A: Poster and podium presentations are selected based on the abstract ratings of the tenured faculty. Symposium presentations are selected by the co-chairs and approved by the Board and tenured faculty. If accepted, each presentation has different requirements. For example, symposium presenters typically participate in panel discussions. Poster presenters may give a brief oral presentation (i.e., elevator talk) as well as respond to questions during the poster session. Unlike poster presentations, symposium and podium presentations count toward tenured membership.
17th Annual IAHPR Meeting
This year’s edition
November 1, 2025
October 29, 2025
- Enschede, Netherlands
We are excited about our 16th IAHPR Annual Meeting! The meeting will take place at the University of Twente in Enschede, Netherlands, from September 29 to October 1, 2025.
We will bring together researchers, scholars, and practitioners from around the world to discuss the latest advancements in health preference research. We invite you to submit your abstracts and be part of this important event!
This year’s meeting theme will be Artificial Intelligence and Health Preference Research, and we especially encourage submissions related to this topic. However, we also welcome abstracts on all areas of health preference research, as we aim to foster a diverse discussion. We look forward to your contributions!
Stay tuned for more details on registration, program highlights, and keynote speakers. We look forward to your participation and contributions to make this meeting a great success.
- Location: University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
- Dates: September 29 – October 1, 2025
Registration fees
The fee schedule below excludes processing fees and any taxes required with the purchase of the registration. Please note all costs are quoted in US dollars.
| Cost in USD | Early bird (ends June 15, 2025) |
Regular (June 15 – August 26, 2025) |
Late (From August 26, 2025) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Student | $250 | $350 | $450 |
| Non-Student | $600 | $700 | $800 |
Pre-Meeting Workshop: Artificial Intelligence and Health Preference Research
September 29, 2025 12:00 am
TechMed Centre | Enschede, Netherlands
We are excited to announce this year’s pre-meeting workshop, aligned with our 2025 theme: “Artificial Intelligence and Health Preference Research.” This interactive session will explore the integration of machine learning and large-language models into health-preference assessments. Attendees can register in advance to participate.
We are honored to welcome two distinguished speakers:
Speakers
Dr. Sander van Cranenburgh
Associate Professor of Choice Modelling
Dr. van Cranenburgh’s research focuses on developing innovative models to better understand human choice behavior, particularly through the use of unstructured data such as images and text. He leads the CityAI Lab at TU Delft, which applies machine learning to study the evolution of residential segregation, uncover urban perceptions, and develop smart noise sensors for detecting sources of urban noise pollution.
Prof. Dr. Paul Groth
Professor of Algorithmic Data Science
Dr. Groth leads the Intelligent Data Engineering Lab (INDElab.org) and has spearheaded several large-scale biomedical data integration and knowledge graph construction initiatives. He previously co-chaired the W3C Provenance Working Group and continues to conduct research on data provenance and integration. He is also the founding scientific director of the University of Amsterdam’s Data Science Centre, which supports the use of data science methods across disciplines. In addition, Dr. Groth co-directs two Innovation Center for Artificial Intelligence labs—AIRLab, focused on retail AI in collaboration with Ahold Delhaize, and the Discovery Lab, which partners with Elsevier to advance scientific discovery.
Q: Can I present the same abstract at multiple IAHPR meetings?
A: Generally no, the same abstract may not be presented as a podium presentation at multiple IAHPR meetings. However, this rule may be relaxed for students, who might present their abstract as a poster at one meeting and as a podium at the next meeting, which might be particularly useful to showcase preliminary and final work.
Q: Can I present multiple abstracts at the same IAHPR meeting?
A: Generally no, each presenter is given a maximum of 1 podium presentation per meeting. However, this rule may be relaxed for students, who might have a podium and a poster presentation at the same meeting. If a presenter has multiple abstracts deemed acceptable for a meeting, the presenter must either (1) decline all but 1 podium presentation or (2) make arrangements for a co-author to present the abstract.
Q: Do submitters and reviewers receive summary scores and comments?
A: Yes, both submitters and reviewers (i.e., tenured members) receive summary scores and comments regardless of abstract acceptance or rejection. However, abstracts that do not pass the administrative review (i.e., rejected by co-chairs) will have no scores and limited comments.
Q: How are the IAHPR abstracts selected?
A: Overall, the selection process is designed to be uniform, transparent, and member-driven. For each candidate abstract, reviewer ratings and comments are summarized and all identifiers are removed. The mean scoring (5*Superior+3*Good+2*Acceptable-5*Unacceptable) is applied uniformly, inherently ranking the candidate abstracts. Using this ranking, the top abstracts are invited for podium presentations. If the meeting has a poster session, the remaining abstracts with acceptable scores (mean score greater than two) are invited for poster presentation. Alternates to the podiums are promoted if needed. Abstract presentations are arranged by co-chairs.
Q: How are IAHPR abstracts rated?
A: At the start of the review process, the names of the authors are removed from the abstracts to allow for blinded review. Next, the meeting co-chairs assess whether each abstract meets the minimum criteria for review and request that all tenured members of the Academy review and rate each candidate abstract along a structured form (Superior, Good, Acceptable, Unacceptable). If members have conflicts of interest (e.g., co-authorship) or the abstract is beyond their subject matter capabilities, those members will use a rating of Abstention. Regardless, tenured members are asked to provide clear, written justification for their ratings on all candidate abstracts.