Research Abstract Submission

Research abstracts must include the following: (see example below)

Abstract Information Abstract Text
  • Title
  • Author
  • Program/Specialty
  • Institutional Affiliation
  • Preceptor/Research Mentor
  • Other Resident/Fellow authors
  • Introduction
  • Objectives
  • Methods
  • Results
  • Conclusion

Submit a Research Abstract

Review Eligibility Requirements and Submissions Guidelines.

  • Abstracts may be no longer than 300 words.
  • Do not include references, credits or grant support.
  • Tables and images may not be included in the abstract.
  • Proofread very carefully for formatting, spelling, and grammar before submission.
Submissions are now closed.

 

Research Abstract Review and Acceptance

  • Research abstracts will be reviewed by members of the Morehouse and Emory School of Medicine faculty.
  • Each abstract will be evaluated by reviewers and selection based on the abstract selection criteria listed above.
  • Any abstracts submitted not meeting the criteria and adhering to these guidelines will not be selected.

Notifications

The corresponding author will receive e-mail notification of abstract status on March 9, 2020.

Research Abstract Example

Title: Increased interpersonal partner violence inquiry with standardized health prevention screening

Author (first, middle, last name, degree):
Program/Specialty:
Institutional Affiliation:
Preceptor/Research Mentor (first, middle, last name):
Other Resident/Fellow authors (first, middle, last name):
Affiliation (Program & Institution): 

Objective: To evaluate the impact of patient and provider variables on intimate partner violence screening rates in an ambulatory gynecology practice.

Methods: A cross-sectional study of 300 patients chosen randomly from annual healthcare visits during 2007 at a university-affiliated ambulatory gynecology clinic. All encounters were recorded on a standardized health history form which included questions about abuse history. Data on patient and provider characteristics were collected. The association of provider screening with selected patient variables was assessed using multivariable logistic regression.

Results: The median age of the study population was 29 (range 15-73). In general, the cohort was racially/ethnically diverse and the majority was on government assistance. Sixty-seven percent (194/291) had children living at home, and 57% (164/286) were single.  Of the 300 patients, 243 (81%) had documentation of abuse screening in their medical records. Variables previously found to be associated with higher rates of partner abuse, such as younger age, increased parity, or substance abuse, did not influence whether patients were screened. Similarly, differences in screening by provider type (NP/resident) or gender did not emerge. Patients were, however, significantly more likely to be questioned about partner violence when they received other preventive screening (adjusted OR 2.50 (1.26-4.99)) or presented with a somatic pain complaint (adjusted OR 2.55 (1.12-5.83).

Conclusion: Ambulatory gynecology patients were more likely to be screened for intimate partner violence when providers performed other preventive health screening utilizing a standardized health history form.