Posters for

Conference

Academic poster design at a

national conference: a need
for standardised guidance?
Alan Gopal1,2,*, Melody Redman1,2,*, David Cox2,3, David Foreman4, Elizabeth Elsey5,†
and Simon Fleming6,7,†
1
The Hull York Medical School, University of York, UK
2
Junior Association for the Study of Medical Education, Edinburgh, UK
3
Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
4
University of Derby, Derby, UK
5
Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
6
Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford, Essex, UK
7
Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK

Presentation at SUMMARY education conference to identify 76 per cent (n = 137) had

conferences is Background: Academic posters are
a common means of disseminating
frequently
information at conferences.
given weight Presentation at conferences is
in postgraduate frequently given weight in
training postgraduate training programme
programme recruitment. Some conferences
provide guidance for visual
recruitment
presentation of posters. For the
Association of the Study of Medical
Education (ASME) Annual Scientific
Meeting (ASM) 2015, poster
abstract guidance was provided;
however, the guidance on poster
design was limited to size and
orientation. The aim of this study
was to investigate academic poster
quality at a national medical
*Joint first authors.
†
Joint supervising authors.
where standards could be promot-
ed and improved.
Methods: Six auditors assessed all
posters displayed at the ASME ASM
(15–17 July 2015) using guide-
lines based upon a modified
checklist for academic posters. Ten
criteria were agreed as assessment
standards for poster design quality.
Results: One-hundred-and-
eighty posters were assessed:
29 per cent had appropriate
copyright for the materials
displayed (n = 52); 41 per cent
included suitable contact
details (n = 73); 48 per cent
(n = 87) had a text to graphic
ratio of 50 : 50; 72 per cent
(n = 130) met ASME guidance
for layout and orientation;
appropriate referencing;
78 per cent showed evidence of
proofreading for grammar and
spelling (n = 140); 79 per cent
(n = 142) were readable at a
distance of 2 metres; and
87 per cent used appropriate
academic logos (n = 156).
Discussion: There was variability
in design quality as assessed by
these criteria. We recommend
that detailed guidance should be
produced and disseminated by
the organising conference. This
may improve poster quality and
aid in the communication of
presented material. We aim to
re-audit following the production
and dissemination of poster
presentation guidance.

360 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education. THE CLINICAL TEACHER 2017; 14: 360–364

