Post-Workshop Survey | Wellbeing Pivotal Questions

Thank you for participating in The Unjournal's 'Wellbeing Pivotal Questions' workshop. Your feedback helps us measure the workshop's impact (for reporting to grantmakers and supporters) and improve future workshops.

All questions are optional. A 5-minute response is perfectly fine — we don't encourage you to spend more than 15 minutes on this. We will read all responses carefully and report on them.

This survey is anonymous by default. You may optionally provide your name at the end if you'd like us to follow up. If you want some content to be anonymous, you CAN submit it as an additional anonymous response on its own.

Survey responses have been collected and analysed. View the results and synthesis →

We value your time: We'll award a $50 gift voucher via random draw among respondents, plus a separate $50 award for the most useful feedback. If you prefer anonymity, you can nominate a charity to receive the award on your behalf.

We'll also try to respond directly to your feedback, answer your questions, make suggestions, etc. If you leave your email, we'll respond. Otherwise, we'll put this in a shared report. You can download your responses at the bottom of this page.

Have you submitted your beliefs? If you haven't yet completed the Pivotal Questions beliefs elicitation, please do so — this is central to the project, and we will share the results with this group. You can submit using a pseudonym. If your beliefs have shifted, we would also welcome your updated submissions at any time — this is part of what we're trying to measure.

1. Workshop Impact & Value

Help us understand what you got out of the workshop and measure our impact. All questions are optional.

Show / hide questions

Compared to other workshops, conferences, or academic events you've attended, where would you rank this one? Drag the slider to indicate the percentile. 50th = median event you've attended.

Not rated — drag slider to rate

0 = Least valuable 50 = Median 100 = Best I've attended

Please explain your rating. What made this workshop more or less valuable than others? Are there other workshops or approaches in this space, and what does this one uniquely offer, if anything?

Did the workshop change your mind about anything you think is likely to be important for your research, funding decisions, or practice?

What, if anything, do you think you understand better now than before the workshop?

Which of these areas do you understand better? (click once = agree ✓, click again = strongly agree ✓✓; leave blank if not applicable)

Reliability of the linear WELLBY
Potential for using WELLBY/wellbeing measures in prioritizing RCT interventions
DALY-WELLBY conversion approaches
Value of calibration methods (Benjamin et al.)
Experimenter demand and response shift
The neutral point problem
The usefulness/nature of academic research in this area
The priorities and approaches of practitioners in this space
Which measures funders should prioritize

What future benefits, if any, do you anticipate from this workshop? E.g., new collaborations, changed research directions, different funding approaches, papers or projects inspired by the discussion. You can also use this space to propose collaborations, explain your interests, and help us facilitate matches.

Is there anything else you'd like to tell a grantmaker about the value (or lack of value) of this workshop, or The Unjournal's work in general?

2. Sessions & Format

Help us decide whether and how to run future workshops. All questions are optional.

Show / hide questions

Rate the sessions: which were most and least valuable? (leave blank if you didn't attend)

	Little/ no value Some value Valuable High value
Stakeholder problem statement
Benjamin et al. presentation
Evaluator responses & discussion
WELLBY reliability discussion
DALY/QALY-WELLBY conversion
Beliefs elicitation
Practitioner panel (end of workshop)

Regarding the beliefs elicitation specifically: was this a useful exercise? How could it be improved?

Overall, what worked well and what didn't? Any suggestions for future workshop format, pacing, or structure? Please share your thoughts before looking at the specific suggestions below.

How do you feel about the following possible changes? (−− strongly disagree / much less of this, − disagree / less, + agree / more, ++ strongly agree / much more)

More focused — fewer topics, deeper dive
Clearer divide between academic and practitioner material
More structured breakdown of one issue at a time
Breakouts into smaller groups
Zoom-based discussion tools (rather than Google Docs)
More pre-reading / pre-workshop preparation
Longer workshop (full day or multi-day)
Shorter / more condensed
In-person rather than virtual
Larger async component (pre/post-workshop)
Follow-up series (shorter, regular sessions)
More technical discussion
More applied context on interventions/prioritization

3. Tools & Resources

We provided several tools and resources for this workshop and post-workshop collaboration. Which were/are useful? All questions are optional.

Show / hide questions

How useful were these tools and resources? (0–3; leave blank if you haven't seen this resource and don't have time to look at it now)

	Not useful Slightly useful Useful Very useful
Hypothes.is annotations on workshop pages
Beliefs elicitation on the website
Google Doc (collaborative notes)
Zoom Chat
Zoom AI Companion
Self-joining breakout rooms
AI-assisted briefing reports & reading synthesis (e.g., linear WELLBY analysis)
Curated NotebookLM
Video/transcript sharing (upcoming)

Any comments on the tools, or other tools/resources you'd suggest?

4. Recording & Sharing Permissions

Help us understand what we can share publicly from the workshop. No response = OK with sharing, in line with our default sharing policy communicated before the workshop.

Show / hide questions

What level of sharing are you comfortable with for the recorded sessions you participated in?

Full public sharing (YouTube, website, etc.) Public sharing of edited highlights / key segments (with review) Share only with workshop participants and Unjournal team Please do not share recordings of segments I spoke in

What about written notes, transcripts, and synthesis documents?

Fine to share publicly with attribution Fine to share publicly but anonymize my contributions Internal use only (Unjournal team + participants)

Any specific concerns or conditions about sharing? (optional)

5. Research Directions & Collaboration

Help us identify next steps and connect participants with shared interests. All questions are optional.

Show / hide questions

Are there specific research questions, policy issues, or methodological problems raised during the workshop that you'd like to see explored further?

Are there topics you wanted to discuss but didn't get to, or points you want to clarify or raise with the group?

Would you like to find collaborators on any specific project or question? If so, briefly describe what you're offering and what you're looking for. We'll try to match participants with shared interests (using your description, not your identity, unless you opt in below).

6. About You

All fields optional. This survey is anonymous by default.

Show / hide questions

Name (optional — only if you'd like us to follow up on your suggestions or for collaboration matching)

Your primary role (optional)

For the incentive draw: if you win, would you prefer a gift voucher or a donation to a charity of your choice?

Gift voucher (we'll need a way to contact you) Donate to a charity on my behalf No incentive needed, thanks

If charity donation: which charity? (optional)

Contact email (only needed if you want follow-up, collaboration matching, or a gift voucher)

Anything else? (optional)

Thank you for your time and candor. Your feedback directly shapes our future work.