This 73-page report documents the results of a formal evaluation of the process, impact, and outcomes of the XVI International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2006), which had both an in-person and a virtual component. Evaluators sought to: assess the impact this conference had on delegates, review conference sessions, inform future conference planning processes, and facilitate the evaluation of the individual and collective impact of the conference over time. In short, this report explores the strategy of drawing on interpersonal communication (in the form of a major international conference) to address the issue of HIV and AIDS by creating an environment of scientific inquiry, forthright dialogue, collective action, and greater accountability amongst all parties, including: scientists; health care providers; people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA); members of communities most affected by and at most risk of HIV/AIDS; political, community, and business leaders; journalists; and government, non-governmental, and intergovernmental representatives.

Various methods were used to collect information to address this strategy, including: review of conference documentation and the "AIDS 2006" website; consultation with conference organisers and secretariat staff; observation of different conference sessions, activities, and processes; and written surveys of and interviews with conference delegates. The views of approximately 7,500 delegates, 900 skills-building workshop participants, 65 workshop moderators, 120 scholarship recipients and 50 committee members were collected during the evaluation. The leading data collection instrument was an online survey sent to delegates 2 weeks after the conference had ended. According to evaluators, this survey had a very high level of engagement, as evidenced by a 43% response rate representing 7,119 delegates working in 187 countries, 56% of whom were first-time attendees.

Key findings:

• Access & Participation: 21,198 delegates, representing 187 countries, attended the conference. English-language print media coverage during the week of the conference was more than double that of the "AIDS 2004" conference. The number of online visitors to Kaisernetwork's Toronto webcast page during the week of the conference was more than 3 times that of "AIDS 2004". More than 3,000 volunteers were involved in conference planning and implementation. 13,112 scientific abstracts were submitted.
• Perceived Impact: The number of delegates surveyed rating "AIDS 2006" "very successful" (as opposed to "somewhat successful" or "not very successful") in: raising awareness of HIV/AIDS was 68%, supporting the engagement of people living with HIV/AIDS was 49%, providing opportunities to share best practice was 46%, building the capacity of people working in HIV/AIDS was 42%) and presenting strong evidence-based research was 41%. Fewer than 10% of delegates rated the conference "not very successful" in achieving these goals. Almost all survey delegates (98%) reported they had benefited professionally from attending "AIDS 2006", with 68% identifying more than 3 benefits gained and "new knowledge" the most frequently identified benefit (76%). Almost all skills building workshop participants surveyed (96%) reported they had benefited professionally from attending the workshop, although only 27% indicated they had acquired a new skill. "AIDS 2006" was of particular benefit to survey delegates attending their first International AIDS Conference, those with 2 years or fewer experience in the HIV/AIDS field, young people (under 26 years), and those working in the Africa, Asia-Pacific, and Latin America/Caribbean regions. The conference was perceived to be less successful in achieving the goal of influencing policy makers to increase commitment and action (rated "very successful" by 29% delegates surveyed and "not very successful" by 16%).
• Action: 91% of delegates surveyed anticipated undertaking at least one activity using benefits gained at the conference, including: disseminating new information (60%), working more strategically (50%), following up with new contacts (50%), building capacity within their organisation or network (48%), or undertaking advocacy or promoting an issue (40%). The majority (85%) intended to undertake more than one activity. A follow-up exercise with 135 delegates (predominantly scholarship recipients who were first-time International AIDS Conference attendees) found that in the 4-month period following "AIDS 2006", all had undertaken at least one activity related to the conference. Ninety percent had undertaken more than one activity, such as disseminating new information (66%), building capacity within their organisation/network (64%), working more strategically (62%), following up with new contacts (52%), and undertaking advocacy or promoting an issue (51%).

According to evaluators, delegates viewed networking, coalition building, and knowledge generation outside the formal programme as very important conference elements. They point to the fact that the reason most frequently given for attending "AIDS 2006" by delegates was the opportunity for networking/collaboration (45%). "New contacts/opportunity for collaboration" was the second most frequently identified benefit (65%) gained from attending the conference (after "new knowledge").

A number of conclusions and discussion points presented in the paper highlight factors that may have hampered participation for some delegates. For instance, the large size of "AIDS 2006" may have been a challenge for some, who commented that there were too many choices in relation to sessions and activities, and/or noted that it was not very easy to get to sessions on time or to meet colleagues and friends during the conference. Also, based on a look at the nature of abstracts submitted - as well as attendance records from certain sessions - organisers note that there appears to be a clear downward trend in both the basic sciences and policy tracks. For instance, although these findings represent the views of a small number, scientists/researchers as an occupational group of survey delegates (21%) were significantly more likely than other occupational groups to rate the overall quality of conference sessions as "fair" to "poor", and to report that "AIDS 2006" was "not very successful" in presenting strong evidence-based research.

Based on these observations, the evaluators conclude that "the challenge remains for conference organizers and those involved in building the conference programme to maximize opportunities for the participation of those engaged in the fight against HIV/AIDS and to ensure that identified priority areas are equitably addressed."