Scholarship Selection Criteria

Applications are reviewed by three independent reviewers for each application according to the following scoring systems.

Academic Scholarships

Successful applications are selected based on whether their abstract was one of the top ranked abstracts selected for a presentation. Presentations were selected based on the top mean/median scores for each abstract.

Practitioner Scholarships

Please explain your role in your organisation and why attending this conference is important to you (score 1-5)?

  • Very good (score 5) – The person is clearly doing very important work focused on enhancing hepatitis C prevention and care for people who inject drugs, and they have done an excellent job at clearly articulating why attending this conference is important to them. This person has an abstract also accepted for presentation at the conference.
  • Good (score 4) – The person is clearly doing important work focused on enhancing hepatitis C prevention and care for people who inject drugs, and they have done a good job at clearly articulating why attending this conference is important to them.
  • Average (score 3) – The person is doing some work focused on enhancing hepatitis C prevention and care for people who inject drugs, but they have could have done a better job clearly highlighting why attending this conference is important to them.
  • Below average (score 2) – It is not clear how much work this person is doing with respect to enhancing hepatitis C prevention and care for people who inject drugs, and they have could have done a better job clearly highlighting why attending this conference is important to them.
  • Poor (score 1) – The person did not do a good job at clearly highlighting their role in their organization and what they are specifically doing to enhance hepatitis C prevention and care for people who inject drugs. They did not do a very good job at clearly indicating why attending this conference is important to them.

Why are you in need of a scholarship to attend the symposium (score 1-5)?

  • Very good (score 5) – The person has very clearly articulated why they are in need of a scholarship to attend the conference. It is very clear that there is no other way that this person would be able to attend the conference if they did not have this funding to attend.
  • Good (score 4) – The person has clearly articulated why they are in need of a scholarship to attend the conference. It is clear that there is no other way that this person would be able to attend the conference if they did not have this funding to attend.
  • Average (score 3) – The person has articulated why they are in need of a scholarship to attend the conference. It is clear that it would be difficult for this person to attend the conference, but may have other funding to attend.
  • Below average (score 2) – The person has tried to articulate why they are in need of a scholarship to attend the conference. But, it is not clear why they are in need of a scholarship to attend the conference. It is not clear if they may have other funding to attend.
  • Poor (score 1) – The person has not articulated why they are in need of a scholarship to attend the conference. They did not do a very good job at indicating why attending this conference is important to them.

How will your presence at the conference assist the HCV community you work with (score 1-5)?

  • Very good (score 5) – The person has done an excellent job describing why this conference will benefit them in the work that they do.
  • Good (score 4) – The person has done a good job describing why this conference will benefit them in the work that they do.
  • Average (score 3) – The person has described why this conference will benefit them in the work that they do, but the response could have been more detailed.
  • Below average (score 2) – The person has some description about why this conference will benefit them in the work that they do, but the response lacks considerable detail.
  • Poor (score 1) – The person has some description about why this conference will benefit them in the work that they do, but the response lacks detail and is not well articulated.

Provide a brief outline about how you will accomplish knowledge transfer of the information that you learned to other healthcare providers and people living with HCV in your community (score 1-5)

  • Very good (score 5) – They have clearly highlighted an innovative plan for the sharing of information and knowledge that they will acquire when they return home to their setting. They have provided some very concrete examples of how they will return home and share the results of the conference with their community.
  • Good (score 4) – They have highlighted a plan for the sharing of information and knowledge that they will acquire when they return home to their setting. They have provided an example of how they will return home and share the results of the conference with their community.
  • Average (score 3) –They have suggested some ways that they will share the information with their community, but provide little details in terms of a plan or any concrete examples for how they will actually achieve this.
  • Below average (score 2) –They have not really suggested ways that they will share the information with their community, and do not provide details of a plan or any concrete examples for how they will actually achieve this.
  • Poor (score 1) –They have not suggested ways that they will share the information with their community, and do not provide details of a plan or any concrete examples for how they will actually achieve this.

