APA’s 2000 annual meeting in Chicago was a tremendous success. It produced near-record attendance and garnered high marks from participants for nearly every aspect, according to a report evaluating the meeting.

The report, which was prepared by Kathleen Debenham, director of APA’s Office of Continuing Medical Education, was presented to the Scientific Program Committee at its July planning 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 points out. "They consistently agreed that the annual meeting program met its educational objectives, addressed current issues in psychiatry, incorporated research findings, and provided information they will use in their practice."

Total attendance at the meeting was 18,078, second only to that in Washington, D.C., last year. Only 560 fewer people registered in Chicago than did so at the Washington meeting.

Moreover, the annual meeting continues to benefit from its reputation as not only this country’s, but the world’s premier psychiatric meeting. This year there were 5,251 international registrants—946 fewer than last year—from 85 countries.

In addition to Canada, which far and away led the international contingent with 938 registrants, countries represented by more than 150 registrants included France (343), United Kingdom (343), Spain (333), Netherlands (268), Italy (247), Argentina (228), Portugal (191), Switzerland (162), and Brazil (152).

Once about 3,500 exhibitors, staff, and media representatives are subtracted from the total attendance, registration data show that 14,518 attendees registered to attend the scientific sessions, which is the fourth-largest number on record. (This year a record 3,169 exhibitors registered for the annual meeting.)

The evaluation again showed that registrants are highly satisfied with the meeting. Ninety-eight percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the quality of the annual meeting sessions was excellent. An equally impressive 97 percent stated that the annual meeting provided them with information useful for their clinical practices. This latter statistic is consistent with the finding that 99 percent believed that current research findings were incorporated into annual meeting sessions. Another 98 percent felt that the sessions had met their educational objectives.

The Scientific Program Committee incorporated a special track of sessions titled "Alcohol Research: Achievements and Promise," in collaboration with the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). The track appears to have met its goal of bringing current addiction research to the attention of psychiatrists—more than 90 percent of respondents called the special track "an excellent learning format."

APA utilized a variety of strategies to expand its monitoring of industry-supported symposia to ensure that the material presented in these sessions is balanced and unbiased. The results of the evaluation of those symposia indicated that the measures were effective since overwhelming majorities of respondents agreed that "multiple viewpoints were presented" in the sessions (94 percent) and that "a balanced view of the topic was presented" (93 percent). The Scientific Program Committee plans to continue close monitoring of the industry-supported symposia at all APA meetings to "ensure maintenance of the current high level of educational quality and independence of APA’s commercially supported programs," Debenham said.

The number of 2000 annual meeting registrants who identified themselves as psychiatrists was 9,436. Of that number 1,524 were residents. Nonphysician participants comprised only a small portion of the meeting registrants: one percent were psychologists, one percent nurses, and less than one percent were social workers.

Evaluation respondents were asked to identify their primary work setting. The percentage of respondents indicating "solo or group private practice" has held steady over the last nine years at between 35 percent and 40 percent. Other categories of work settings have remained fairly constant as well: general hospital, 15 percent; university hospital, 16 percent; state/local facility, 8 percent; CMHC, 7 percent; VA facility, 4 percent; and staff-model HMO, 1 percent.

While there were few criticisms of the quality of the scientific program in Chicago, Debenham reported, the Scientific Program Committee always utilizes the evaluation report to fine-tune future meetings. They regularly note the areas in which respondents indicated they would like to see changes. The participants expressed interest in more sessions that present case studies, focus on the faculty’s experiences, and provide case vignettes in place of lectures.

Time management was a concern for respondents when faculty did not follow the agenda, question-and-answer sessions were not controlled, and too much information was presented in too little time. There also were numerous suggestions for improving handouts by including copies of all slides shown during a presentation and incorporating more extensive reference lists with full citations.

The evaluation of the 2000 annual meeting was based on responses to 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 in the Exhibit Hall. This turned out to be a quite popular option, attracting about 3,000 registrants and accounting for 60 percent of the general evaluations completed.

Next year’s meeting will be held May 5 to 10 in New Orleans, La.