tct_12584.indd 360 9/4/2017 4:22:42 PM

 INTRODUCTION
M
edical knowledge is
expanding at an ever-
increasing rate: in 1950 it
took 50 years for knowledge to
double in volume, and in 2020 it
will take around 73 days.1 The
scale of this is evident at medical
and surgical conferences held
internationally, showcasing new
research and educating peers.
Therefore, presented work must be
clear, concise and of high visual
quality to maximise readership.
Regardless of the potential value
of the piece of work, it is useless
until it is conveyed.2
Academic posters are com-
monly used as a means of
communicating at conferences,
and evidence of presentation
(poster or oral) at conferences is
frequently included in the
shortlisting criteria for postgradu-
ate training programme recruit-
ment. The aim of poster
presentation is to succinctly
communicate key points to
attending delegates or for use as
a visual aid during an oral
presentation. Both approaches
require creative and academic
writing skills, with the visual
impact of the poster being key to
stimulating and retaining inter-
est.3 There is a lack of evidence
regarding the effectiveness of
academic posters in disseminating
information compared with other
methods.4 Evidence also suggests
that interest from delegates
towards posters is low,5 and
therefore the visual appeal of a
poster may improve interactions.
There are multiple online
resources with guidance on how to
design a generic academic poster;
however, these often advise the
presenter to check local criteria.6,7
Some conferences provide
guidance for poster presentation,
but this is frequently limited to
poster size and orientation.
The aim of this study was to
investigate academic poster
quality at a national medical
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education. THE CLINICAL TEACHER 2017; 14: 360–364 361
tct_12584.indd 361
education conference with the
intention of identifying areas
where standards could be
promoted and improved. Our
audit question was to assess the
quality of academic poster design
against published suggestions.
All posters at a national confer-
ence were audited to identify
whether there was a need for
intervention and consequent
re-auditing.
A total of 210 abstracts were
accepted by the Association of the
Study of Medical Education (ASME)
for poster presentation at the
2015 Annual Scientific Meeting
(ASM). Poster abstract guidance
was provided, but guidance for
presenters regarding poster design
was limited to size and orienta-
tion (ASM 2015 Abstract
Notification, 20 March 2015,
pers. comm. to DF).
METHODS
All posters displayed during the
conference were individually
assessed using a standardised
pro forma. The criteria were
developed using a checklist
Table 1. Poster assessment tool and the number of
posters judged to have met the criteria
Standard
Meets the conference’s display criteria
(A0 paper size, portrait)
Readable at a distance of 2 metres
(Font sizes: heading 90, subheading 30,
text 18)
Progression around poster signposted or
allows for natural eye movement
Proof-read for grammar and spelling
Appropriate referencing used
Appropriate use of an academic logo
No copyright issues on material used
Contact details listed
(e-mail or postal address)
Appropriate typeface
Text to graphic ratio of 50 : 50
produced by Canterbury Christ Presented work
Church University for academic
must be clear,
posters and online resources
produced by the University of concise and of
Leicester.8,9 The six auditors high visual
were a multidisciplinary group quality to
comprising medical students, maximise
surgical trainees and a nurse
readership
lecturer. Three auditors had
prior experience in assessing
academic posters, and all six
have an academic interest in
medical education and experi-
ence in academic poster design.
The 10 standards (Table 1) were
reviewed and agreed by group
consensus. A sample of 10 post-
ers was assessed by the auditors,
and consensus was achieved
through a discussion of the
auditing standards for each. This
was to reduce interobserver vari-
ability. Each poster on display at
the conference was assessed by
one of the six auditors. Results
were collated and anonymised
by AG.
For the criterion ‘Proof-read
for grammar and spelling?’,
posters were assessed for
grammatical and spelling errors
as a surrogate marker.
Number of posters meeting
standard
130 (72%)
142 (79%)
151 (84%)
140 (78%)
137 (76%)
156 (87%)
52 (29%)
73 (41%)
160 (89%)
87 (48%)
9/4/2017 4:22:42 PM
 There was
variability and Academic poster design at a national medical
inconsistency education conference: a need for standardised
in the quality
of poster guidance?
design Gopal A*1,2, Redman M*1,2, Cox D1,3 , Foreman D4, Elsey E**5, Fleming S**6.
1- Junior Association for the Study of Medical Education, Special Interest Group of the Association for the Study of Medical Edu cation, 12 Queen Street, Edinburgh, EH2
1JE; 2- Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, YO10 5DD; 3 - Aintree University Hospital; 4 - University of Derby; 5 - University of Nottingham; 5 - Barts & The
London Medical School. *Joint first author; **Joint supervising author

Background
Academic posters are a common means of disseminating information at medical conferences. Clear presentation of content is important to attract
the readers’ attention. Some conferences provide guidance for the visual presentation of posters. The Association of the Study of Medical
Education (ASME) Annual Scientific Meeting (ASM) 2015 provided poster abstract guidance limited to layout (size and orientation). This study
aimed to investigate the quality of academic posters at the conference with the intention of identifying areas where standards could be improved.

Methods
Six auditors assessed all posters displayed at the ASME ASM 15th-17th July 2015 using a modified checklist for academic posters1,2 consisting of 10
standards (see X axis, Graph 1).

Results
• 180 posters assessed.
Graph 1: Percentage of posters meeting each standard
100

90

87 89
80
84
79 78
70 76
72
Percentage

60

50

40
48
41
30

29
20

10

Meets the Readable at 2 Progression around Proof-read for Appropriate Appropriate use of No copyright issues Contact details Appropriate Text to graphic
conference’s Metres (heading poster signposted grammar & spelling referencing used an academic logo on material used (email or postal typeface ratio 50:50
display criteria (A0, 90, subheading 30, or allows for address) listed
Audit Standards
portrait) text 18) natural eye
movement

Conclusions Figure1: Example of a non-compliant poster

• There was variability and inconsistency in the quality of
poster design.
• These results may be due to author inexperience or lack of
awareness
• We recommend that detailed guidance should be produced
for the design of academic posters.
• A re-audit is planned, following production and
dissemination of poster presentation guidance.

