2016 SCMR Scientific Sessions - Evaluation

1. 2016 SCMR Scientific Sessions - Evaluation

We would appreciate your opinions on the 2016 SCMR Scientific Sessions. Please take a few minutes to complete this survey, with a rating of 1 being poor and 5 being excellent.

Thank you!

Question Title

* 1. Overall Program Evaluation

	1 = Poor	2 = Fair	3 = Good	4 = Very Good	5 = Excellent
Program format	Program format 1 = Poor	Program format 2 = Fair	Program format 3 = Good	Program format 4 = Very Good	Program format 5 = Excellent
Amount of information presented	Amount of information presented 1 = Poor	Amount of information presented 2 = Fair	Amount of information presented 3 = Good	Amount of information presented 4 = Very Good	Amount of information presented 5 = Excellent
Scientific rigor	Scientific rigor 1 = Poor	Scientific rigor 2 = Fair	Scientific rigor 3 = Good	Scientific rigor 4 = Very Good	Scientific rigor 5 = Excellent
Level of instruction (caliber of faculty)	Level of instruction (caliber of faculty) 1 = Poor	Level of instruction (caliber of faculty) 2 = Fair	Level of instruction (caliber of faculty) 3 = Good	Level of instruction (caliber of faculty) 4 = Very Good	Level of instruction (caliber of faculty) 5 = Excellent
Time allotted for presentations	Time allotted for presentations 1 = Poor	Time allotted for presentations 2 = Fair	Time allotted for presentations 3 = Good	Time allotted for presentations 4 = Very Good	Time allotted for presentations 5 = Excellent
Time allotted for discussion	Time allotted for discussion 1 = Poor	Time allotted for discussion 2 = Fair	Time allotted for discussion 3 = Good	Time allotted for discussion 4 = Very Good	Time allotted for discussion 5 = Excellent

Question Title

* 2. Program Quality Assessment

	1 = Poor	2 = Fair	3 = Good	4 = Very Good	5 = Excellent
Overall objectivity and balance	Overall objectivity and balance 1 = Poor	Overall objectivity and balance 2 = Fair	Overall objectivity and balance 3 = Good	Overall objectivity and balance 4 = Very Good	Overall objectivity and balance 5 = Excellent
Usefulness of program materials	Usefulness of program materials 1 = Poor	Usefulness of program materials 2 = Fair	Usefulness of program materials 3 = Good	Usefulness of program materials 4 = Very Good	Usefulness of program materials 5 = Excellent
Clinical relevancy	Clinical relevancy 1 = Poor	Clinical relevancy 2 = Fair	Clinical relevancy 3 = Good	Clinical relevancy 4 = Very Good	Clinical relevancy 5 = Excellent
Off-label product use identification	Off-label product use identification 1 = Poor	Off-label product use identification 2 = Fair	Off-label product use identification 3 = Good	Off-label product use identification 4 = Very Good	Off-label product use identification 5 = Excellent

Question Title

* 3. How well did this program fulfill the following learning objectives:

	1 = Poor	2 = Fair	3 = Good	4 = Very Good	5 = Excellent
-Plan, perform, and analyze CMR examinations	-Plan, perform, and analyze CMR examinations 1 = Poor	-Plan, perform, and analyze CMR examinations 2 = Fair	-Plan, perform, and analyze CMR examinations 3 = Good	-Plan, perform, and analyze CMR examinations 4 = Very Good	-Plan, perform, and analyze CMR examinations 5 = Excellent
-Plan and conduct appropriately designed clinical trials	-Plan and conduct appropriately designed clinical trials 1 = Poor	-Plan and conduct appropriately designed clinical trials 2 = Fair	-Plan and conduct appropriately designed clinical trials 3 = Good	-Plan and conduct appropriately designed clinical trials 4 = Very Good	-Plan and conduct appropriately designed clinical trials 5 = Excellent
-Apply the principles of MR physics relevant to image quality, data reliability, and patient safety	-Apply the principles of MR physics relevant to image quality, data reliability, and patient safety 1 = Poor	-Apply the principles of MR physics relevant to image quality, data reliability, and patient safety 2 = Fair	-Apply the principles of MR physics relevant to image quality, data reliability, and patient safety 3 = Good	-Apply the principles of MR physics relevant to image quality, data reliability, and patient safety 4 = Very Good	-Apply the principles of MR physics relevant to image quality, data reliability, and patient safety 5 = Excellent

Question Title

* 4. Were the presentations free of commercial bias?

