Of the 101 participants at the meeting, 31% took the time to fill out the evaluation of the meeting.The background of the recipients can be seen here:

Generally, all different sessions were ranked ‘Relevant’ or ‘Very relevant’ by all respondents. Only a few respondents thought that the sessions ‘Pathology & pathogenicity’ and ‘Diagnostics & methodology’ were not relevant at all.

10% of the respondents thought that the level of the talks were sometimes too advanced or too academic and should be more directed at the audience present.

The participants’ outcomes of the workshops were very diverse:

It was commented that the time of the workshop (at the end of the meeting) meant that many had left or was leaving during the workshops. Also, the format was not the best for encouraging discussions.

The overall impression of the meeting is presented here:

When asked what the worst part of the meeting was, some mentioned the poor turnout from the industry, the dinner and the lunches and there were too little discussions.

When asked what the best part of the meeting was, again some mentioned the dinner and the lunches, but also the opportunity to network, the situation updates and the balanced program.

Other feedback from the evaluation:

• There is a wish for more involvement from the industry. Perhaps by a dedicated session.
• It was suggested to prepare a report on the progress in PD knowledge facilitated by the TriNation network.
• The TriNation format works very well, which is recognized by the users.
• The TriNation could be expanded to include other related diseases like HSMI or CMS.

The workshop organizers thank all of the respondents for providing their feedback -not everything was included here, but all responses will be taken into consideration when planning future workshops (more about that later).