Research Day
28–29 OCTOBER 2025
2025
Department of Paediatrics & Child Health
2 8 – 2 9 O c t o b e r 2 0 2 5
University of Cape Town
Shakti Pillay, Researcher Day Chair 2025
Table of Contents
Abstract Example
05
09
Evaluation of Abstacts
04
Eligibility for Submission
06
Mandatory Research Ethics
Requirements for Abstract Submission
Prizes
Other Important Aspects to Review
before Abstract Submission
08
Formatting and Word Count
Guidelines for Abstract Submission
03
What Constitutes Valid UCT HREC
Approval and What Should it Cover?
07
Best Junior Researcher Oral Presentation
10
“Dyssell Fund” Registrar Research Award
11
Best Senior Oral Presentation
12
Best Overall Poster Presentation
13
Quick Resource Links
14
Submission Format and Word Count
Abstract word count: Maximum 350 words
excluding the title and author information.
Title length: Maximum of 25 words.
Font and spacing: Arial, size 12, single line
spacing.
Language: British English spelling conventions.
Numerical Data and Units: All measurements
must be reported in SI (metric) units. A leading
zero must precede all decimal points e.g., 0.01,
not .01.
Abbreviations: All abbreviations must be
defined at first mention and used consistently
thereafter.
File format: Abstracts must be submitted as
either a PDF or Microsoft Word document or
typed directly into the free text paragraph box
provided in the Google Form.
Authors and Institutional Affiliations
List all authors by name and surname,
accompanied by their institutional affiliations.
Where multiple affiliations exist, superscript
numbering may be used.
The presenting author’s name must be
underlined.
Institutional affiliations should include
department and university or hospital where
applicable.
Abstract Structure
Abstracts must be structured using the
following headings:
Title: Provide a concise and descriptive title
that accurately reflects the content of the
research (maximum 25 words).
Introduction and Background: Briefly outline
the research context and rationale.
Objectives: State the specific research aim(s),
question(s), or hypotheses.
Methods: Provide a succinct description of the
study design, setting, participants,
interventions, and methods of analysis as
applicable.
Results: Present the key findings relevant to
the stated objectives, and statistical outcomes
where appropriate. If final results are not
available, preliminary findings and anticipated
final outcomes should be indicated.
Conclusion: Provide a critical interpretation of
the findings, highlighting their significance,
contribution to existing knowledge, and
potential implications for future research, policy,
and/or clinical practice.
We are pleased to invite abstract submissions for the University of Cape Town, Department of
Paediatrics and Child Health, Annual Research Day 2025. Abstracts should reflect original research,
case reports, or case series that contribute to the advancement of paediatrics and child health.
CALL FOR
ABSTRACTS
Guidelines for Abstract Submission – Research Day 2025
Applicants are requested to carefully review and refine their submissions to ensure clarity,
scientific accuracy, and full adherence to the guidelines.
Submissions that do not comply with the specified word limit, structure, or formatting requirements
may be excluded from consideration.
It is the responsibility of the submitting author to ensure that the uploaded abstract is the final and
correct version, free of typographical and grammatical errors.
Where applicable, supervisors must review and approve the final version prior to submission.
The Google Form includes a mandatory field addressing supervisor review and final author
verification.
Submissions must be affiliated with the Department of Paediatrics and Child Health (DPCH), University
of Cape Town in one of two ways:
Presenter Affiliation: The presenting author holds an official appointment, training post, or
registration within the DPCH, with primary clinical, research, or teaching responsibilities based in
the Department; or
Project Affiliation: The research project is formally supervised, registered, or academically based
within the DPCH or one of its affiliated hospitals or divisions, even if the presenting author is not
personally appointed to the Department.
Submissions where neither the presenter nor the research is affiliated with the DPCH will not be
eligible for selection.
ELIGIBILITY
FOR SUBMISSION
Title: How should Assent to Research be Sought in Low Income Settings? Perspectives from Parents
and Children in Southern Malawi
Helen Mangochi , Kate Gooding
, Aisleen Bennett , Michael Parker , Nicola Desmond
, Susan Bull
1,2
1,2
Malawi-Liverpool Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, Malawi
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom
Ethox Centre and Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Introduction
Paediatric research in low-income countries is essential to tackle high childhood mortality. As with all
research, informed consent is an essential part of ethical practice for paediatric studies. Ethics
guidelines recommend that parents or another proxy provide legal consent for children to participate
in research and children involvement in the decision making through providing assent.
Objectives
However, there remain uncertainties about when children are ready to give assent and the appropriate
processes. Malawi does not yet have detailed guidelines on assent. Understanding community
perspectives can assist in developing contextually appropriate assent guidance.
