ICIFPRH.ID

Scientific Program

Theme : Accelerating Efforts to Achieve Three Zeros by 2030 in Indonesia

Subthemes :

  • 1.

    Challenges, and Advances on Unmet Need
  • 2.

    Expanding and Improving Family Planning Access and Service Under Universal Health Coverage
  • 3.

    Family Planning and Reproductive Health Technology
  • 4.

    Adolescent and Young Adults’ Health and Engagement
  • 5.

    Sexual and Reproductive Health
  • 6.

    Social Aspect of Family Planning and Reproductive Health
  • 7.

    Efforts to Eliminate Preventable Maternal Deaths
  • 8.

    Opportunities and Challenges for Stunting Management and Prevention
  • 9.

    Sexual and Reproductive Health During and After Covid-19 Pandemic
  • 10.

    Gender-Based Violence and Harmful Practices
  • 11.

    Gender Equity, Empowerment, and Reproductive Rights
  • 12.

    Demographic Changes, Development Programs & SDGs’ Challenges
  • 13.

    Family Planning and Reproductive Health Program Implementation in Primary Care
  • 14.

    Family Planning and Reproductive Health program Monitoring and Evaluation
  • 15.

    Public-Private Partnership on Family Planning and Reproductive Health
  • 16.

    Health Policy and Governance on Family Planning and Reproductive Health

Plenary Sessions

  • 1.

    Challenges and opportunities towards three zeros by 2030 in Indonesia
  • 2.

    Multisectoral cooperation and effort to eliminate preventable maternal deaths and stunting
  • 3.

    Increasing youth empowerment and engagement to prevent child marriage and harmful practices
  • 4.

    Family planning and reproductive health financing under the universal health coverage post-Covid-19 pandemic
  • 5.

    Strengthening family planning and reproductive health public-private partnership at the primary care level

Abstract Submission

Types of Abstract

  • 1.

    Research Abstract
  • 2.

    Program Abstract
  • 3.

    Advocacy Abstract
All abstracts should be written in English and follow the requirement below:
Research AbstractProgram AbstractAdvocacy Abstract
Refers to individual research, including systematic review with or without meta-analysis. All abstracts on human subject should have an ethical clearance.Abstracts explaining any programs or best practices related to the subthemes. Ethical clearance is not mandatory but encouraged. A disclaimer if using a routine data is required.Specified for abstracts on any advocacy or campaign effort on the subthemes. Ethical clearance is not mandatory but encouraged. A disclaimer if using a routine data is required.
Background (maximum 200 words)Significance (maximum 200 words)Significance (maximum 200 words)
Research question(s) and/or hypothesis (maximum 100 words)Program intervention description (maximum 100 words)Advocacy intervention and/or campaign description (maximum 100 words)
Methodology (location, study design, data source, time frame, sample size, analysis approach) (maximum 200 words) Methodology (location, setting, data source, time frame, intended beneficiaries, participant size, evaluation approach) (maximum 200 words)Methodology (location, setting, data source, time frame, intended decision-maker, intended beneficiaries, participant size, advocacy/campaign approach) (maximum 200 words)
Results/key findings. Interim or preliminary results and/or findings are acceptable (maximum 250 words) Results/key findings. Interim or preliminary results and/or findings are acceptable (maximum 250 words)Results/key findings. Interim or preliminary results and/or findings are acceptable (maximum 250 words)
Research implication. How does the result(s) contribute to knowledge gap and what are the implications of the research? Included here is the future plan of research roadmap (maximum 250 words)Program implications and/or lesson learned from the implementation. Included here is the sustainability of the program and, if applicable, the scale-up and/or follow-up of the program (maximum 250 words)Advocacy and/or campaign implications and/or lesson learned from the implementation. Included here is the sustainability of the advocacy and/or campaign and, if applicable, the scale-up and/or follow-up (maximum 250 words)
Tracks for abstract submission are based on the conference’s subthemes. Each track will be chaired by a group of experts and reviewed blindly and independently by practitioners and academicians. Abstract submitters are requested to submit their abstracts to a particular track and an optional second track choice. Individuals submitting abstracts can submit to the track they deem most relevant. The Scientific Committee reserves a right to change the track of an abstract as they see it as a better fit.
The abstract evaluation criteria refer to the indicators below:
 ResearchProgramAdvocacy/CampaignScore 1 (low) – 5 (high)
Conference RelevanceTo what extent does the research align with the conference? To what extent does the program align with the conference? To what extent does the advocacy/campaign align with the conference? 1-5
Tract RelevanceTo what extent does the research align with the conference?To what extent does the program align with the conference?To what extent does the advocacy/campaign align with the conference?1-5
ObjectiveIs there a clear objective to the research? Do the authors explain why this research question is important? Are the objective(s) and rationale for the program clearly articulated? Is the abstract associated with specific policy or funding results and/or impact? Does it focus on a particularly challenging or under-recognized advocacy issue? 1-5
Methodology/ApproachIs the methodology clearly presented and correct for the research question? Are there flaws in the study population, research design that would affect the results? Is the program/project informed by data/evidence and/or a clear theory of change? Is the advocacy effort evidence based, evidence driven or evidence informed? Is it theory based? 1-5
ResultsAre the results/anticipated results clearly presented? Do they relate to the specific objectives? Are the conclusions based on the data? If results are not presented, is it clear that the authors will be able to meet the objectives with the methodology proposed? Are the effects of the program quantified? Are the lessons learned from the implementation and success or failure of the program clearly described? Are results quantified in relation to inputs and outputs and/or are immediate results correlated with quantified outcomes and impact (real or potential)? 1-5
ImplicationsDo the authors identify relevant policy, program, or research implications? Is there discussion of scale, impact, sustainability, efficiency; local ownership and commitment Is the advocacy effort potentially sustainable (e.g. is cost-effective, easy to replicate?) 1-5
Innovations/NoveltyIs the research contributing something new to the field? Is it a new research question or a question that has not been asked in the population before? Is the program/project contributing something new to the field? Is it a new program/project or one that has not been implemented previously in this context/setting/population? Does this represent a first ever or unique collaboration? Does it use a new tool or approach? 1-5
GrammarDoes the abstract meet the standard for scientific writing and grammatically correct?Does the abstract meet the standard for scientific writing and grammatically correct?Does the abstract meet the standard for scientific writing and grammatically correct?1-5

Pre - Conference Proceedings

File Pres-Proseding ICIFPRH 2022 (1)