Clinical Research, Research in Progress, and Scholarship of Teaching and Learning applications are sent to members of the Research Committee for blinded review and evaluation with selection completed by Oct. 15.  All other applications are sent to members of the Conference Planning, Continuing Education and Professional Issues Committees for blinded review and evaluation with selection completed in  late October.  All selected individuals will be contacted via e-mail.

Clinical Research: The following rating questions will be required of the reviewer for each assigned abstract (up to 5 points each on questions 1-7 and 1 point for question 8). Max Score: 36 points.

1. Background and Significance are well developed.
2. Purpose of study is clearly stated. Research questions, or hypotheses are clearly defined if applicable.
3. Study design is described and is appropriate for research questions.
4. Methods are clearly written including sample, inclusion criteria, power analysis (if indicated), recruitment, IRB status, measures/ instruments. Data analysis is clearly defined and appropriate.
5. Results are presented in a clear and complete manner and answer the research questions/hypotheses.
6. Research outcomes have clinical or academic relevance to pediatric focused APRNs.
7. Discussion/conclusions/implications for practice are based on data and have scientific and clinical merit. Authors included thoughts for next steps, future research needed, and contributions to evidence in the specific area addressed. 
8. Does the application appropriately speak to one of NAPNAP’s Research Agenda priorities? (Yes = 1/No = 0)

Research in Progress: The following rating questions will be required of the reviewer for each assigned abstract (up to 5 points each on questions 1-5 and 1 point for question 6). Max Score: 26 points.

1. Background and Significance are well developed.
2. Purpose of study is clearly stated. Research questions, or hypotheses are clearly defined.
3. Study design is described and is appropriate for research questions.
4. Methods are clearly written including sample, inclusion criteria, power analysis (if indicated), recruitment, IRB status, measures/ instruments. Plan for data analysis is clearly defined and appropriate.
5. Impact- Successful completion of the proposed project will make a contribution of high importance to pediatric practice or academia.
6. Does the application appropriately speak to one of NAPNAP’s Research Agenda priorities? (Yes = 1/No = 0)

Scholarship of Teaching: The following rating questions will be required of the reviewer for each assigned abstract (up to 5 points each on questions 1-6 and 1 point for question 7). Max Score: 31 points.

1. Background and Significance are well developed.
2. Purpose of project/methodology is clearly stated.
3. Problem is clearly defined (has Problem Statement).
4. Methods are clearly written including sample, inclusion criteria, recruitment, IRB status (as appropriate), measures/instruments.
5. Plan for data analysis is clearly defined and appropriate.
6. Summary of key findings and discussion of relevance to pediatric practice or academia.
7. Does the application appropriately speak to one of NAPNAP’s Research Agenda priorities and/or why relevant to pediatric education? (Yes = 1/No = 0)

EBP and QI Projects: The following rating questions will be required of the reviewer for each assigned abstract (up to 5 points each on questions 1-7 and 1 point on question 8). Max Score: 36 points.

1. Background and significance are well developed.
2. Purpose of project is clearly stated. 
3. Problem is clearly defined.
4. Project objectives/Aims stated, if applicable. 
5. Methods are clearly written including sampling, inclusion criteria, recruitment, IRB status (as appropriate), information on measurement instruments.
6. Plan for data analysis is clearly defined and appropriate. 
7. Summary of key findings and discussion of relevance to pediatric practice or academia.
8. Does the application appropriately speak to one of NAPNAP’s Research Agenda priorities? (Yes = 1/No = 0) 

Practice Innovation: The following rating questions will be required of the reviewer for each assigned abstract (up to 5 points each for questions 1-7 and 1 point for question 8). Max Score: 36 points.

1. Background and significance are well developed.
2. Purpose of project is clearly stated.  
3. Aims & Methods well described. 
4. Outcomes well described. 
5. Describes effects/implications/next steps etc. (depending on project/poster type).
6. Topic has strong clinical applicability. 
7. Topic is original, unique or different.
8. Does the application appropriately speak to one of NAPNAP’s Research Agenda priorities? (Yes = 1/No = 0)

Individuals selected to present as a poster or podium presenter will receive a special, discounted registration fee, for the primary presenter only. This rate is non-transferable (it can be used ONLY by the primary presenter) and can be used for full conference registration only.  In the case where the primary author cannot attend, the co-author may attend as the primary presenter. There is no additional compensation/reimbursement. It is the responsibility of the primary presenter of the accepted abstract to pay all expenses related to the organization and presentation of the poster (including shipment to and from the conference). NAPNAP does not provide travel allowance or lodging for poster or podium presentations.

Selected individuals should plan to register and attend the conference in person. Assigned days and times will be shared with all presenters by end of November. The posters will be on display on a rotating schedule during the conference week. Set-up for posters will begin at 7 a.m. each morning and breakdown/removal will be at 7 p.m. in the evenings. Each poster is assigned one day for display, and includes the meet & greet hour where presenters are required to be at their poster. Co-authors may attend the poster Q & A session/meet and greet but must be registered for the conference or have a guest badge.

Please note that NAPNAP will not be liable or responsible for returning any posters or items left unattended in the designated poster display area. 

All posters are acknowledged in our conference program books with only the primary presenter listed. Posters are also evaluated and scored, for the following award opportunities:

Research Poster Award: NAPNAP will recognize one clinical research poster for excellence. Research posters are judged and scored on Background, Methods, Results/Discussion, Visual Display and if applicable to the NAPNAP 2021- 2026 Research Agenda Priorities. The winning Research Poster will be selected by the Research Committee Chair after judging from reviewers.

EBP/QI/Practice Innovations Poster Award: NAPNAP will recognize one EBP, QI or practice innovation poster for excellence. EBP, QI and Practice Innovation posters are judged and scored on Relevancy, Originality, Value and its Visual Display. The winning Practice Innovations Poster will be selected by the Conference Planning Chair after judging from reviewers.

Adolescent Health Care SIG Poster Award:
NAPNAPs Adolescent Health Care SIG will recognize an outstanding practice innovation poster that demonstrates adolescent content, is easily translatable to current adolescent health care topics, and advances overall knowledge regarding adolescent health. Winning presenter will receive $100.

The abstracts for the winning Research and Practice Innovation posters are submitted to the Journal of Pediatric Health Care for publishing.

These abstracts and related posters depict the outcomes of research that has been sponsored by an industry. These posters are excluded from the competitive judging process and are presented separately from our regular poster categories as they are not applicable for Continuing Education (CE) credits. Industry sponsored posters will be displayed in a designated area in the exhibit hall during the conference. Find out more on submitting an industry-sponsored related poster abstract or contact Victoria Afolabi at [email protected].