Methods
Qualitative research was conducted with children and parents in three contrasting settings in Southern
Malawi (low-income urban, high-income urban and rural), to understand variations between
socioeconomic and cultural contexts. Interviews were conducted with parents and their children who
had participated in paediatric research to understand their experiences of assent and views on
appropriate assent practice. Focus groups were also conducted, to understand broader social
perspectives.
Results
We found widespread support for involving children in decisions on research participation. Participants
identified a range of factors that affect children's capacity to give assent, including physical maturity,
intellectual capacity, emotional development, life experience and cultural norms. Age was often
mentioned as a consideration but deemed an unreliable sole indicator of capacity to assent. In relation
to appropriate assent processes, participants emphasised considerations such as supporting effective
understanding and minimising harms.
Conclusion
Participants agreed about the value of involving children in decisions on research, and the need to
promote child's decision-making capacity whilst respecting parents' interest in child welfare.
Developing practical guidance that meets these principals is challenging, particularly given the need of
flexible approaches that suit different study types, children capacities and family environments. Further
discussions within the Malawi research and ethics community will help develop contextually
appropriate guidelines.
ABSTRACT
EXAMPLE
The DPCH is committed to fostering a vibrant research culture that encourages inclusive
participation while upholding the highest standards of scientific integrity and research governance.
Ethical approval is fundamental to this commitment, safeguarding both the rigour of the research
process and the protection of research participants.
Unless a formal waiver or similar exemption has been granted by the UCT Human Research Ethics
Committee (HREC), all research activities, involving human participants which includes data
collection and analysis, must have valid UCT HREC approval before commencement.
Applicants will be unable to upload an abstract unless they have appropriately engaged with the
ethical review process.
One of the following conditions must be met at the time of abstract submission:
UCT HREC approval is in place; or
*Formal proof of submission for ethics renewal is provided if the existing HREC approval is still
active but nearing expiry or has already lapsed; or
A justified exemption is provided explaining why ethics approval or renewal is not required.
Mandatory Research Ethics Requirements for Abstract Submission
* Important: If HREC approval is expiring or renewal is pending at the time of submission,
applicants are still required to upload formal proof that a renewal application has been submitted.
Acceptable forms of proof include an email confirmation sent to HREC submissions or an
automated acknowledgement email from HREC confirming receipt of the renewal request. The
HREC reference number must be clearly included in the subject line or body of the uploaded
email.
If selected for presentation, applicants must submit proof of valid HREC renewal by the internal
deadline for final Research Day programme confirmation (date to be communicated).
Failure to submit valid renewed approval by this deadline will result in the withdrawal of the
abstract from the programme. No exceptions will be made.
Applicants uncertain about their ethics status must contact the Departmental Research
Committee (DRC) for guidance prior to submission or see next page.
Managing Ethics Timelines: Applicant and Supervisor Responsibility
The normal HREC processing time, for correctly completed renewal applications, is +/- 4 weeks.
Therefore, there is sufficient time for all applicants to verify their ethics status and to complete or
formally commence the renewal process ahead of the required deadlines for Research Day
abstract submission.
Applicants, and their supervisors where applicable, are responsible for considering these
timeframes and initiating renewal applications early enough to ensure compliance.
Delays arising from late, incomplete, or poorly managed ethics renewals will not be considered
grounds for exception.
Please see the HREC Annual Progress Report Form.
Please click here to read more on the UCT HREC principles governing the importance of
maintaining valid annual ethics clearance.
RESEARCH
REQUIREMENTS
WHAT MUST VALID ETHICAL APPROVAL COVER?
Valid HREC ethical approval must specifically cover the research being presented.
Approval linked to related projects, general databases, umbrella studies, or unrelated analyses is not
acceptable.
The submitted research must fall within the approved project scope, methodology, and participant
group as described in the HREC-approved protocol.
WHAT CONSTITUTES VALID UCT HREC APPROVAL??
To be considered valid, UCT HREC ethical approval must meet all the following criteria:
Approval must have been issued by the UCT HREC and must include a valid HREC reference number.
Approval must be current (i.e., not expired) at the time of final programme confirmation, with formal
proof of submission for renewal provided at the time of abstract submission, if ethics is still required*
Approval must specifically reference the study being presented.
Approval must cover the full scope of the data being analysed or presented, including any secondary
analyses.
*Important Note on Ethics Approval Validity: Ethical approval must remain valid until all aspects of
the research are completed, which includes data analysis, manuscript or thesis writing, marking or
examination and dissemination activities such as publication. Completion of data collection alone does
not exempt a researcher from requiring ongoing HREC approval. Researchers are responsible for
ensuring that valid ethics clearance remains in place until all research outputs are finalised.
Example: MMED or Mphil dissertations that have already been marked and published do not require
active HREC approval.
Resources
Applicants are requested to consult the DPCH MMED and MPhil Research Website for detailed
guidance on the ethics submission and approval process with a direct link to HREC: Summary of
Types of Applications and Required Approvals for Research Studies.