Key Message
Posters are a common method of study
dissemination at conferences. The current
inconsistency of poster quality should be addressed © M Redman
with a clear set of standards provided to presenters.

References
1. Canterbury Christ Church University. Creating an academic poster. http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/graduate-skills/preview/presentations/academic-
poster-tutorial/poster-tutorial-print.pdf (2007, accessed 26 July 2015).
2. University of Leicester. Designing an academic poster. http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/ld/resources/presentations/designing-poster/designing-poster
(2012, accessed 26 July 2015).

Figure 1. Example of an academic poster designed using the criteria

RESULTS with 30 presenters choosing ‘progression around poster sign-

not to attend or to display posted or allows for natural eye
The ASME accepted 210 posters their accepted abstracts. Data movement’. The number of posters
for presentation; 180 posters were missing for three posters meeting each standard is shown
were displayed at the conference, with reference to the criterion in Table 1.

362 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education. THE CLINICAL TEACHER 2017; 14: 360–364

tct_12584.indd 362 9/4/2017 4:22:42 PM

 DISCUSSION
The overall results indicate a wide
variability in the visual quality
of posters, with only 10 per cent
(n = 18) of the posters meeting
all 10 criteria, and 14 per cent
(n = 26) meeting five points or
less, which is particularly con-
cerning given the importance of
the visual impact of the poster.3
The only two pre-defined
requirements given to presenters
at this conference were poster
size and orientation: 28 per cent
(n = 50) of posters did not meet
both criteria. This demonstrates
poor compliance with basic
instructions issued by the
organising association. Presenters
were e-mailed clear instructions
3 months prior to the conference,
dispelling the possibility that
inadequate communication could
be the cause. Other possible
reasons for poor compliance need
to be investigated.
The poorest adherence to any
of the 10 standards was for issues
of copyright. Only 29 per cent of
posters had appropriately
referenced images. This has
copyright implications. It should
be made explicitly clear whether
authors have permission to use
images or have created the
images themselves.
Contact details are essential
to allow communication between
delegates and presenters. An
e-mail address or a postal address
should be included. It is impor-
tant that the currently poor level
of compliance with this standard
(41%) is improved upon to allow
for information sharing between
interested parties.
Just under half (48%) of all
posters audited met the standard
of a text to graphic ratio of
50 : 50. It is suggested that a
predominant use of graphics is
appropriate for academic posters,
and encourages further engage-
ment and recall.3 Auditors found
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education. THE CLINICAL TEACHER 2017; 14: 360–364 363
tct_12584.indd 363
that some posters were heavily
text-based. For visual appeal, the
text to graphic ratio is a key factor.
Of particular concern is the
high rate of basic spelling or
typographical errors noted. Over
one in five posters assessed
contained such errors, suggesting
that adequate proof-reading had
not taken place.
The readability of the poster
is important to ensure that the
poster material is communicated
clearly. Many posters (21%,
n = 38) used a font size that was
too small to be read easily at a
distance of 2 metres (which is
accepted to be a reasonable
distance for poster viewing).
Additionally, 20 posters featured
a non-standard font, which can
be distracting. The ability to
follow a logical order of text
progression around the poster
also aids viewing, and should be
considered when designing
scientific posters.
The use of academic logos was
relatively high (87%, n = 156),
suggesting that a sense of
ownership over work is important
to authors. It may be that many
institutions insist upon the display
of logos on scientific posters.
Figure 1 is an example of a
‘good’ poster designed using the
criteria, demonstrating clear
visual appeal and clarity. Another
avenue for further investigation
would be the potential benefit of
a feedback process for presenters.
Limitations
Many of the standards used for
assessing posters have a subjective
element, and this may not have
been consistent between assessors