Yes

Please explain

Question Title

* 5. These Scientific Sessions:

	1 = Strongly disagree	2 = Disagree	3 = Neutral	4 = Agree	5 = Strongly agree
Are relevant to my practice	Are relevant to my practice 1 = Strongly disagree	Are relevant to my practice 2 = Disagree	Are relevant to my practice 3 = Neutral	Are relevant to my practice 4 = Agree	Are relevant to my practice 5 = Strongly agree
Met my expectations	Met my expectations 1 = Strongly disagree	Met my expectations 2 = Disagree	Met my expectations 3 = Neutral	Met my expectations 4 = Agree	Met my expectations 5 = Strongly agree
Enhanced my ability to educate colleagues and patients	Enhanced my ability to educate colleagues and patients 1 = Strongly disagree	Enhanced my ability to educate colleagues and patients 2 = Disagree	Enhanced my ability to educate colleagues and patients 3 = Neutral	Enhanced my ability to educate colleagues and patients 4 = Agree	Enhanced my ability to educate colleagues and patients 5 = Strongly agree
Reinforced existing knowledge	Reinforced existing knowledge 1 = Strongly disagree	Reinforced existing knowledge 2 = Disagree	Reinforced existing knowledge 3 = Neutral	Reinforced existing knowledge 4 = Agree	Reinforced existing knowledge 5 = Strongly agree

Question Title

* 6. Which sessions stand out for you as having been most beneficial?

Question Title

* 7. Are there any particular sessions which stand out as having fallen short of your expectations?

Yes

Other (please specify)

Question Title

* 8. As a result of participating in this activity, will you make any significant changes in your role?

Yes

Possibly…..I am contemplating change, but would need more information and/or education

No, but the content affirms my current behavior/practice

No, I am unable to implement those suggested changes

If yes, please identify any significant changes to your role.

Question Title

* 9. If contemplating changes, please identify additional tools, education, resources that would be helpful to you.

Question Title

* 10. If no, what barriers may exist to prevent you from making changes? (check all that apply)

Not applicable to my practice / role

Limited resources (no staff, no time)

Further training is needed

Resistance to change (by me or staff or health system, etc.)

Reimbursement issues

Cultural / religious beliefs conflict

Other (please explain)

Question Title

* 11. What suggestions or system changes would you recommend to overcome these barriers?

Question Title

* 12. Do you feel there is an appropriate balance between invited lectures, oral abstracts, and case reviews?

Yes

If no, please explain

Question Title

* 13. Posters Evaluation

	1 = Poor	2 = Fair	3 = Good	4 = Very Good	5 = Excellent
Number of accepted posters	Number of accepted posters 1 = Poor	Number of accepted posters 2 = Fair	Number of accepted posters 3 = Good	Number of accepted posters 4 = Very Good	Number of accepted posters 5 = Excellent
Scientific quality	Scientific quality 1 = Poor	Scientific quality 2 = Fair	Scientific quality 3 = Good	Scientific quality 4 = Very Good	Scientific quality 5 = Excellent
Quality of poster presentations	Quality of poster presentations 1 = Poor	Quality of poster presentations 2 = Fair	Quality of poster presentations 3 = Good	Quality of poster presentations 4 = Very Good	Quality of poster presentations 5 = Excellent

Comment:

Question Title

* 14. Oral Abstracts Evaluation

	1 = Poor	2 = Fair	3 = Good	4 = Very Good	5 = Excellent
Scientific quality	Scientific quality 1 = Poor	Scientific quality 2 = Fair	Scientific quality 3 = Good	Scientific quality 4 = Very Good	Scientific quality 5 = Excellent

Comment:

Question Title

* 15. Please rate the importance of the following in choosing to attend the Scientific Sessions:

	1 = Not at all	2 = Not very	3 = Somewhat	4 = Very	5 = Extremely
Topics	Topics 1 = Not at all	Topics 2 = Not very	Topics 3 = Somewhat	Topics 4 = Very	Topics 5 = Extremely
State-of-the-art lectures/abstracts	State-of-the-art lectures/abstracts 1 = Not at all	State-of-the-art lectures/abstracts 2 = Not very	State-of-the-art lectures/abstracts 3 = Somewhat	State-of-the-art lectures/abstracts 4 = Very	State-of-the-art lectures/abstracts 5 = Extremely
Speaker's reputations	Speaker's reputations 1 = Not at all	Speaker's reputations 2 = Not very	Speaker's reputations 3 = Somewhat	Speaker's reputations 4 = Very	Speaker's reputations 5 = Extremely
CME credit	CME credit 1 = Not at all	CME credit 2 = Not very	CME credit 3 = Somewhat	CME credit 4 = Very	CME credit 5 = Extremely
Program schedule	Program schedule 1 = Not at all	Program schedule 2 = Not very	Program schedule 3 = Somewhat	Program schedule 4 = Very	Program schedule 5 = Extremely
Meet with colleagues	Meet with colleagues 1 = Not at all	Meet with colleagues 2 = Not very	Meet with colleagues 3 = Somewhat	Meet with colleagues 4 = Very	Meet with colleagues 5 = Extremely

