AVHEC 2019
AVHEC 2019

Scholarship Selection Criteria

1. What are the barriers to HBV/HCV prevention, diagnostics and treatment that PWID face? 

 Reviewers will score 1-5 

  • Very good (score 5) – The barriers to HBV/HCV prevention, 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 HBV/HCV prevention, diagnostics and treatment that PWID face. 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. 

2. How did you become interested inHBV/HCVand/or people who use/inject drugs?  

 Reviewers will score 1-5 

  • Very good (score 5) – The person has clearly indicated that they have a keen interest in HBV/HCV and/or 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 HBV/HCV and/or 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 HBV/HCV and/or 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 HBV/HCV and/or 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 HBV/HCV and/or people who use/inject drugs 

3. 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.

 Reviewers will score 1-5 

  • Very good (score 5) – The person is clearly doing important work focused on enhancing HBV/HCV prevention and/or 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 work focused on enhancing HBV/HCV prevention and/or 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 HBV/HCV prevention and/or 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 HBV/HCV prevention and/or 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 HBV/HCV prevention and/or 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. 

4. What do you hope to learn atAVHEC2019? 

 Reviewers will score 1-5 

  • Very good (score 5) – The applicant has clearly outlined and articulated well what they would like to learn at AVHEC 2019 and what their objective for attending the conference are  
  • Good (score 4) – The applicant has described what they would like to learn at AVHEC 2019 and has a good idea of what their objectives for the conference are  
  • Average (score 3) – The applicant has some idea of what they would like to learn at AVHEC 2019, 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 AVHEC 2019 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 AVHEC 2019 and has no clear objectives for their participation 

5. Provide a brief outline and examples about how you will accomplish knowledge transfer of the information that you learned 

 Reviewers will 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 conference 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 conference 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 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 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 achieve this.