Table 3.
Evaluation workshop meeting characteristics
| Site A | Site B | Site C | Site D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organizational sponsor scope | State | State | State | Regional |
| Meeting scope | 1 state | 2 states | 1 state | 8 US states, Mexico + Central America |
| Placement on meeting agenda | Breakout | Plenary | No | Breakout |
| Workshop location | On-site | On-site | Off-site | On-site |
| Recruitment strategy | Letter | Letter | Letter | Program + meeting PR |
| Number urologists invited | 104 | 0 | 84 | 2189 |
| Incentive | US$50 | US$50 | US$50 | CME Credit |
| Total meeting attendancea | 54 | 41 | N/Ad | 341 |
| Workshop attendance | 10 (19%) | 13 (32%) | 9 (10%) | 35 (10%) |
| Percent attendees non-academicb | 35% | 32% | 67% | 5% |
| Behavioral intent to adopt | 10 | –c | 9 | 14 |
CME continuing medical education, N/A not applicable, PR Public relations
aMeeting attendance includes urologists and non-physician attendees
bProportion calculated on rostered attendees where data available
cNot offered opportunity to adopt due to capacity limitations
dData not available from Louisiana Urological Society; proportion attendance conservatively based on number of urologists invited