Call for Abstracts

Oral presentations are intended for work with a clear question, approach, evidence and message for an international audience.

Presentations will normally be limited to approximately 10 minutes, allowing each session to include meaningful moderated discussion. Detailed presentation and slide guidance will be provided after acceptance.

An oral submission should be focused. Authors should select the finding, implementation question or lesson that will be most useful to delegates rather than attempting to describe every aspect of a large programme or project.

A maximum of two presenters may be named.

Posters are a full scientific or practice contribution and are particularly suitable for work that benefits from visual explanation, emerging findings, methods, implementation journeys and focused case examples.

Posters will be grouped thematically and actively programmed. Depending on the final conference programme and venue arrangements, selected posters may also be invited to take part in a poster walk, facilitated discussion or short oral pitch.

Authors should be prepared to produce a poster and provide a concise verbal overview during the scheduled poster session.

Final poster dimensions and printed or digital requirements will be confirmed after acceptance.

A maximum of two presenters may be named.

An Interactive Workshop is an active learning space rather than a sequence of presentations.

It should enable participants to work with an idea, method, tool, problem or implementation challenge and leave with a defined insight, output, plan or practical resource.

Workshop proposals should be designed around approximately 20% presentation and 80% active participation.

Simply stating that participants will take part in small-group discussion is not sufficient. The proposal should explain the purpose of the interaction, what participants will do, how the activity will be facilitated, how the method will work for the anticipated group, and what participants will take away.

Authors may request a 60-minute or 90-minute workshop and must explain why the proposed method requires that duration. The Programme Team will make the final decision on workshop duration on the basis of the session design, available programme space and overall programme fit.

Workshops must name two to four confirmed facilitators and include a separate timed facilitation plan.

An Implementation Exchange gives delegates direct access to a team that has designed, delivered, evaluated or adapted an integrated care reform, programme, project or substantial body of work.

It should bring together three or four people with distinct roles or perspectives to provide one coherent account of implementation, outcomes, challenges, adaptation and learning.

This format is appropriate where the different perspectives are necessary to understand the work. Contributors may include implementers, system or policy leaders, practitioners, researchers or evaluators, community partners and people with lived experience.

At least one contributor should have direct experience of implementing the work.

Where the programme or reform substantially affects a defined community or population group, the proposal should explain whether and how that perspective has informed the work and will be represented within the session.

An Implementation Exchange is not a panel of loosely related presentations and should not reproduce several separate abstracts from the same project.

The session plan must demonstrate a clear common purpose, explain why each contributor is needed, identify the evidence or experience each will draw on, and show how delegates will be able to question, compare and apply the learning.

Three or four contributors must be named at submission. At least three must register, attend and actively contribute if the session is accepted. If this becomes impossible, the Programme Team may need to reformat or withdraw the session.

This format is intended for initiatives, interventions, policies, programmes or reforms that did not work as planned, stalled, produced unintended consequences or required substantial adaptation.

The purpose is to create space for rigorous and constructive learning from difficulty, uncertainty and failure within integrated care.

Strong submissions should explain what was intended, what actually happened and how this was identified, the organisational or contextual factors involved, what changed in response, and what others can learn from the experience.

Evidence may be quantitative, qualitative, experiential or drawn from implementation and evaluation, provided that the conclusions are supported by a credible account of what occurred.

Honest reflection will be valued. Unsupported criticism, retrospective blame or accounts that identify failure without examining why it occurred are unlikely to score highly.

Authors do not need to demonstrate that the initiative ultimately became successful. Reviewers will assess the quality of the analysis, reflection and learning rather than whether the original intervention achieved its intended outcome.

A maximum of two presenters may be named.

Accepted submissions will normally be brought together within a facilitated Failure, Misfires and Lessons Learned session or forum. Final presentation timing and arrangements will be confirmed after acceptance.