PART 1: Program Evaluation

Question Title

* 1. The conference met the stated learning objectives

  Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Objective 1: After active participation during the keynote presentation, attendees will be able to describe interventions for treatment-resistant depression that are currently under study and when to consider them.
Objective 2: After active participation in plenary presentations, attendees will identify recent research innovations in the Department of Psychiatry.

Question Title

* 2. Please rate the following aspects of the conference:

  Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Was relevant to my discipline/profession
Met my expectations 
Was well organized
Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest was clearly communicated
There were adequate opportunities to interact with my peers
I will use the information I learned in my practice

Question Title

* 3. Did you perceive any degree of bias in any part of the conference?

Question Title

* 4. Did you find that the conference was accessible?

Question Title

* 5. Did you find that the conference was inclusive?

The conference will encourage me to consider changes in my current practice

Question Title

* 6. YES, The changes I am considering are:

Question Title

* 7. NO, because:

Question Title

* 8. What suggestions do you have for improving the conference

Question Title

* 9. Please list any topics you would like to see addressed in future conference

Question Title

* 10. For physicians only: please indicate which CanMEDS/CanMEDS-FM roles you felt were addressed during this conference

PART 2: Session Evaluation

Question Title

* 11. Please assess the keynote speaker and plenary session presenters by choosing the appropriate number. ( 1 = Poor  2 = Fair  3 = Good 4 = Very Good 5 = Outstanding)

  Met Stated Objectives Content Enhanced My Knowledge Balanced & Unbiased Relevance to Practice Overall Time for Active Learning
Dr. Linda Carpenter (Keynote)
Dr. Lucy Barker
Dr. Benoit Mulsant
Dr. Zainab Furqan
Drs. Laura Best and Isabelle Boileau
Dr. Yuliya Nikolova

Question Title

* 12. Please assess the poster presentations session by choosing the appropriate number. ( 1 = Poor  2 = Fair  3 = Good 4 = Very Good 5 = Outstanding)

  Met Stated Objectives Content Enhanced My Knowledge Balanced & Unbiased Relevance to Practice Overall Time for Active Learning
Poster Viewing Session

Question Title

* 13. Please assess afternoon oral presentations and presenters for sessions you attended by choosing the appropriate number. ( 1 = Poor 2 = Fair 3 = Good 4 = Very Good 5 = Outstanding

  Clarity of Oral Presentation Clarity of Visual Presentation Balanced & Unbiased Relevant to Practice Overall Time for Active Learning
Karen Wang
Eulaine Ma
Kayla Hamel
Nikhita Singhal
Attia Khan
Iska Moxon-Emre
Adriano Mollica
Kody Kennedy
Mahavir Agarwal
Nidhi Kulkarni
Jessica Qian
Muhammad Shoaib
Kosar Teymouri
Nicholas Neufeld
Daniel Felsky
Enoch Ng
Samantha Burns
Susan Campisi
Megan Mio
Mikaela Dimick
Vera Men
Farhan Fancy
Saadia Sediqzadah
Josephine Francis Xavier
Shankar Tumati
Mohamed Abdelhack
Lindsay Oliver
Ju-Chi Yu
Shohreh Kariminezhad
Julia Gallucci
Kevan Clifford
Daniel Kapustin
Shreya Jha
Renee Lawson
Holly Stanczak
Johny Bozdarov
Brett Jones
Sakina Rizvi
Joshua Rosenblat
PART 3: Conference Logistics

Question Title

* 14. Please rate the following aspects of the conference:

  Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
The registration process was easy to use
The abstract submission process was intuitive and easy to use
Information about the conference on the website was useful
The venue met my expectations
The food met my expectations
PART 4: About You

Question Title

* 15. Department Affiliation

Question Title

* 16. How did you find out about Research Day

T