Table 4.
Themes derived from evaluator quotes
| Theme | Exemplar quote from evaluator |
|---|---|
| Presenter and panel qualities | |
| • Fostering audience engagement: presenter spoke in a manner that seemed to engage the audience in the topic | “Great speaker, engaging” “Interactive presentation” |
| • Sharing personal experiences and success stories: presenter shared a personal or lived experience or success story which seemed to help convey their message or foster hope | “Gives perspective for those without SCI, very personal explanation, many personal images” “Stroke [example] fit very well and helped give ideas and hope” “[Some of the] best speakers were not researchers” |
| • Clear and easy to understand: the presenter’s language and/or slides were clear and easy to understand | “Good indicator of barriers and clear solutions” “Clear, to the point” |
| • Lacking clarity: the presenter or the slides lacked clarity, making it more difficult to understand | “Purpose of talk was not clear” “Lots of jargon” |
| • Adhering to speaker notes and goals: the presenter or panel followed the programme outline and covered the topics outlined | “Covers the [outlined] lessons learned” “Followed the outline closely” “Good debate and conversation between panellists” |
| • Not adhering to speaking notes and/or goals: the presenter or panel missed certain speaking notes and/or goals during their presentation | “Didn’t mention any [goals] specifically” “Didn’t think this was super well covered” “Not so much a discussion in the panel” |
| Audience Engagement and Facilitation | |
| • Encouraging interaction: facilitators’ ability to make the audience to be engaged and ask questions and participate during the conference | “Encourages interaction at tables” “Talks about interactive participation – encouraged” |
| • Providing clear summaries: facilitators’ clear summaries supported the flow of the conference | “Program overview good” “Good summary of overcoming [challenges]” |
| • Flexibility of facilitators: facilitators’ ability to adjust to unexpected changes helped to ensure the conference continued to flow | “Microphone was not working well – quiet, fixed at some point” “Q&A period immediately after speaker” “Clearly explains how the program and the working group will function” |
| • Distracted audience: tables and attendees were distracted at certain points throughout the conference; attendance seemed to drop-off on day 2 | “Many people on phones” “People texting and on computers, fidgeting” “Five empty tables on day 2” |
| Accessibility and Engagement of the spinal chord injury (SCI) community | |
| • Some elements presented barriers for those with SCI: certain aspects of the conference were not accessible to individuals with SCI | “Water kept in middle of table is inaccessible” “Kept saying ‘stand up’ [not really good for this conference]” |
| • Missing diversity on the panel: evaluators noted that members of the SCI community were rarely asked to present or be on panels | “Why are there no consumers on the expert panel?” |