Community Scholarships

What are the barriers to HCV diagnostics and treatment that PWID in your country face? (score 1-5)

  • Very good (score 5) – The barriers to HCV diagnostics and treatment that PWID face in their country is very clear, the barriers are well-articulated, and it is very clear that the participant has taken considerable effort to highlight the barriers that are faced.
  • Good (score 4) – The applicant has done a good job describing the barriers to HCV diagnostics and treatment that PWID dace in their country. The barriers are outlined and the applicant has demonstrated that they have put some effort in.
  • Average (score 3) – The applicant has outlined some of the barriers faced, but the response could have been more detailed. They have demonstrated some effort, but it is clear more time could have been spent on outlining the barriers in detail.
  • Below average (score 2) - The applicant has some description about the barriers, but the response lacks considerable detail.
  • Poor (score 1) – The person has named what they believe to be the barriers, but the response lacks detail and is not well articulated. They have not gone into any detail as to why they believe these are the barriers.

How did you become interested in hepatitis C and people who use/inject drugs? (Score 1 – 5)

  • Very good (score 5) – The person has clearly indicated that they have a keen interest in hepatitis C and people who use/inject drugs. They have described in detail and articulated well how they became interested.
  • Good (score 4) – The applicant has demonstrated that they have an interest in hepatitis C and people who use/inject drugs. They have described in detail how they became interested.
  • Average (score 3) – The applicant appears to have an interest in hepatitis C and people who use/inject drugs, but has not described this in detail and could provide more detail on how they became interested
  • Below average (score 2) – It is unclear how much of an interest the applicant has in hepatitis C and people who use/inject drugs. They have not described how they became interested.
  • Poor (score 1) – The applicant does not appear to have an interest in hepatitis C and people who use/inject drugs

Are you working/volunteering in the field? If so, please describe your work, including how long you have been doing it, and any past relevant work/volunteer work. (score 1-5)

  • Very good (score 5) – The person is clearly doing very important work focused on enhancing hepatitis C prevention and care for people who inject drugs, and they have done an excellent job at clearly articulating why attending this conference is important to them.
  • Good (score 4) – The person is clearly doing important work focused on enhancing hepatitis C prevention and care for people who inject drugs, and they have done a good job at clearly articulating why attending this conference is important to them.
  • Average (score 3) – The person is doing some work focused on enhancing hepatitis C prevention and care for people who inject drugs, but they have could have done a better job clearly highlighting why attending this conference is important to them.
  • Below average (score 2) – It is not clear how much work this person is doing with respect to enhancing hepatitis C prevention and care for people who inject drugs, and they have could have done a better job clearly highlighting why attending this conference is important to them.
  • Poor (score 1) – The person did not do a good job at clearly highlighting their role in their organization and what they are specifically doing to enhance hepatitis C prevention and care for people who inject drugs. They did not do a very good job at clearly indicating why attending this conference is important to them.

What do you hope to learn at INHSU 2018?

  • Very good (score 5) – The applicant has clearly outlined and articulated well what they would like to learn at INHSU 2018 and what their objective for attending the symposium are
  • Good (score 4) – The applicant has described what they would like to learn at INHSU 2018 and has a good idea of what their objectives for the symposium are
  • Average (score 3) – The applicant has some idea of what they would like to learn at INHSU 2018, but they could have provided more detail and had a better idea of what their objectives are
  • Below average (score 2) – The applicant has not really explained what they would like to achieve from their attendance at INHSU 2018 and don’t appear to have a clear idea of their objectives
  • Poor (score 1) – The applicant has not indicated what they would like to learn at INHSU 2018 and has no clear objectives for their participation

How will you use information from INHSU 2018? (score 1-5)

  • Very good (score 5) – The applicant has clearly highlighted an innovative plan for the sharing of information and knowledge that they will acquire when they return home to their setting. They have provided some very concrete examples of how they will return home and share the results of the symposium with their community.
  • Good (score 4) – The applicant has highlighted a plan for the sharing of information and knowledge that they will acquire when they return home to their setting. They have provided an example of how they will return home and share the results of the symposium with their community.
  • Average (score 3) – The applicant has suggested some ways that they will share the information with their community, but provide little details in terms of a plan or any concrete examples for how they will actually achieve this.
  • Below average (score 2) – The person has not really suggested ways that they will share the information with their community, and do not provide details of a plan or any concrete examples for how they will actually achieve this.
  • Poor (score 1) – The applicant has not suggested ways that they will share the information with their community, and do not provide details of a plan or any concrete examples for how they will actually achieve this.