Question Title

* 16. Please rate the importance of the following in choosing to attend the Scientific Sessions:

	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th
Topics	Topics 1st	Topics 2nd	Topics 3rd	Topics 4th	Topics 5th	Topics 6th
State-of-the-art lectures/abstracts	State-of-the-art lectures/abstracts 1st	State-of-the-art lectures/abstracts 2nd	State-of-the-art lectures/abstracts 3rd	State-of-the-art lectures/abstracts 4th	State-of-the-art lectures/abstracts 5th	State-of-the-art lectures/abstracts 6th
Speakers' reputations	Speakers' reputations 1st	Speakers' reputations 2nd	Speakers' reputations 3rd	Speakers' reputations 4th	Speakers' reputations 5th	Speakers' reputations 6th
CME Credit	CME Credit 1st	CME Credit 2nd	CME Credit 3rd	CME Credit 4th	CME Credit 5th	CME Credit 6th
Program Schedule	Program Schedule 1st	Program Schedule 2nd	Program Schedule 3rd	Program Schedule 4th	Program Schedule 5th	Program Schedule 6th
Meet with colleagues	Meet with colleagues 1st	Meet with colleagues 2nd	Meet with colleagues 3rd	Meet with colleagues 4th	Meet with colleagues 5th	Meet with colleagues 6th

Question Title

* 17. Please indicate your level of interest in the following learning formats for CME:

	1 = Very low	2 = Low	3 = Average	4 = High	5 = Very High
Webinar	Webinar 1 = Very low	Webinar 2 = Low	Webinar 3 = Average	Webinar 4 = High	Webinar 5 = Very High
On-line	On-line 1 = Very low	On-line 2 = Low	On-line 3 = Average	On-line 4 = High	On-line 5 = Very High
Case studies	Case studies 1 = Very low	Case studies 2 = Low	Case studies 3 = Average	Case studies 4 = High	Case studies 5 = Very High
Panel discussion	Panel discussion 1 = Very low	Panel discussion 2 = Low	Panel discussion 3 = Average	Panel discussion 4 = High	Panel discussion 5 = Very High
Small group discussions	Small group discussions 1 = Very low	Small group discussions 2 = Low	Small group discussions 3 = Average	Small group discussions 4 = High	Small group discussions 5 = Very High
Symposium	Symposium 1 = Very low	Symposium 2 = Low	Symposium 3 = Average	Symposium 4 = High	Symposium 5 = Very High
Live demonstrations	Live demonstrations 1 = Very low	Live demonstrations 2 = Low	Live demonstrations 3 = Average	Live demonstrations 4 = High	Live demonstrations 5 = Very High

Question Title

* 18. Please rate the following in terms of fulfilling your expectations?

