ArticleJournal of safety research2017
A post-conference evaluation of the 2015 National Occupational Injury Research Symposium.
Article in Journal of safety research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe National Occupational Injury Research Symposium (NOIRS) is the only national forum focused on occupational injury research findings, data and methods, and prevention strategies; it has been convened every 3-5years since 1997. Held in May 2015, the 6th symposium's theme was "Advancing Occupational Injury Research through Integration and Partnership." Organizers requested that attendees complete a post-meeting evaluation to assess meeting impact, and gather information useful in planning subsequent meetings and activities.
methodThe questionnaire was publicized via a quick response code and link to the survey on symposium book cover, and mentioned at each scientific session. The online survey was designed to be completed in ≤15min; no identifying information was collected. Survey link remained open for seven days post-symposium.
resultsAbout 50% of registered attendees responded. Almost half were attending their first NOIRS. Most were researchers (69%); 45% were affiliated with government and 38% with university or research institute. Five of six reported that the symposium mostly or completely met expectations. Reasons for attending included gaining exposure to new areas of research (87%), sharing their research (80%), and to develop new ideas for conducting research (79%). The majority (90%) reported that the symposium provided adequate networking opportunities. The conference venue was reported as good or better by 69%, moreso among repeat attendees (77%) compared to first-timers (61%). DISCUSSION: The evaluation demonstrated that NOIRS was valuable to attendees, and provided a forum for sharing research results, developing new research ideas, and networking. Respondents provided input on different aspects of NOIRS and suggestions useful in planning next NOIRS, tentatively scheduled for 2018. NOIRS 2015 objectives for integration across disciplines and partnership with industry and safety professionals were partially met. In planning NOIRS 2018, more attention should be paid to attracting and engaging a broader spectrum of attendees.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.