| Relevance and Alignment | Limited relevance to theme or pain field | Some relevance but unclear or weak alignment | Clearly relevant to pain care and broadly aligned | Strong alignment with theme and program priorities | Exceptional alignment; highly relevant, including clear relevance to patients, families, or lived experience |
| Audience Appeal (Audience Draw) | Unlikely to attract audience; unclear value | Limited or niche appeal | Moderate appeal to a defined audience | Strong appeal; likely good attendance | Highly compelling; broad appeal across clinicians, researchers and/or consumers |
| Novelty and Timeliness | Well-established topic; little new insight | Limited novelty; incremental contribution | Some new or updated perspectives | Clear innovation or emerging topic | Highly novel, cutting-edge, or underexplored |
| Scientific and/or Clinical Impact | Limited evidence or unclear impact | Some relevance but limited practical impact | Solid evidence/rationale; moderate impact | Strong evidence with clear clinical/research impact | High-impact; strong potential to influence practice, policy, research, and/or improve patient/family outcomes |
| Quality of Design and Delivery | Poorly structured; unclear or not feasible | Basic structure but lacks clarity | Clear and feasible design | Well-structured, engaging, appropriate format | Exceptionally well-designed; highly engaging; includes multidisciplinary and/or consumer perspectives (where appropriate) |
| Interactivity / Engagement* | Minimal or no interaction | Limited interaction; mostly didactic | Some practical elements | Strong engagement throughout | Highly practical; engagement central; includes diverse perspectives (incl. lived experience where appropriate) |
| Coherence and Balance ** | Disjointed; lacks clear theme | Some connection but limited cohesion | Generally coherent | Well-integrated perspectives | Seamless, highly cohesive and balanced; complementary perspectives (incl. lived experience where appropriate) |