Applicants must also familiarise themselves with the UCT HREC Annual Progress Report Form
(FHS016) and comply with annual renewal obligations.
Please click here to review the UCT HREC principles governing the mandatory maintenance of valid
annual ethics clearance for all ongoing research.
WHAT ARE 3 ACCEPTABLE HREC APPROVAL STATUS OPTIONS AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION?
At the time of abstract submission, one of the following ethics approval statuses must apply:
Valid Current Approval: Ethics approval has been obtained, and a valid (up-to-date) UCT HREC
reference number and approval letter are uploaded.
Pending Renewal with Proof: Ethics approval was previously granted, and a renewal application has
been formally submitted for lapsed or soon-to-expire approval (with proof of submission, such as an
email confirmation to HREC, uploaded).
Not Applicable with Justification: Ethics approval or renewal is not required for the research
presented, with a clear and well-justified explanation provided.
Mandatory Research Ethics Requirements for Abstract Submission
RESEARCH
REQUIREMENTS
Research reporting must align with internationally recognised guidelines, such as those available from
Please ensure that abstracts are free of “Track Changes” and active comments before submission.
No images, charts, or tables are permitted within the abstract.
Research Day presentations must report on completed research.
If final results are not available at the time of submission, this must be clearly stated in the
“Results” section, with preliminary findings and anticipated outcomes outlined.
Should your abstract be accepted for oral or poster presentation, it is expected that final results will
be available and presented at Research Day.
CALL FOR
ABSTRACTS
Other Important Aspects to Review before Submitting Your Abstract
Research Reporting Standards
Abstracts reporting observational research should comply with the STROBE conference abstract
the EQUATOR Network
checklist.
Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that students are familiar with the appropriate reporting
guidelines.
Each abstract will be assessed according to the following criteria:
Scientific merit and originality of the research;
Clarity and coherence of the research question, objectives, and methodology;
Quality, significance, and relevance of the results;
Interpretation of findings and the strength and validity of the conclusions;
Standard of academic writing, including grammatical precision, stylistic coherence, and
logical organisation.
All submitted abstracts will undergo a structured peer-review process conducted by the
Scientific Committee.
The selection of abstracts will be based on clear, objective criteria to ensure transparent and
fair recognition of outstanding research contributions.
All submitted abstracts must meet the minimum expected standards for academic integrity,
research governance, and ethics compliance.
Abstracts that do not comply with these requirements will not be eligible for acceptance or
presentation.
EVALUATION OF
ABSTRACTS
BEST JUNIOR
RESEARCHER ORAL
PRESENTATION
Substantial contribution refers to
meaningful involvement in the research
process, including but not limited to:
Study design, data collection, data
analysis, or data interpretation;
Taking primary responsibility for a
specific aspect of the project (e.g. data
analysis);
Holding first author, second author, or
senior author status on the abstract or
any related publication.
*General assistance e.g., minor
technical help, administrative support
without significant academic
contribution is not considered sufficient.
Definition of a Junior Researcher
Applicable to this Award
A junior researcher is defined as:
An individual who has not yet obtained a
master's degree e.g paediatric registrar not
presenting research related to their MMED,
a medical officer or nursing student,
presenting research to which they have
made a substantial contribution; or
An individual who is presenting research
conducted as part of a *master's degree
programme e.g., MPhil, MSc.
*Important Clarification:
Research presented as part of a current or
previous MMED degree by a paediatric
registrar is not eligible for the Best Junior
Researcher Award.
MMED research presentations by junior
registrars must be entered under the
Dyssell Fund Registrar Research Award.
Minimum Award Eligibility Criteria
Presenters must meet the following
minimum requirements for award
consideration:
Meet the definition of a junior
researcher; and
Have made a substantial and clearly
identifiable contribution to the
research project being presented.
A prize will be awarded for the best oral presentation by a
junior researcher whose primary affiliation is to UCT DPCH.
The junior researcher must have made a substantial and
clearly identifiable contribution to the work presented (see
below).
The Google Form will guide applicants through the process
of uploading all required supporting documents, ensuring
fair and transparent assessment, and helping to maximise
their chances of successful abstract selection.
PRIZES
10
WHICH AWARD(S) ARE YOU ELIGIBLE FOR?
Note: Meeting the minimum eligibility criteria qualifies presenters for consideration but does
not guarantee award selection.
All eligible presenters will be formally evaluated using a set of predefined Research Day
adjudication criteria, assessing scientific quality, rigour, and originality of the research,
significance of the presenter’s contribution and clarity, organisation, and delivery of the oral
presentation within the allocated time frame.
Presenters who exceed the time limit may have their overall scores adjusted accordingly.
Final award decisions are based solely on adjudication panel scoring.
Minimum Award Eligibility Criteria
Presenters must meet the following minimum
requirements for award consideration:
Be a current junior paediatric registrar
registered within UCT, DPCH presenting
research related to their MMED; or
Was recently a junior paediatric registrar
within UCT, DPCH at the time the research
was conducted i.e presenting research
completed as part of a MMED degree.
Note:
If there is only one eligible paediatric
registrar presenting, the award will only be
made if the academic standard is met
based on adjudication scoring.
Meeting the minimum eligibility criteria
qualifies presenters for consideration but
does not guarantee award selection.
All eligible presenters will be formally
evaluated using a set of predefined
Research Day adjudication criteria,
assessing scientific quality, rigour, and
originality of the research, and the clarity,
organisation, and delivery of the oral
presentation within the allocated time
frame.
Presenters who exceed the time limit may
have their overall scores adjusted
accordingly.
A prize of R 10 000 will be awarded for the best oral
presentation by a current or recently qualified junior
paediatric registrar affiliated with UCT DPCH who is
presenting their MMED.
This award is intended to support the individual's personal
academic development, including conference presentations
or related academic activities.
The Google Form will guide applicants through the process
of uploading all required supporting documents, ensuring
fair and transparent assessment, and helping to maximise
their chances of successful abstract selection.
PRIZES
11
WHICH AWARD(S) ARE YOU ELIGIBLE FOR?
“DYSSELL FUND”
REGISTRAR
RESEARCH AWARD
Conditions of this Award
The recipient must notify the
Departmental Research Committee
within one month of receiving the award,
indicating how the funds will be used e.g.,
for congress attendance or academic
development activities.
If the award is not utilised within 24
months of receipt, the funds must be
returned to the Departmental Research
Committee.
BEST SENIOR
RESEARCHER
ORAL
PRESENTATION
A prize will be awarded for the best oral presentation by a
researcher whose primary affiliation is to the DPCH and
Who is either currently registered for a postgraduate degree at
UCT, or
Has completed a postgraduate degree; and
Is not eligible for either the Best Junior Researcher Award or the
Dyssell Fund Registrar Research Award.
This award is intended to support the individual's personal
academic development, including conference attendance or
related academic activities.
PRIZES
12
WHICH AWARD(S) ARE YOU ELIGIBLE FOR?
Minimum Award Eligibility Criteria
Presenters must meet the following minimum
requirements for award consideration:
Be currently registered for a postgraduate
degree at the UCT; or
Have completed a postgraduate degree;
and
Have made a substantial and clearly
identifiable contribution to the research
project being presented; and
Are not eligible for either the Best Junior
Researcher Award or the Dyssell Fund
Registrar Research Award.
Note:
Meeting the minimum eligibility criteria
qualifies presenters for consideration but
does not guarantee award selection.
All eligible presenters will be formally
evaluated using a set of predefined
Research Day adjudication criteria, assessing
scientific quality, rigour, and originality of the
research, extent and significance of the
presenter’s contribution and the clarity,
organisation, and delivery of the oral
presentation.
Strict adherence to allocated presentation
time is required. Presenters who exceed the
time limit may have their overall scores
adjusted accordingly.
Conditions of this Award
The recipient must notify the
Departmental Research Committee within
one month of receiving the award,
indicating how the funds will be used (e.g.,
for congress attendance or academic
development activities).
If the award is not utilised within 24
months of receipt, the funds must be
returned to the Departmental Research
Committee.
Substantial contribution refers to active,
meaningful involvement in the research
process, including (but not limited to):
Study design, data collection, data
analysis, or data interpretation;
Taking primary responsibility for a specific
aspect of the project (e.g. analysis);
Holding first author or senior author status
on the abstract or any related publication.
*General assistance e.g., minor technical
help, administrative support without
significant academic contribution is not
considered sufficient.
Minimum Award Eligibility Criteria
Presenters must meet the following minimum requirements for
award consideration:
Be the first author listed on the poster; and
Clearly describe their substantial and identifiable contribution to
the research presented.
Note:
Meeting the minimum eligibility criteria qualifies presenters for
consideration but does not guarantee award selection.
All eligible presenters will be formally evaluated using a set of
predefined Research Day adjudication criteria, assessing
scientific quality, rigour, and originality of the research, extent and
significance of the presenter’s contribution and the clarity,
organisation, and visual quality of the poster presentation.
A prize will be awarded for the best poster presentation where the
first author has their primary affiliation to the Department of
Paediatrics and Child Health (DPCH).
This award recognises excellence in research communication and
poster presentation.
PRIZES
13
WHICH AWARD(S) ARE YOU ELIGIBLE FOR?
BEST POSTER
PRESENTATION
QUICK LINKS
Strobe Conference Checklist
Summary of HREC Applications &
Required Approvals
DPCH MMED and MPHIL
Research Website
Equator Network Guidelines
Resource designed and created by Shakti Pillay, Researcher Day Chair 20 April 2025
15