	1 = Very low	2 = Low	3 = Average	4 = High	5 = Very High
General organization (registration, etc)	General organization (registration, etc) 1 = Very low	General organization (registration, etc) 2 = Low	General organization (registration, etc) 3 = Average	General organization (registration, etc) 4 = High	General organization (registration, etc) 5 = Very High
The quality of the meeting website	The quality of the meeting website 1 = Very low	The quality of the meeting website 2 = Low	The quality of the meeting website 3 = Average	The quality of the meeting website 4 = High	The quality of the meeting website 5 = Very High
Clarity and usefulness of the Final Program	Clarity and usefulness of the Final Program 1 = Very low	Clarity and usefulness of the Final Program 2 = Low	Clarity and usefulness of the Final Program 3 = Average	Clarity and usefulness of the Final Program 4 = High	Clarity and usefulness of the Final Program 5 = Very High
Quality of audio-visual systems	Quality of audio-visual systems 1 = Very low	Quality of audio-visual systems 2 = Low	Quality of audio-visual systems 3 = Average	Quality of audio-visual systems 4 = High	Quality of audio-visual systems 5 = Very High
The meeting venue (e.g. ease of access, room size, general ambiance)	The meeting venue (e.g. ease of access, room size, general ambiance) 1 = Very low	The meeting venue (e.g. ease of access, room size, general ambiance) 2 = Low	The meeting venue (e.g. ease of access, room size, general ambiance) 3 = Average	The meeting venue (e.g. ease of access, room size, general ambiance) 4 = High	The meeting venue (e.g. ease of access, room size, general ambiance) 5 = Very High
Quality of food and coffee during breaks	Quality of food and coffee during breaks 1 = Very low	Quality of food and coffee during breaks 2 = Low	Quality of food and coffee during breaks 3 = Average	Quality of food and coffee during breaks 4 = High	Quality of food and coffee during breaks 5 = Very High
The city chosen as a location	The city chosen as a location 1 = Very low	The city chosen as a location 2 = Low	The city chosen as a location 3 = Average	The city chosen as a location 4 = High	The city chosen as a location 5 = Very High
Quality of the preconference courses	Quality of the preconference courses 1 = Very low	Quality of the preconference courses 2 = Low	Quality of the preconference courses 3 = Average	Quality of the preconference courses 4 = High	Quality of the preconference courses 5 = Very High
Quality of the lecture sessions	Quality of the lecture sessions 1 = Very low	Quality of the lecture sessions 2 = Low	Quality of the lecture sessions 3 = Average	Quality of the lecture sessions 4 = High	Quality of the lecture sessions 5 = Very High
Quality of the case review sessions	Quality of the case review sessions 1 = Very low	Quality of the case review sessions 2 = Low	Quality of the case review sessions 3 = Average	Quality of the case review sessions 4 = High	Quality of the case review sessions 5 = Very High
Quality of the poster sessions	Quality of the poster sessions 1 = Very low	Quality of the poster sessions 2 = Low	Quality of the poster sessions 3 = Average	Quality of the poster sessions 4 = High	Quality of the poster sessions 5 = Very High
Quality of oral abstracts	Quality of oral abstracts 1 = Very low	Quality of oral abstracts 2 = Low	Quality of oral abstracts 3 = Average	Quality of oral abstracts 4 = High	Quality of oral abstracts 5 = Very High
The exhibit area	The exhibit area 1 = Very low	The exhibit area 2 = Low	The exhibit area 3 = Average	The exhibit area 4 = High	The exhibit area 5 = Very High
Networking opportunities during the meeting	Networking opportunities during the meeting 1 = Very low	Networking opportunities during the meeting 2 = Low	Networking opportunities during the meeting 3 = Average	Networking opportunities during the meeting 4 = High	Networking opportunities during the meeting 5 = Very High
Meeting App	Meeting App 1 = Very low	Meeting App 2 = Low	Meeting App 3 = Average	Meeting App 4 = High	Meeting App 5 = Very High

Question Title

* 19. In terms of your practice/research, what topics would you like to see addressed or would be most helpful to you (in other words...what keeps you up at night).

Question Title

* 20. Professional Specialty (select one only):

Cardiologist

Radiologist

Non-physician Scientist

Nuclear Medicine

Physician (other specialty)

Technologist/Allied Health

Non-medical

Other

Other (please specify)

Question Title

* 21. Are you a member of:

SCMR

EACVI or EACVI Section CMR

A national CMR society

Question Title

* 22. Would you recommend this conference to others:

Yes

Question Title

* 23. What type of pattern would you prefer for the next Annual Meeting?

Thursday- Saturday

Thursday- Sunday

Other (please specify)

Question Title

* 1. Overall Program Evaluation

Question Title

* 2. Program Quality Assessment

Question Title

* 3. How well did this program fulfill the following learning objectives:

Question Title

* 4. Were the presentations free of commercial bias?

Question Title

* 5. These Scientific Sessions:

Question Title

* 6. Which sessions stand out for you as having been most beneficial?

Question Title

* 7. Are there any particular sessions which stand out as having fallen short of your expectations?

Question Title

* 8. As a result of participating in this activity, will you make any significant changes in your role?

Question Title

* 9. If contemplating changes, please identify additional tools, education, resources that would be helpful to you.

Question Title

* 10. If no, what barriers may exist to prevent you from making changes? (check all that apply)

Question Title

* 11. What suggestions or system changes would you recommend to overcome these barriers?

Question Title

* 12. Do you feel there is an appropriate balance between invited lectures, oral abstracts, and case reviews?

Question Title

* 13. Posters Evaluation

Question Title

* 14. Oral Abstracts Evaluation

Question Title

* 15. Please rate the importance of the following in choosing to attend the Scientific Sessions:

Question Title

* 16. Please rate the importance of the following in choosing to attend the Scientific Sessions:

Question Title

* 17. Please indicate your level of interest in the following learning formats for CME:

Question Title

* 18. Please rate the following in terms of fulfilling your expectations?

Question Title

* 19. In terms of your practice/research, what topics would you like to see addressed or would be most helpful to you (in other words...what keeps you up at night).

Question Title

* 20. Professional Specialty (select one only):

Question Title

* 21. Are you a member of:

Question Title

* 22. Would you recommend this conference to others:

Question Title

* 23. What type of pattern would you prefer for the next Annual Meeting?

Question Title

* 24. Additional comments: