88%2
11,76%4
61,76%21
20,59%7
34
0,00%0
0,00%0
8,82%3
50,00%17
41,18%14
34
0,00%0
0,00%0
3,03%1
54,55%18
42,42%14
33
0,00%0
0,00%0
5,88%2
64,71%22
29,41%10
34
3,23%1
3,23%1
29,03%9
38,71%12
25,81%8
31
0,00%0
0,00%0
9,09%3
72,73%24
18,18%6
33
Stronglydisagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Total
The issues raised at the conference were important and usefulto deal with
The duration of each session was appropriate
The individual presenters had adequate time to present theirmaterial
The subjects covered at this conference were relevant to mywork
The conference provided adequate networking and collaborativeopportunities
The number and length of breaks were adequate
The social program was attractive
The concurrent sessions helped me to increase my knowledgeand skills
14 / 23
INEBRIA 2016 - Conference Evaluation
0,00% 0
8,82% 3
91,18% 31
Q11 Was the conference...Réponses obtenues : 34 Question ignorée : 0
Total 34
Too many days
Too few days
Just the rightnumber of days
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Choix de réponses Réponses
Too many days
Too few days
Just the right number of days
15 / 23
INEBRIA 2016 - Conference Evaluation
0,00% 0
26,47% 9
70,59% 24
2,94% 1
Q12 How many days should this conferencebe (including preconference)?
Réponses obtenues : 34 Question ignorée : 0
Total 34
1 day
2 days
3 days
4 days
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Choix de réponses Réponses
1 day
2 days
3 days
4 days
16 / 23
INEBRIA 2016 - Conference Evaluation
8,82% 3
0,00% 0
91,18% 31
Q13 Were the days at the conference...Réponses obtenues : 34 Question ignorée : 0
Total 34
Too long
Too short
Just right
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Choix de réponses Réponses
Too long
Too short
Just right
17 / 23
INEBRIA 2016 - Conference Evaluation
Q14 Particular Aspects of the Conference:please rate the following statements.
Réponses obtenues : 34 Question ignorée : 0
0,00%0
2,94%1
0,00%0
23,53%8
73,53%25
0,00%0
34
0,00%0
0,00%0
8,82%3
47,06%16
38,24%13
5,88%2
34
0,00%0
0,00%0
15,15%5
30,30%10
45,45%15
9,09%3
33
0,00%0
0,00%0
8,82%3
29,41%10
29,41%10
32,35%11
34
0,00%0
3,03%1
15,15%5
30,30%10
36,36%12
15,15%5
33
0,00%0
0,00%0
11,76%4
29,41%10
55,88%19
2,94%1
34
Inadequate Belowaverage
Average Good Excellent Did notattend
Total
Plenary sessions
Concurrent oral abstractpresentations
Concurrent Symposia
Concurrent workshop presentations
Poster sessions
Welcome desk
18 / 23
INEBRIA 2016 - Conference Evaluation
0,00%0
0,00%0
8,82%3
50,00%17
38,24%13
2,94%1
34
3,13%1
15,63%5
21,88%7
15,63%5
40,63%13
3,13%1
32
2,94%1
5,88%2
29,41%10
35,29%12
26,47%9
0,00%0
34
3,03%1
3,03%1
0,00%0
15,15%5
36,36%12
42,42%14
33
0,00%0
3,03%1
15,15%5
21,21%7
51,52%17
9,09%3
33
Registration system
Lunch
Venue (CHUV)
Conference dinner (Tribeca)
Audio visual equipment
19 / 23
INEBRIA 2016 - Conference Evaluation
Q15 Any comments on the best sessions?Réponses obtenues : 9 Question ignorée : 25
# Réponses
1 It was wonderful to see Dr. Rollnick role-playing with a simulated patient. Learned a lot from observing.
2 Plenaries were excellent
3 Eileen Kaner
4 I enjoyed the simulated patient in Steve Rollnick's plenary - she was a star
5 Plenaries were the best sessions
6 Generally excellent esp Gail D'Onofrio and EileenKaner
7 All plenary presentations were excellent.
8 no
9 The session by Janice Pringle was excellent!
20 / 23
INEBRIA 2016 - Conference Evaluation
Q16 Any comments on the worst sessions?Réponses obtenues : 8 Question ignorée : 26
# Réponses
1 Some sessions were difficult to hear due to background noise.
2 None
3 n/a
4 Workshop 1 - pretty weak& timetabled against information tech & SBI which was relevant to the same audiance
5 The medical students were very noisy and disruptive on day 1 of the conference and this impacted on quality ofdiscussion at some of the sessions.
6 no
7 N/a
8 Sometimes too many egos
21 / 23
INEBRIA 2016 - Conference Evaluation
Q17 Any comments on the format of theoverall conference?
Réponses obtenues : 11 Question ignorée : 23
# Réponses
1 Excellent
2 The conference was well organized and I really enjoyed it. Thank you for an inspiring INEBRIA conference 2016!
3 Good
4 Very good!
5 great
6 Excellent conference
7 Expensive for 2 conference days - but all the material was high quality
8 Workshops were scheduled to appear in an auditorium. This type of vnue is not suitable for a workshop. Workshopsshould have been held in classrooms so that small group work could be performed.
9 no
10 It had good structure and a mixture of formats
11 Very well done
22 / 23
INEBRIA 2016 - Conference Evaluation
Q18 Any recommendations for futureconference format and content?
Réponses obtenues : 8 Question ignorée : 26
# Réponses
1 This is about right
2 Reducing fees!
3 keep on keeping on
4 Very limited dietary options: at the expensive end of conferences for 2 days
5 More time for cultural activities
6 no
7 It was excellent thank you
8 More events for new and developing researchers, great to hear from the estabalished but often this takes over and wedont hear enough from those who are our future
