Annual Meeting Continues To Garner Rave Reviews

APA’s 2001 annual meeting in New Orleans was a meeting of firsts. Not only was the general attendance unsurpassed by all previous meetings, but more international members than ever before flocked to the Crescent City, according to a report evaluating the meeting.

The report, which was prepared by Kathleen Debenham, director of APA’s Department of Continuing Medical Education, was presented to the Scientific Program Committee at its July meeting in Washington, D.C.

“Ninety-eight percent of respondents to the general evaluation believed the quality of the annual meeting sessions to be excellent,” the report pointed out. “Ninety-nine percent of respondents felt that the sessions met their educational objectives.”

Total attendance at the meeting was 19,887, which beat the previous record attendance, which was at the 1999 annual meeting in Washington D.C., by more than 1,000 attendees.

According to the report, “The strong presence of national and international participants in New Orleans confirmed APA’s annual meeting as the premier international meeting for psychiatrists.”

In addition to Canada, which far and away led the international contingent with 1,051 registrants, countries represented by more than 150 registrants included France (385), United Kingdom (294), Spain (276), the Netherlands (193), Italy (308), Argentina (226), Portugal (251), Switzerland (190), Denmark (168), and Germany (193).

The large meeting attracted a large number of media to publicize it—213 reporters and producers from 117 different media organizations registered in APA’s press office. Eighteen major print and electronic news media and 24 foreign media busily tracked meeting events.

Once exhibitors, staff, guests, and media representatives were subtracted from the total attendance, registration data show that 15,949 attendees registered to attend the scientific sessions, also the highest number on record.

APA utilized a variety of strategies to expand its monitoring of industry-supported symposia (ISS) to ensure that the material presented in these sessions was balanced and unbiased.

Since 1998 APA has used the ISS Resident Monitor Program for both the annual meeting and the Institute on Psychiatric Services, held in October each year.

Residents in psychiatry attend the ISS and, using guidelines developed by APA’s Committee on Commercial Support, monitor the following: balance in each presentation, disclosure of conflict of interest by faculty, use of generic/brand names, disclosure of any discussion of unapproved or investigated uses, and any bias toward the supporting company’s products.

This year, the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) invited APA to collaborate in a review of commercially supported CME activities at annual meetings, so resident monitors of the industry-supported sessions answered some additional questions generated by ACCME and by APA. Aggregate results were tabulated and forwarded to the Scientific Program Committee, the Committee on Commercial Support, and the ACCME.

The results of the evaluation of those symposia indicated that APA’s oversight measures were effective, since overwhelming majorities of respondents agreed that “multiple viewpoints were presented” in the sessions (95 percent) and that “an unbiased view of the topic was presented” (94 percent).

In addition, 97 percent of respondents thought that the ISS would help them improve the effectiveness of their practices.

For the first time, the same oversight process was utilized by resident monitors in review of 15 non-ISS sessions at the meeting. Debenham noted that “the expanded monitoring program underscores APA’s dedication to providing balanced scientific sessions across all formats of the annual meeting.”

Approximately 8,200 (52 percent) 2001 annual meeting registrants identified themselves as psychiatrists. Of that number 1,543 were residents. Nonphysician health professionals made up only a small portion of the meeting registrants: 1 percent were psychologists, 2 percent nurses, and less than 1 percent were social workers.

Nearly 80 percent of evaluation respondents reported their primary professional activity as patient care, followed by administration, research, and teaching, at 6 percent each. Respondents also were asked to identify their primary work setting, and the percentage of respondents indicating “solo or group private practice” was 33 percent. Other categories of work settings reported were general hospital, 13 percent; university hospital, 16 percent; state/local facility, 6 percent; CMHC, 7 percent; VA facility, 5 percent; and staff-model HMO, 1 percent.

The meeting participants are also asked to include any changes they would like to see or criticisms on their evaluation form. The participants expressed interest in more sessions on psychotherapy of all types, child psychiatry, and medical updates, for instance.

Complaints were few. Due to the large meeting attendance, many participants commented on overcrowded meeting rooms.

The majority of the respondents, however, responded positively on the evaluation forms. As one member put it, “I liked the theme of ‘Mind Meets Brain’ very much, and found many formats grappling with this question. This made for a very intellectually satisfying meeting.”

The evaluation of the 2001 annual meeting was based on responses submitted on the General Evaluation Form, which was included with registration materials, distributed on site, and mailed to registrants after the meeting. The evaluation survey could also be completed at 10 computer terminals in the APA Resource Center and at kiosks in the Exhibit Hall.

This year registrants returned 5,237 completed general evaluation surveys.

Next year’s meeting will be held May 18 to 23 in Philadelphia. ▪