despite conferring on a selection
of posters prior to data collection.
Because of the importance of
the visual appeal of posters,5 our
audit solely assessed standards
relating to poster appearance.
The audit takes no account of the
scientific content or the value of The poorest
dissemination via this medium. adherence to
Although this latter area merits
further investigation, it was
any of the 10
beyond the scope of this study. standards was
for issues of
CONCLUSIONS copyright
This audit demonstrates the
variability in posters displayed
at a national conference, and
demonstrates a need for the
improvement of the production of
academic medical education post-
ers. We recommend that detailed
guidance should be produced for
the creation of academic posters
and disseminated to presenting
authors by the organising body,
placing particular emphasis on
the importance of compliance
with the display criteria. This
would inform authors of the
standards expected and hope-
fully raise the quality of posters
displayed. High-quality poster
production would aid in the
dissemination of the material
displayed, thereby raising medical
education standards.
For future research, a re-audit
will be completed at the ASME
ASM 2016. All individuals with
abstracts accepted for the confer-
ence have been sent the criteria
(Table 1) with their acceptance
email from ASME. Further work
should also be undertaken to
investigate the effectiveness of
posters in disseminating informa-
tion, compared with other
methods,4 and into the reasons of
poor compliance with requested
layout instructions.
REFERENCES
1. Densen P. Challenges and oppor-
tunities facing medical educa-
tion. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc
2011;122:48–58.
2. Moore LW, Augspurger P, King
MO, Proffitt C. Insights on the
poster preparation and presen-
tation process. Appl Nurs Res
2001;14:100–104.
3. Rowe N, Ilic D. Poster presentation
– a visual medium for academic and
scientific meetings. Paediatr Respir
Rev 2011;12:208–213.
9/4/2017 4:22:43 PM
 Detailed 4. Ilic D, Rowe N. What is the evi-
dence that poster presentations are
guidance effective in promoting knowledge
should be transfer? A state of the art review.
produced for Health Info Libr J 2013;30:4–12.
the creation 5. Goodhand JR, Giles CL, Wahed M,
Irving PM, Langmead L, Rampton
of academic DS. Poster presentations at medical
posters conferences: an effective way of
disseminating research? Clin Med
2011;11:138–141.
6. Wood GJ, Morrison RS. Writing
abstracts and developing posters
for national meetings. J Palliat Med
2011;14:353–359.
7. Boullata JI, Mancuso CE. A ‘how-to’
guide in preparing abstracts and
poster presentations. Nutr Clin Pract
2007;22:641–646.
8. Cantebury Christ Church University.
Creating an academic poster. 2007.
Available at http://www.canterbury.
ac.uk/graduate-skills/preview/
presentations/academic-poster-
tutorial/poster-tutorial-print.pdf.
Accessed on 26 July 2015.
9. University of Leicester. Designing
an academic poster. 2012.
Available at http://www2.le.ac.
uk/offices/ld/resources/pres-
entations/designing-poster/
designing-poster. Accessed on
26 July 2015.

Corresponding author’s contact details: Alan Gopal, The Hull York Medical School, John Hughlings Jackson Building, University of York,
Heslington, York, North Yorkshire, YO10 5DD, UK. E-mail: hyag1@hyms.ac.uk

Funding: No funding was necessary for this study.

Conflict of interest: AG, DC and MR are all national committee members for JASME – a special interest group of ASME for medical
students and foundation-year doctors. They have each received reimbursement of expenses when performing duties for this committee;
however, no funding was provided in support of this research. All authors have had some involvement either presenting posters or lead-
ing workshops at previous ASME Annual Scientific Meetings.

Acknowledgements: We would like to express our gratitude to ASME for their kind permission to investigate and publish these findings,
and their further support in disseminating further guidance to presenters for the ASME ASM 2016.

Ethical approval: We requested permission from the Association of the Study of Medical Education Senior Officers and Trustee board.
Professor Andrew Hassell kindly approached the board on our behalf.

doi: 10.1111/tct.12584

364 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education. THE CLINICAL TEACHER 2017; 14: 360–364

tct_12584.indd 364 9/4/2017 4:22:43 PM