Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Nederlands | Norsk | Polski | Português | Pусский | Suomi | Svenska | US
Euro Huntington's disease network [logo]
[2018-12-11-U4MN] EHDN 2018 - Evaluation & Feedback Survey -
The European Huntington's Disease Network would be most grateful if you could take a few minutes to complete the following anonymous and confidential questionnaire. Your evaluation and your comments will help the Organising Committee in planning the next EHDN Plenary Meeting and will assist in further improving format and contents. We would therefore appreciate very much that if you score less than "satisfactory" for any items could you please expand on your reasons in the comment box at the bottom of this form.

Please fill in the evaluation form now; this form will be available online for 6 weeks (up to 29 October 2018).

Please do not forget to hit the button Submit Feedback at the bottom once you have completed the form; otherwise your responses will not be transmitted to the database.

In order to submit a second feedback form, please CLICK HERE.
  
General
 Area of work/association with HD:
Clinician (MD)
Professional involved in care/assessments
Basic Scientist
Delegate of EHA/family member
Other
 What was your main reason for attending:
Clinical practice update
Basic science update
Clinical trial update
Networking (ie. meeting others)
 Country of origin:
Organisation and Stay
poormediocresatisfactorygoodexcellent 
Organisation of the meeting          
Choice of the time of year for holding the meeting          
Information given before the meeting          
Presentation of EHDN2018 on the internet          
Support given by the staff during my stay          
Usefulness of conference app          
Quality of catering service          
Saturday evening event          
Suitability of meeting venue          
 Was there enough time to meet colleagues?
 Did the conference venue make networking easy?
 Do you think the conference size (ie. number of attendees) was:
Meeting
 Overall impression: poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Structuring of sessions (introduction, talks, discussion): poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Appropriateness of presentations for diverse audience: poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Selection of topics: poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Consideration given to pronouncing clearly & not speaking too quickly: poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Time given for discussion: poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Poster viewing: Quality of the posters presented: poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Balance of meeting time and time to meet and relax: poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Motivation when leaving the meeting: poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Were your expectations met, ie. did you get out of the meeting what you wanted to?
 Was there enough new information that influences the way you think about HD?
Sessions
 Quality of keynote session I: 'Past, Present, Future': poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Quality of plenary session I: 'What's New in HD Biology: Insights into Pathogenic Pathways and Therapeutic Targets': poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Quality of science session I: 'EHDN projects': poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Quality of clinical practice session I: 'Care for HD': poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Quality of Short Communications I: 'Scientific Presentations': poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Quality of plenary session II: 'Dialing Huntingtin Down': poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Quality of Q&A Panel Discussion Friday: poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Quality of Lumbar Puncture Workshop: poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Quality of Meet the Expert Session: poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Which session did you attend:
 Quality of Breakfast Teaching Course: 'Saturday': poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Which one did you attend:
 Quality of plenary session III: 'Keeping Brain Cells Functioning - Can we slow Disease Progression': poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Quality of science session II: 'EHDN Working Groups': poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Quality of clinical practice session II: 'Psychological and psychiatric session': poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Quality of plenary session IV: 'Living with HD': poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Quality of Short Communications II: poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Quality of Workshop: Talking to Kids about HD: poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Quality of plenary session V: 'EDHN Business Meeting'': poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Quality of Debate Session: poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Quality of Saturday Evening Get Together: 'Viennese Heuriger': poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Choice of Movie Selection: poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Quality of Breakfast Teaching Course: 'Sunday': poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Which one did you attend:
 Quality of plenary session VI: 'Clinical Trials': poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Quality of keynote session II: 'Huntingtin-lowering antisense oligonucleotide trials in the clinic': poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Quality of Q&A Panel Discussion Sunday: poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
 Quality of Roundup and Poster Awards: poor mediocre satisfactory good excellent
Additional Feedback
 Comments: