Calls for proposals 2008 guide

EXECUTIVE AGENCY FOR HEALTH AND CONSUMERS

Scientific Unit

S

ECOND

P

ROGRAMME OF

C

OMMUNITY

A

CTION IN THE

F

IELD OF

H

EALTH

(2008-2013)

PROGRAMME COMMITTEE

24 JULY 2008

CALL FOR PROPOSALS 2008

V OLUME II

DRAFT

EXECUTIVE AGENCY FOR HEALTH AND CONSUMERS

Scientific Unit

T ABLE OF C ONTENT

•

HS project proposals not retained for co-funding

•

HP project proposals not retained for co-funding

•

HI project proposals not retained for co-funding

•

Conference proposals not retained for co-funding

•

Operating grant proposals not retained for co-funding

HS project proposals not retained for co-funding

Call for proposals 2008

Financial instrument: PROJECTS

Summary Report following Evaluation Committee

101,097.00

Proposal number: 101097

Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: IOGDIPT

1. IMPROVE CITIZEN'S HEALTH SECURITY (HS-2008)

1.2 Improve citizens' safety

Iodine deficiency and gestational diabetes in pregnancy - Thyromobil study

01/10/2008

24

Main partner name:

Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Uniwersytet Jagiellonski, Collegium Medicum

UJCM

Public

Academic organisation

Poland

Associated partner(s) name

Helsingin yliopisto

INSTITUTE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY BUCURESTI

Pécsi Tudományegyetem Orvos- és Egészségtudományi

Koordinációs Központ Klinikai Központ, I. sz. Belgyógyászati Klinika

Pomorska Akademia Medyczna w Szczecinie

University College Dublin

University of Messina

University of Pisa

Uniwersytet Medyczny w Lodzi

8

Acronym

UH

IENDB

UNIPEC

PAM

UCD

UNIME

UNIPI

MUL

City

Helsinki

BUCURESTI

Pecs

Szczecin

Dublin 4

Messina

Pisa

Lódz

Country

Finland

Romania

Hungary

Poland

Ireland

Italy

Italy

Poland

Executive summary:

General objective: To assess two important aspects of pregnancy: iodine nutrition, with associated thyroid disorders, and glucose metabolism.

Pregnant women will be examined from selected European countries, where different models of iodine nutrition and obstetric healthcare are applied. Iodine deficiency in pregnancy is especially dangerous in the I and II trimesters, being related to disturbances in brain organogenesis and delayed psychophysical childhood development. Also, undiagnosed diabetes and glucose intolerance (i.e., gestational diabetes) are especially dangerous for fetal development, both increase the risk of developing postpartum diabetes. European countries apply different models of obstetric healthcare.

Strategic relevance & contribution to the program: The project is based on the best available knowledge in the areas of iodine deficiency disorders, diabetes prevention, and prenatal obstetric care. The Thyromobil vehicle is used as a means toward the European implementation of simultaneous iodine deficiency, thyroid disorder, and diabetes assessment in pregnancy.

Methods and means: The IOGDIPT project is comprised of four core and three horizontal work packages. The study will include about 5000 pregnant women, consisting of equal numbers in the I, II and III trimesters of pregnancy. The entire examination will consist of an ultrasound thyroid evaluation and laboratory analysis of collected urine and blood samples. The examination will be conducted by trained professionals

(i.e., doctor and nurse) and will take place in the Thyromobil vehicle, localized in the vicinity of a local obstetrics center.

Expected outcome: Pregnant women from selected European countries will be precisely evaluated for iodine nutrition, thyroid disorders, and glucose metabolism impairment. Quality control indicator of iodine nutrition will be standardized. Thyromobil action-strategies may be implemented in some European countries to tackle inequalities in antenatal healthcare

6

Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013 1 2008-07-09 19:10




Budget

E1a - Staff (public officials)

E1b - Staff (non public officials)

E2a - Travel

E2b - Subsistence allowances

E3 - Equipement

E4 - Consumables & supplies

E5 - Subcontracting costs

E6 - Other costs

E7 - Overheads

I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget

I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials

I3 - Applicant's financial contribution

I4 - Income generated by the project

I5 - Other external resources of the project

Total:

Expenditures

241 972

356 460

56 600

46 964

0

388 272

0

133 000

85 627

1 308 895

Incomes

654 445

241 972

412 478

0

0

1 308 895





Evaluation report

Award criteria

Criteria Block A: Policy and contextual relevance

(1) Project's contribution to the Second Health Programme and its annual work plan in terms of meeting the objectives and priorities

(2) Strategic relevance in terms of expected contributions to the existing knowledge and implications for health

(3) Added value at European level in the field of public health (2 aspects)

Note

4

5

5

Comments

The project describes a vehicle for testing iodine deficiency and carbohydrate metabolism in pregnancy. This vehicle is to be used for sampling and testing of pregnant women in several countries in Europe. By and large the approach seems more scientific than of relevance for the

Health Programme although the project is covered by the Health Programme in general terms.

The applicants relate their work to the objective Improve citizens’ safety in the Work Plan 2008.

However, it is not obvious how the project fits this objective.

The project can increase knowledge on the specific topic addressed but not of a true strategic nature. The project will address an important risk group (pregnant women), it will collect data on iodine status in Eastern Europe, and it will study prevention of diabetes in obstetric care. Although important issues there is already a substantial data base from other sources so the value of this project would be more of an epidemiological interest (i.e. mapping of prevalence) than creating new knowledge for risk assessment and future guidelines. The risks of diabetes in pregnancy are already very well known, so the possible impact on the project would be to create new information on the need for iodine supplementation to this risk group.

Pregnant women should be a focus of EU health activities and common guidelines would be beneficial, but already exist at the national level. Creating of common guidelines would also require cooperation with other stakeholders like the WHO.

By covering a larger geographical area the study is of larger interest than if it had been performed at the national level. It may have an interest in implementing effective intervention for the improvement of health equality in pregnancy, but the study is more focussed on epidemiological mapping than on prevention. The 'going to the women' approach is interesting and the transferability of the method could be further explored.

(4) Pertinence of the geographical coverage

(5) Adequacy of the project with social, cultural and political context

6

6

The geographical coverage is good. More collaborating partners could be an asset.

This is considered and well described. However, the attitudes towards using the vehicle for sampling of pregnant women in the different countries could have been further analysed. To indentify social groups at risk in different countries is adequate and will in itself contribute to risk prevention during pregnancy.

Total criteria block A:

Criteria Block B: Technical quality of the project

(1) Evidence base

26

Note

4

(2) Content specification

4

Comments

The evidence base is reasonably well described but could connect the project more clearly to descriptions and a problem analysis. Proposal lacks other ongoing initiatives. References are completely missing.

The project targets two objectives: Iodine deficiency during pregnancy and diabetes(low carbohydrate tolerance) during pregnancy. To focus on one of the main objectives and set up a targeted study with a clear European dimension would have been favourable.

Some important methodological aspects, including recruitment of study population, is missing.

(3) Innovative nature, technical complementarity and avoidance of duplication of other existing actions at EU level

(4) Evaluation strategy

4

This is a research activity, but as such not truly innovative. Still, there is clearly a need for intervention in both sectors, so this study could have been of interest if it targeted preventive dimensions instead of assessment. The data generated would be valuable as a basis for further discussions on prevention. There is however a risk for duplications with other ongoing initiatives.

(5) Dissemination strategy

Total criteria block B:

4

4

20

There is limited information on the evaluation strategy and indicators are not well described. The evaluation focuses of inter-laboratory comparisons. Evaluation of the project as such, focusing on objectives, deliverables and impact should be addressed.

The dissemination is merely scientific with standard peer review articles, presentations at conferences, etc. This could be developed





Criteria Block C:

Management quality of the project and budget

(1) Planning and organisation of the project

Note

3

(2) Organisational capacity

(3) Quality of partnership

(4) Communication strategy

4

3

3

(5) Overall and detailed budget, Financial management

Total criteria block C:

Overall appreciation -

Total:

Conclusion and suggestions

7

20

66

Comments

The main partner is managing a substantial part of the tasks. A more even distribution of work between the partners would be an asset, involving the associate partners in a more active way.

Timetables and milestones are acceptable.

The risk analysis is inadequate and does not, for example, address how the applicant intends to handle technical problems with the Thyromobil. Is there a backup? Also handling of low participation should be addressed. Some methodological details which may impose problems are not addressed, like linguistic problems and different views on screening in different countries.

There is not so much information on this but it seems adequate. The staff seems to be very competent and the network experienced.

The partnership seems adequate in terms of synergy and complementarity. As the number of partners is fairly limited, this will also limit the spread of the network. The different roles and responsibilities of the partners could have been better defined, and tasks more evenly distributed.

As the same Thyromobile will be used by all partners (?) careful planning of activities (including training of personnel) and close cooperation is required.

The communication strategy seems adequate from the limited information given with standard publications. EU funding should be mentioned.

The budget is reasonable with high costs for consumables but low for coordination.

It is balanced between partners and the contribution from the applicants is fairly large.

The project is not recommended for co-funding for the following reasons:

- The relevance for the Health programme is limited. The project is with its present outline more to be seen as a research activity. Restructured it could be presented as an epidemiological study under the Health Information strand, focusing more clearly on inequalities and health care in pregnancy.

- The project has no clear preventive focus. However, data collected in the project could be valuable as a basis for future drafting of common guideline for improving health during pregnancy, which is an important issue. Such guidelines should be prepared in cooperation with relevant international organisations (WHO).

- The project would improve by focusing on one of the two topics, make a careful review of practices and guidelines in Europe, and link up with ongoing reviews, assessments, and other initiatives to improve guidance in this important area.

- Practical and ethical issues related to the work method of choice should be analysed in greater dept.

Recommended for funding:

Maximum amount to be cofinanced:

Maximum percentage to be cofinanced:

No

0

0.00





101,098.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: THE POB



TRAINING HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS IN BIOTERRORISM EVENTS

01/01/2009

24


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

HELLENIC CENTRE FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

HCDCP

Public

Governmental organisation

Greece


Medical University-Plovdiv

REGIONE DEL VENETO

Acronym

MU-PV

REGVEN

2

City

Plovdiv

Venezia

Country

Bulgaria

Italy


In worldwide level an intense mobilization has been observed, regarding countries preparedness for the response of such phenomenon.

National organizations and entities pay a lot of attention at the development of cooperation networks, management and response of bioterrorism events, while on the other hand recommend the appropriate technical-material and pharmaceutical equipment to countries in order to respond to such incidences for example Personal Protection Equipment, medicines, vaccination stock e.t.c.

In every case the existence of ad hoc groups in every country remains essential for the treatment of deliberate release events. Usually, these groups come from public sectors and for this reason close cooperation and constant training is required in order not only the ad hoc experts but also the involved sectors to be in immediate availability.

Lately, it has been shown that, besides the cooperation of the involved sectors in national level, the cooperation in international level might been proved more constructive and meaningful.

The International situation record has shown that usually for bioterrorism issues, as it has been mentioned, the responsible is the stuff of the involved sectors, which is usually public officials, while it is not known if the private healthcare professionals such as doctors, pharmacists, paramedical stuff, who in some cases might constitute the first recipients of people that have been exposed to a bioterrorism weapon, are fully aware of bioterrorism issues. It is underlined, that emphasis must be given to private healthcare professionals regarding biological weapons which in some cases are difficult to detect and rapidly diagnosed.

The main objective of the program is the development of cooperation networks between the involved sectors of each country in international level, in order to be an exchange of the current know-how and possible help in the response of bioterrorism events.

2





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

426 210

40 000

6 368

20 000

29 216

100 000

110 000

4 200

735 994

Incomes

441 588

0

294 406

0

0

735 994











Note

5

3

3

Comments

The Project is in accordance with the Health Programme and the Work Plan 2008, broadly targeting the priorities as specified in 3.2.; 3.2.1 2.; and 3.2.1.3. This information is not sufficiently clear in the proposal and the applicants refer their work to 3.2.2 (Improve citizens' safety).

The objective of 'privatisation' of a sensitive and important issue such as training of health care professionals in dealing with bioterrorism events is questioned. There is already a lot of knowledge in this field, so the project's contribution to existing knowledge is not obvious.

Furthermore, references to legislation and existing policy framework is missing. The implication for public health of the proposal is not well developed.

There added value at the European level is not clear. There are already several systems in place which will be used in case of an event. Bioterrorism is not solved through websites. For training of private HC professionals, the starting point could be the EWRS system, the Ras-Bichat etc. To include countries with a longer tradition in this area would be important for a transfer of knowledge, and would add to the European dimension. The target groups are not well described; long term effects are difficult to estimate, and so are replicability, transferability and sustainability of the activities.



3

3

The geographical coverage is limited with only three partners and one collaborating partner. The participating countries are concentrated to the South and Eastern Europe.

The adequacy of the project with the social, cultural and political context is not clearly addressed.

The threats posed by bioterrorism in the different countries are not well developed. Cultural or social aspects relation to the views of the target groups are not explained.




17

Note

3






3

2

2

2

12

Comments

The description of the evidence base is fairly weak and so is the problem analysis. Factors like impact, effectiveness and applicability of the chosen measures should have been given.

To educate medical staff in bioterrorism events is a good idea. However, the method of choice is poorly described and elaborated considering the size of the assumed task (training private sector health care professionals in Europe). A website will be created and a number of workshops given, but important facts, such as which language(s) to be used, is not given. The replicability of the project in other countries or regions should be addressed.

Descriptions of aims, objectives, target groups, consortium, effect and outcomes are also limited.

Target groups for the educational activities should be better defined. One basic issue to be addressed is the selection of the municipalities to be involved in the project. This is a good initiative and the selection process therefore important.

The innovative nature of the project is considered weak. It should also be noted that ECDC has a mandate for training and preparedness for the bioterrorism alerts as stated in the Green Paper on

Biopreparedness (COM (2007) 0399). They would thus be an important actor in a project like this.

A better description of ongoing activities in this field and how these could be linked to the project should have been an asset to provide information on complementarity or risks for duplication.

Actions like this already exist in several countries, and coordination between and within countries, as well as transfer of knowledge is important, but not a focus of this project.

The evaluation strategy should be elaborated and indicators clearly defined for processes as well as for the impact of the project.

Creation of a web site and arranging workshops are the main dissemination activities. There is no well described dissemination strategy, although some information is given. This part needs to be elaborated.












Note

3

3

2

3

6

Comments

The activities, timetable, milestones, deliverables, nature and distribution of tasks are discussed, although fairly briefly. The risk analysis would need to be improved, and should, for example, address the risk of closure of the website during an emergency. The timetable is reasonable.

The main partner has a long experience in this field, although the experience of this partner in

European projects is not well described. There is a good management structure with good competence of the staff. Some managerial issues like monitoring and supervision would have needed more attention. Internal communication is addressed.

The competence of some of the staff working for the associate partners is difficult to evaluate due to lack of information. Otherwise the partners represent relevant bodies and there is some complementarity. The geographical issues of the partnership is already discussed above. Roles, responsibilities and structure of the network could have been more clearly addressed.

The communication strategy is more of a list of activities and could be better developed. There is no mentioning of European visibility. Translation of brochures and linguistic issues should be addressed.

A description of financial management is lacking. The budget is by and large relevant, but the costs of the different work packages is not explained. Some of the tasks allocated to medical doctors could perhaps be carried out by other medical staff to keep costs down. Costs for administation and website seems fairly high.



Total:


17

46

Although this proposal addresses a very important and relevant area it is not recomended for co-funding. The reasons for this is the lack of a clear demonstration of an European dimension.

Even if the proposal is in line with the Health Programme and its Work Plan for 2008 it would need to include an enlarged partnership, clearly representing the different cgeographical and cultural regions in Europe, to clearly add European value. The evidence base, relevant legislation, as well as the complementarity of the present project with other ongoing activities would need to be addressed, and so would the possibilities of transerability of knowledge in this field. Other points for improvement include the evaluation and dissemination strategies. Target groups should be clearly identified.




No

0

0.00





101,099.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: PRAEGIS



Pre-operative Risk Assessment among Elderly receiving selected Gastro-Intestinal Surgery

01/01/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Regione del Veneto

REGVEN

Public


Italy


Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche

MBAL Samokov EOOD

The Institute of Experimental and Clinical Medicine at Vilnius

University

Uniwersytet Jagiellonski Collegium Medicum

Acronym

CNR-IN

MBAL

IECM VU

UJCM

City

Padova

Samokov

Vilnius

KRAKÓW

4

Country

Italy

Bulgaria

Lithuania

Poland


General objective:

The general objective is to increase the safety of health care by defining adverse medical and assistance events in elderly subjects affected with gastrointestinal diseases requiring surgical treatment. The project aims to both lower health care costs by reducing iatrogenic risks, by scoring some events and their predictability on the basis of the patients’ characteristics, and to increase the safety of operations commonly carried out by protecting the category of citizens who are most exposed to iatrogenic risk.

Strategic relevance and contribution to the programme:

The need for tools that better discriminate is due to the limitations of the existing ones. Even the outcomes adopted, predominantly mortality oriented, are not particularly useful in predicting the clinical course among elderly. Other outcomes such as early discharge safety, a cost analysis associated to readmission, and the need for rehabilitative services and admittance to intermediate structures are also relevant outcomes.

Methods and means:

Study population: hospitalized patient aged 65+ for any gastro-intestinal diseases with indication for a laparotomy gastro-intestinal surgery.

Instruments administered before surgery: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment; Predictors of post-surgical outcomes, anaesthetic scales.

During surgery: Surgery complexity and procedures. At follow-ups: post-operative assessments; clinical and care assessments (three follow-ups). Outcomes: post-operative morbidity and mortality; level and length of post-operative disability, need of institutionalization; residual

ADLs.

Expected outcome:

1. validation of a pre-operative instrument aimed to speed up the clinical process and reduce the need of care by reducing the operative risk.

2. identification of the best practice and drafting of guidelines;

3. creation of a GI surgery Network at European level willing to implement the proposed best practice to evaluate differences with the common applied practice.

4





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

297 397

314 905

15 600

17 184

14 700

3 500

30 000

0

48 528

741 814

Incomes

444 417

297 397

0

0

0

741 814











Note

4

4

4






5

5

22

Note

4


4


3


4





4

19

Note

Comments

The project is covered by the Health Programme in very general terms, but pre-surgery risk assessment is not a priority and is more of a clinical issue than a public health topic.

There is already significant knowledge in this area and the proposal is for that reason of limited strategic importance.

The project could contribute by raising the awareness of risks in the elder population in relation to gastro-intestinal surgery and in this way have a positive impact on the target population. However, this does not really add value in the field of public health. The project addresses a specific surgical and anesthesiological problem, not a public health problem.

A better spread through Europe would have been desirable to cover different health care systems and regional differences.

The project is strictly clinical so social, cultural and political aspects are not described in any detail and perhaps less adequate. Routines for data collection are mentioned.

Comments

The evidence base should be expanded. No real problem analysis is included.

There have already been a lot of studies in this field.

The content of the project is rather well described. The methods are not really defined. They should be clearly evidence-based, and there are already such methods available.

Since there are already knowledge in this area the project is not considered very innovative.

The evaluation strategy is only addressing the process, not the methods used. Indicators are not sufficiently described.

The dissemination targets the adequate stakeholders – professional medics. Fairly standardised but relevant.

Comments




3

4

3

Planning and organisation is realistic and well described in parts, but the applicants are mainly describing their long experience and not the distribution of tasks in the present project.

The staff is competent and the internal work procedures adequately addressed.

The network is well established and well suited to run projects. There would however be an asset in engaging more partners contributing to diversity and innovation.









Total:


3

8

21

62

No specific comments.

The budget is reasonable and well balanced.

The project is not recommended for co-funding since its public health dimension is too limited, and there is no clear support for this kind of activities in the Health Programme. Furthermore it is not considered innovative enough with regards to work already in place in this area. Also the

European dimension could be significantly improved and explored if a study like this were to take place.




No

0

0.00





101,101.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: TORATIC


1.1 Protect citizens against health threats

Toxicological Risk assessment of Deliberate releases or accidents with TICs

01/01/2009

30


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

National Institute for Public Health and the Environment

RIVM

Public


Netherlands


Bundesinstitut fuer Risikobewertung

Commission of the European Communities - Joint Research Centre

CrisisTox Consult

European Virtual Institute for Integrated Risk Management

INSTITUT NATIONAL de l'ENVIRONNEMENT INDUSTRIEL et des

RISQUES

Karolinska Institute

Swedish Defense Research Institute

Technical University of Denmark

TYöterveyslaitos (Finnish Institute of Occupational Health)

UK Health Protection Agency

10

Acronym

BfR

JRC

CrisisTox

EU-VRi

INERIS

KI

FOI

DTU

FIOH

UK HPA

City

Berlin

Brussels

Gouda

Stuttgart

Verneuil-en-Halatte

Stockholm

Umeå

Lyngby

Helsinki

Chilton, Near Didcot

Country

Germany

Belgium

Netherlands

Germany

France

Sweden

Sweden

Denmark

Finland

United Kingdom

8


In a deliberate release or accident with Toxic Industrial Chemicals (TICs) or chemical warfare agents (CWAs), the ability to perform a rapid assessment of the risk to human health is the cornerstone capacity of the public health community. Other planning and response activities (e.g.

risk communication, medical response organization, etc.) build on its outcome. Time is of the essence, particularly for incidents involving airborne dispersion of chemicals.

Risk assessment requires modelling and monitoring of exposure and the ability to test exposure against well established toxic threshold values with an operational significance. The current risk assessment capability is seriously reduced by lack of scientifically valid, European accepted toxicological threshold levels to assess the human health implications of exposures.

TORATIC adheres to the idea expressed by the Commission COM (2005) that generic preparedness planning and interoperability are key elements in mitigating the impact of mass emergencies. The objective of TORATIC is to develop methodology for derivation of toxicity threshold levels. Specifically TORATIC will:

• define a scientifically sound and broadly supported methodology for deriving 3 acute toxicity threshold values per chemical

• define the organizational and procedural infrastructure required to derive such threshold values

• build on the accumulated knowledge and previous projects on the subject worldwide

• provide a starting point for actual derivation of threshold values.

An internal and external system of peer review and evaluation will ensure quality.

Once such threshold values are available, the public health community’s enhanced ability to assess health risk from acute exposures will contribute to health protection since it can better develop scenarios, prevent, plan for, prepare and responds to chemical incidents including deliberate releases.

Longer-term benefits are the creation of a common risk assessment language and toolkit.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

8 932

1 369 547

149 400

124 500

0

0

0

153 000

57 082

1 862 461

Incomes

1 495 756

8 932

357 773

0

0

1 862 461













Note

7

6

7

5

6

Comments

The proposal addresses the priority action 3.2.1.2.Preparedness and response to health threats from CBRN and terrorism. It is also of relevance for som other areas. Little effort to connect the proposal to priorities was made by the applicant.

Assessing the risks to human health after an acute exposure has strong strategic relevance.

However, there is already quite a lot of knowledge in this field and many ongoing activities that the applicant could link its work to.

Having several European institutions among the best known in the field working together and creating a common languague and scientific based expertise within the EU is clearly of added value. However, broadening the network would have been advantageous.

The geographical coverage is good for this type of project. To include a couple of additional partners, preferrably from new MS, would have been an asset.

These aspects are not so well adressed, but are relevant since it affects the possibilities of involving stakeholders in the various countries in the implementation of the results. A broader network with larger cultural, political and economical differences would probably have reulted in a better description of these aspects.




31

Note

4


4

Comments

There is a good analysis of the evidense base, but applicability of methods would merit more attention. The review of the evidense base is strivtly targetting toxicological matters. An important area which is lacing is risk communication.

The ojectives and deliverables are clearly described. Methods could have been further elaborated, especially regarding choise of chemicals to be studied, including selection criteria. A weak part of the content of the project is that it does not include (Eastern) countries with a more recent history of public health risk assessment of industrial release of chemicals.



4

The European standard is the true novelty in this project. There is also a clear need for commonly agreed threshold levels. Methodologies are nt new. Duplication is not easy to evaluate from the information given, but relevant cooperation with other similar activities should prevent this.

4





5

21

Note

The evaluation needs to involve outside stakeholders and should preferrably be done by an external body. A Critical Review oard will be established for evaluation during the project but this is not very not well described. The evaluation strategy needs to be further elaborated, indicators to be specified.

Sustainability is not discussed, which would have been very relevant. Otherwise the dissemination strategy is adequate for this kind of project.

Comments


3

The project is clear in describin timetable, milestones, deliverables and activities. Better descriptions as to how various stakeholders are to be involved would be an asset. The risk analysis is very poor, and need considerable elaboration to be meaningful. Some risks are identified, but the fall-bakc strategies are not convincing.








Total:





No

0

0.00

4

5

3

5




Presentation of the prganisations involved is more or less lacking. The partners are undisputably ighly qualified - still information should have been given. management structure, internal communication, desicionmaking and monitoring is all adequate.

This is a very qualified partnership, but please see comments regarding broadening of the network above. JRC could not participate as an associate partner.

With regard to the substantial budget allocated to the Work Package on dissemination the communication strategy (as regard external communication) is not very impressive. Especially the

Eastern parts of Europe would be important to address. Also communication with other stakeholder group should be elaborated.

The applicant asks for 80 % co-funding, but the evaluators did not find any reasons for that. On the contrary, since industry is involved in the project, there should be a possibility to raise funds from that source as a contribution to the project. The staff costs are very high due to extensive use of scientists/senior scientists with very high daily costs - even for West European standards.

There is a larg number of people involved in the project, and an important issue is the effectiveness of staff spending only a few days spread on the project. Travelling is excessive.

20

72

This is a high-quality project addressing an important area from a public health point of view.

There is a clear need for the treshold levels planned to be identified in the project. However, the reviewers found the budget unacceptable high in relation to the objectives of the project. For this reason it is not recommended for co-funding.





101,102.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: ABS Excellence



European Network of Antibiotic Stewardship (ABS) Excellence

07/01/2009

30


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

ROLAND GAREIS CONSULTING GmbH

RGC

Private

Commercial organisation

Austria


ABS Group

A.ö. Krankenhaus der Elisabethinen Linz

Baranya County Hospital, Pecs

Acronym

ABS Group

KHE

BMK

Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital

European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases

Fundación para la Investigación Biomédica del Hospital Gregorio

Marañón

Institute of Hygiene

Na Homolce Hospital

CWZ

ESCMID

FIBHGM

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

National Centre for Infectious and Parasitic Diseases

National Medicines Institute

National Public Health Institute

HI

NHH

NKUA

NCIPD

NMI

KTL

Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital

Romanian railway University Hospital iasi, Romania/ Romanian

Railway Outpatient Clinic Suceava

PSCUH

RRUH

St. Elizabeth University College of Public Health & Social Sciences St. Elizabeth Univ. College

Università degli Studi di Verona

Universitätsklinikum Freiburg

Universite Libre de Bruxelles - Hopital Erasme

University Medical Centre Ljubljana

University of Rijeka, Faculty of Medicine

UNIVR

UKFR

ULB

UMCL

URSM

20

City

Vienna

Linz

Pecs

Nijmegen

Taufkirchen

Madrid

Vilnius

Prague

Athens

Sofia

Warsaw

Turku

Riga

Suceava

Bratislava

Verona

Freiburg

Brussels

LJUBLJANA

Rijeka

Country

Austria

Austria

Hungary

Netherlands

Germany

Spain

Lithuania

Czech Republic

Greece

Bulgaria

Poland

Finland

Latvia

Romania

Slovakia

Italy

Germany

Belgium

Slovenia

Croatia

18






The general objective of the proposed project is the establishment of a thematic antibiotic stewardship (ABS) excellence network of scientific excellence between EU, national and international bodies for exchange and collaboration on critical issues like antimicrobial resistance in order to safeguard the future therapeutic options for infectious diseases. The project objectives relate to the Work Plan 2008 priority, 3.2.2.3. Risk

Assessment Thematic Networks.

The strategic relevance of this project are the efforts to promote organizational structures for the dissemination of ABS related knowledge, to promote a standardization and coordination of ABS related actions at the European level and to promote an integrative strategy for hospitals and the primary care sector.

The project implementation requires a strong involvement of all project partners. The project team that will take emphasis on the principles of equality, transparency and quality and will actively promote a creative and inspiring team working atmosphere.

The direct target groups of this project comprise public health authorities and/or agencies, political decision makers. The health professional target group is set up of hospitals, the primary sector and their medical associations.

The expected outcome of the project is:

- Good antibiotic stewardship (ABS) practice examples documented.

- European Network of ABS Excellence consisting of all partner countries established.

- ABS Excellence spread by ABS newsletter, ABS portal, ABS info material and conferences.

- Structures for ABS training established and pilot ABS training performed.

- Structures for ABS consulting/auditing established and pilot ABS consulting/auditing performed.

- Strategy plan for post-project phase developed.

Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

181 100

840 185

240 600

218 800

14 000

105 000

646 600

259 000

175 341

2 680 626

Incomes

1 608 374

181 100

891 152

0

0

2 680 626














Note

4

3

3

7

6




23

Note

3





3

3

3

5

Comments

Evidence presented about public health issues is good: the problem is analysed, contributing factors are mentioned at some extent. There is however a lack of refinement in the analysis and important "pieces of the puzzle" are missing in evidence provided: for example, differences in prescription practices.

The overall aim is clear, however as it is defined it will be achieved in M6 of the project (see specific objective 2, setup of the network). Methods and target groups are very general; it is clear, that the project is written by a project management company, not by experts on risk assessment.

But the project claims (and would have under certain conditions) relevance to a risk assessment network. As stated earlier, there is no direct risk assessment relevance and content in proposal.

Outreach and further dissemination of the results of ABS international would be acceptable activities with a sufficient degree of innovation; however this is not reflected in the activities of the submitted project - of which they are only one part. For the rest, the applicant repeats the aims and objectives of the previous project ABS international, but produces scarcely any new knowledge.

The evaluation section is well written, strong in statement and description, but with project management “language” and circular references, instead of concrete indicators: it is generic, neutral to the context/ activities of the specific project and could be replicated to any other area

(i.e. project on environment).

As dissemination could be considered the main part of this project, it contains a relatively good description compared to other parts of the proposal: there is careful planning of dissemination activities and sustainability strategy.

Some elements are weaker, whereby the proposal doesn't identify the most adapted tools to reach its target population (see folders and/ or brochures for General practitioners).

17

Comments

The project seems to be relevant to the Public Health Programme and annual work plan 2008; however the declared focus on " risk assessment thematic networks" is only partial as the proposed activities deal only with risk management, but not with the other elements, such as risk perception, risk measurement and communication.

There are serious doubts as to how the project will really contribute to the existing knowledge: the same group runs already a project called ABS International (funded by DG SANCO) and partner no. 13 (who shares the same address as the main partner) already declares running ABS related training, portal, newsletter etc.

The proposal therefore fails to sufficiently differentiate itself from this previous project, other than by the enlarged geographical coverage.

The lack of reference to the previous project ABS international is disturbing: the objectives of previous project, at least according to their website, limit very much the added value of the present proposal: if those are achieved, then there is no added value in this project. If not, than we have to ask why?

It is of course possible to conceive a network to support and further disseminate knowledge already produced; however, the scope of such a project will be very much reduced in comparison with the submitted proposal, which clearly overlaps with past activities.

Geographical coverage is quite comprehensive, as the project covers a large part of Europe (18 countries). However the target population regarding implementation of the results is rather unclear.

The proposal contains some considerations on social, cultural and political issues and acknowledges the variety of contextual factors. What is unclear is how the group will deal with a conflict of evidence based approach and social, cultural influences? In other words, if the culture is “for antibiotics use”, but evidence says “no use” what will be the standard... How will the criteria for selection of good practices be developed and what will be the role of social, cultural and political context?












Note

3

3

3

3

2

Comments

The main incoherent aspect is that the general aim of the project is achieved in M6. Risk analysis lists the possible risk but does not deal with them; a solution is postponed to project meetings.

There is logic in the proposed partnership, as several partners come from same background: all hospital and University based partners are clearly competent to do the project. The main partner can also be considered competent to monitor the project from the project management side, but this is unlikely from the content side and it is unclear who is going to do that part of work: additional knowledge resources are necessary, if the proposal is to built into an effective risk assessment network. Finally, it remains unclear why reference to the ABS International project is avoided.

Many negative points:

- There are two groups of partners in project, either hospital based or project management based.

A risk assessment expert partner is missing and this questions the relevance of the network for the call's and the project's stated objectives;

- Partner profiles do not provide sufficient information and two private partners (main and associate partner 13) have the same address, along with the bigger part of the budget;

- There is a very important issue with the ownership of the project, which the main partner wants to keep to "itself"; not only should the project not make profit from its future activities, but for it to have a public health impact, the knowledge produced/disseminated must be in the public domain.

The main partner supported by a project team does all planning and initiate communication. It is acceptable for the project management, but the project suggests a thematic network of excellence on risk assessment and leadership, and a communication strategy for this field is not mentioned.

The budget is inflated and largely overestimated for a project, which reaches its main aim in M6

(setup of the network) and which has scarcely any field work. On the detailed budget many issues were flagged:

- Some of the daily costs are quit high (700, 1160);

- A lot of travel expenses (main partner has 77 travels - close to 2 per month);

- Subcontracting costs of 500.000€ between the main partner and partner n.13, with no justification;

- A lot of the same items again in 'other costs' (network establishment…)



Total:


14

54

This is not an acceptable proposal due to reasons mentioned in earlier points and it is not recommended for funding. Validation of results of ABS international should precede any new activity; such an activity, pertaining to a thematic network of risk assessment, should satisfactorily cover the entire spectrum of related knowledge areas; a clear public health perspective should be integrated in such a project




No

0

0.00





101,185.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym:



European Telemedicine Association Project

01/12/2008

36

EUTAP


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

CEFOP Conimbriga_Centro de Formação de Professores e Professional de Conimbriga/LAC

CEFOP-LAC

Private

Non profit organisation excluding the above

Portugal


Administração Central do Sistema de Saúde

Associação Saúde em Português

Broadband Capital Ltd

ISTITUTO NAZIONALE DI RIPOSO E CURA PER ANZIANI V. E. II

Kingston University

Salford Primary Care Trust

Staffordshire University

University of Plymouth Higher Education Corporation

8

Acronym

ACSS

ASP

BCL

INRCA

KUUK

SPCT

STAFORD

UPLY

City

Lisboa

Coimbra

Kingston Upon Hull

Ancona

Kingston-upon-Thames

Salford

Staffordshire

Plymouth

Country

Portugal

Portugal

United Kingdom

Italy

United Kingdom

United Kingdom

United Kingdom

United Kingdom

3


At a recent European Conference it was stated says: “As a continent, Europe is facing a convergence of socio-economic and technological factors that may challenge European healthcare systems at the same time as offering it considerable opportunities. The European Union is confronted by an ageing population that is also experiencing increasing numbers and intensity of chronic diseases. These two issues pose dilemmas with regard to the provision of accessible, high-quality, safe, and sustainable healthcare in individual Member States, and in the Union as a whole. Empirical evidence and relevant figures illustrate this. Shared challenges: a telemedicine solution? These challenges are common to the European continent. It is proposed that telemedicine can play a role in resolving them. Plans are underway on the part of the European

Commission to launch a telemedicine-related initiative that aims to contribute towards solving some of these problems.” ” TeleHealth 2007 – 11

December 2007 – Brussels, Belgium – Conference report.

Indeed, Telemedicine can play an important part in building solutions by:

Promoting continuous Health Senior Care through quality healthcare at home, the support of the families of dependent senior citizens, as well as patients with chronic diseases or needing rehabilitation, focus on remote areas

Promoting Ethics of Eldercare and citizenship, active aging, social transformations and public politic reforms, and a new style of live for senior citizens.

Focusing on the promotion of School e-learning health education and children's health

Contributing to the development of EU and Member States' capacity to respond to health threats, for example with health emergency planning and preparedness measures using technical support from telemedicine networks.

A first conference organized by the European Commission held a first step in consulting the community on these issues, and challenged it to suggest solutions: EUTAP is our answer and contribution.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

10 000

247 800

48 000

79 792

195 000

35 500

110 000

243 908

30 000

1 000 000

Incomes

590 000

10 000

400 000

0

0

1 000 000













Note

3

3

2

2

2

Comments

Difficult to see how this proposal could contribute anything to the PHP even if a lot of points of the

PHP are approached by the applicants.

This proposal is more an evaluation of the usefullness of new technologies. The strategic relevance is rather vague. The proposal seems to assume that an electronic infrastructure is in place at EU level that could form the basis for telemedicine. Some concept as educating governments and also services as a clearing house could bring some strategic relevance but the expected contribution is not described at all in the proposal.

There is no explanation in the proposal indicating how it could bring added value at European level or contribute to the health of the European citizens. The description of target groups and synergy through collaboration are imprecise and vague.

The meaning of geographical coverage seems not understood by the applicants. The project involves only 3 countries with 9 partners.

The idea of the proposal is interesting but social and cultural context are not really addressed or at least the social and cultural differences in the 3 concerned countries are not taken into account.

However some issues concerning access to healthcare in remote areas could be considered as politically relevant.




12

Note

2


2

Comments

The evidence base is not really explained. There is no analysis of the problem, the objectives are vaguely described and no evidence is provided on the efficiency of telemedicine. For example there is nothing on the need for telemedicine in remote communities.

The specific objectives are well specified but the general goal is vague. A lot of different target groups are covered by the proposal from teachers and students at school to the elderly including patients and the general population of remote areas. It seems that the applicants believe that technology in itself is a solution. The description and information on methods, target groups, outcomes … is too vague.


2


1


3

10 Total criteria block B:



Note

This kind of technology is available since the beginning of the 90ies and already used.

There are projects funded by DG research on the same field. So the innovative nature is rather weak.

There is no evaluation strategy at all. It seems more a cut and past of outcomes and deliverables.

The text presented in the section on evaluation has been duplicated here. The dissemination activities and methods are not presented here.

Comments


2

The planning is rather brief, the timetable is unclear and the goals not clear. What will happen with schools and e-learning in health education at the end of the project is not clear, and the risk analysis only addresses the financial issues. The deliverables are listed but there is no mention on what the partners will be responsible for and how they will be involved in the different tasks.








Total:





No

0

0.00

2

2

3

4




The management structure seems enough for this project and there are competencies. However the project is very broad and there is some mismatch between the competencies and the topics addressed.

There is no clear description of the decision making process, no clear supervision, no clear monitoring.

It is a Portuguese centred project (even in the associated partners are not Portuguese). The role and responsibilities of the partners are not clearly described. The interaction between partners

(synergies and complementarities) is not clear.

There is a lack of information on internal and external communication. The communication seems focused on conferences and the target groups are mainly experts and not the public.

The issue of visibility of EU co-funding is not addressed.

The overall budget seems realistic for the goals but there is a lack of details and accuracy.

There is not a good match between the subsistence allowances and the travels and no explanations are provided.

The budget is unbalanced among partners for equipment and consumables as well. The website is too expensive, the need for a communication adviser is not explained, neither the need for an e-learning adviser despite the fact that one partner has experience in the field.

13

35

The project is not sufficiently described and there is a lack of focus; the evidence is not presented; the goals and target groups are confusing. Evaluation and dissemination strategies are not clearly described. The budget is unbalanced among partners and presents some exaggerated expenses.

No form on policy relevance was provided by Sanco.

see conclusions





101,186.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym:



Counselors without Frontiers

29/03/2008

24

CwF


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

GREEK ASSOCIATON OF COUNSELING

GAC

Private


Greece


ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI

LONDON SCHOOL OF COUNCELING AND PSYCHOTHERAPY

PREPOS prevenire e possibile

3

Acronym

AUTH

LSCP

PREPOS

City

THESSALONIKI

LONDON

LUCCA

Country

Greece

United Kingdom

Italy

3


This project is to be implemented in the areas ravaged by wildfires in the Peloponesian peninsula during the summer of 2007.

-The aim of this proposed project is to train counselors -by experienced psychologists- so that they can offer psychosocial support to the affected populations in situ, and help them rebuild and reorganize their living environment. After the completion of their task, the trained counselors enforced by their experience can disseminate further the methods for psychosocial intervention in areas hit by natural disasters

-it will also contribute to the public health program by evaluating, developing and optimizing methods for psychosocial interventions after large scale natural disasters.

- the methodology consist of Training of professional of mental health on a psychosocial programme targeting the prevention and confrontation of traumatic and posttraumatic symptoms after serious natural disasters, the recognition of the specific sufferings of population and the empowerment of communities by integrating them into the activities. Multiple focus group discussions will be held in each community and with teachers and children in the target schools. These groups will generate information that will rich in understanding of the needs, wants, and strategies necessary for the community to recover.

- This project is expected to contribute to the empowerment of the population and the restarting of the local economy since the psychosocial approach focuses on the community bracing and strengthening, furthermore it addresses the resolution of stress or trauma, both on individual and on a community basis, in gentle and non-intrusive ways, in respect with local culture, thus making it applicable in a great variety of social and geographical situations.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

160 460

31 240

50 340

0

7 200

24 000

134 210

0

407 450

Incomes

244 470

0

162 980

0

0

407 450













Note

4

3

3

3

3

Comments

The project is relevant for the Health Programme and meets with the objective 3.2.1.1. of the

Work Plan 2008 (Preparedness to health emergencies) although it does not clearly target any of the specified priorities.

The project could have some strategic relevance and could contribute to the existing knowledge and implication for health. Common recommendations on managing psychological treatment in populations suffering emergencies such as natural disasters are not in place within the EU.

The project could have impact on target groups (more details and description from the applicant would be needed), could have a long term effect and might have a multiplier effect. Not enough information was provided to understand and evaluate a possible synergic compatibility with EU relevant policies.

The geographical coverage of the project is very limited. Partners from more countries would have been an asset.

Social, cultural and political aspects should have been discussed in more detail and better explained. The relation between the project and the situation in the areas involved, compatibility of actions with the different culture and views of target groups were discussed. Also ethical aspects were targeted.




16

Note

3


3


2

Comments

The review of the evidence base is considered weak and too general. The problem analysis is not enough detailed. The effectiveness and applicability of measures were not discussed. A more concrete explanation of the project in relation to existing evidence would be needed.

The content specification is clear, and aims, objectives and methods are discussed. More details would be needed for on target groups, methods, effects and outcomes.

The project is not regarded to have a high level of innovation in its present form. Duplication is not easily evaluated from the information given. Cooperation with similar activities is important.


4


2




Note

The evaluation strategy is quite good. The indicators need further elaboration

The dissemination strategy is perhaps adequate for a project like this, but it is very general.

Transferability of results and sustainability should be addressed. Languagues and translation should be further considered.

Comments



2

3

Activities are discussed and detailed in Work Packages. However, several activities, like reconstruction work and recreational facilities would need to be further explained. Deliverables are quite clear, and the timetable reasonably. Very little details on management structures are given and there is no risk analysis.

From the information available the competency of the staff is good. However, there is not sufficient data to evaluate management structure, responsibilities and internal communication.

Monitoring and supervision is not described.







Total:





No

0

0.00

2

2

5




The partnership is limitied to a few countries. There is little information on complementarity and network structure. The project would benefit from a broader network.

The channels for communication looks adequate. Target groups would need further description.

Communication - both internal and external - could be further developed.

The overall budget looks relevant but somewhat overestimated. It is heavily balanced towards two partners. Some costs would need to be clarified, such as forest cleaning, land slide protection and flood preventing. The subcontracting is not well explained. Costs for travelling are difficult to evaluate due to lack of information.

14

44

The project addresses an important area but is not recommended for co-funding. The main reason is the very limited geographical coverage, as well as the rather preliminary outlines of the planned activities.

Although the project is relevant for the Health Programme it may fit better with the Civil protection action programme. Another opportunity for funding would be an operating grant under the Health

Programme.





101,284.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: Follow-up HPV vaccination



Follow-up of HPV vaccination and vaccination policy recommendations

01/10/2008

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Technical University of Munich

TUM

Public


Germany


Center for Social Advancement, Disease Prevention and Medical

Research Panagia Philanthropini

Radboud University Nijmegen - Medical Centre

2

Acronym

Panagia

Nijmegen

City

Chalkidiki

Nijmegen

Country

Greece

Netherlands

2


This project aims at supporting the development of an adequate HPV vaccination policy in the Member States by follow-up of cohorts of women vaccinated since 2006 and by analysing screening results obtained from large campaigns, which will allow to measure the efficiency and side effects of the HPV vaccination.

The objectives of this project are in accordance with the ECDC Multiannual Programme 2007-2013, which addresses the link between human papilloma virus (HPV), and (a much later) development of cervical cancer and other types of cancer, reinforces the seriousness of this situation and propels sexually transmitted infections (STI) even higher on the list of concerns. The links between STIs and the changing lifestyles and sexual behaviours further underlines the need of vaccines for effectively preventing this serious communicable disease. Due to the fact that the coverage of HPV vaccination is not 100%, there is no other alternative to the organised large screening campaigns for the early detection of

HPV infections and precancerous lesions.

This project is of vital strategic importance, since it will collect and evaluate real patient data and side effects, in order to obtain the evidence about the efficiency of HPV vaccination in Europe. This will improve the public health knowledge in Europe and will allow other scientists to build upon the results of this project, in order to allow long-term follow-up of HPV vaccination within the next 10 years.

This evaluated laboratory data will flow, together with the extensive professional knowledge of the partners, into two documents, a "Report on the impact of HPV vaccination on screening" and "Recommendations on HPV vaccination policy" based on clinical facts, which will support the

Member States in deciding on HPV vaccination policy.

The Human Papilloma Virus causes cervical cancer, oral cancer, cancers of the head and neck, and the more rare penis, anal, vulval and vaginal cancer.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

585 720

9 000

1 722

0

0

0

0

40 999

637 441

Incomes

382 464

0

254 977

0

0

637 441













Note

6

4

4

3

3

Comments

The project fits the objectives of the WP 2008, but it was consider a research study. Nevertheless, the proposal is designed in a way that can not produce any valuable output: the project intervention need at least two decades to be able to measure outcomes.

The aim of the project is of pivotal importance for the future of HPV vaccination policy in the EU, as it could help to provide accurate recommendations to MS. However, as the project could last only three years, there is not enough time to measure the outcomes related to the HPV infections.

Concerning the side effects, the pharmacovigilange is already established and monitors any occurrence, especially as the marketing authorisation of the HPV vaccines, the Pharmaceutical companies are required to provide additional information on potential impact on pregnancy effects, long term efficiency and prevalence of HPV types.

As it is proposed the project will not contribute to the PH issues related to HPV vaccine. A cohort of vacciniees to ensure follow up during 20 years would be of scientific interest, but it can not be consider a public health intervention. The project lacks the institutional links with other EU initiatives, as the ECDC guidelines.

Three partners from DE, GR and NL, consequently the geographical coverage was considered limited. No clear criteria for the choice of the partners, do they have expertise on the domain, to they represent different public health systems related to cancer screening and vaccination policy, etc. The base of the network is the EU CCSN, where there are 5 more countries.

The adequacy of the project with the social, cultural and political context should be described properly in the research protocol. No information was provided about the ethical issues, related to privacy and confidentiality of the use of personal data, and the need to request ethical committee approval.




20

Note

3


3

Comments

The project evidence base could benefit from more epidemiological data, and as a epidemiological study it should be described having an adequate timeframe to ensure the measurement of the expected outcomes. There is no provision of sufficient evidence of the implication for the low cervical cancer screening, especially in the young age groups, of the introduction of the HPV vaccine. The existing data from studies were no provided.

The content was considered limited, as there is no indication of the target population of women, the sampling methods, mode of recruitment, no indication of the research protocol which will be applied. How the data will be collected, stored, analysed? As the methods is not sufficiently described. The uptake of the HPV vaccine is dependent of the national reimbursement scheme and the socio economic conditions of the target population. The proposition of the recommendations for policy orientation at EU level was considered ambitious, as there is not sufficient collaboration with the current activities of the ECDC or the ECN/ ECCG (2006322) network, both active on the definition of recommendations for cervical cancer screening, HPV vaccination and screening.





3

6

3

18

The innovative nature was considered rather low, the research questions should have been better addressed as part of a long term research study. The complementarity with existing actions are not sufficiently presented, even when in principle both groups collaborated in the preparation of the European Guidelines of quality Assurance of cervical cancer screening.

The evaluation strategy as described is sound and developed with the collaboration of the associated partners who a research centres.

No clear dissemination strategy. The definition of the EU recommendation on HPV vaccination is competence of DG SANCO in collaboration with the ECDC, not of a research group.









Note

3

3






Total:


3

3

6

18

56

Comments

The planning and organisation seems good, but inadequate for the timeframe of the research proposed.

Even when no clear description of the expertise, there is no doubts of the capacity of the institutions, but better epidemiological advice should have been requested before the submission of the proposal.

The partnership can be considered suitable for a research action, but not for a public health intervention and in this case the methodology and ethical considerations should be revised.

No communication strategy, list of activities without definition of channels

The overall budget seems relevant, but quite concentrated in medical staff without any data analyst or epidemiologist involved. Even when several of the organisations are public, there are no public officials mentioned in the budget.

The panel considered that the proposal is much more a research study, and that the timeline and methods are not adequately proposed. There is a clear risk of overlap with other EU projects and

ECDC.The panel considered that the proposal is much more a research study, and that the timeline and methods are not adequately proposed. There is a clear risk of overlap with other EU projects and ECDC.




No

0

0.00


HP project proposals not retained for co-funding




101,054.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: DSP

2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)

2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living

Best Practices in prevention of depression and suicide in Europe

01/02/2009

12


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Vlaams Agentschap Zorg en Gezondheid

VAZG

Public


Belgium


Go For Happiness - Ga voor Geluk vzw

Mental Health Europe - Santé Mentale Europe AISLB

Mikkeli University of Applied Sciences

National Prevention of Suicide and Mental Health at Karolinska

Institutet

Regione del Veneto

WHO Collaborating Centre on Health and Psychosocial and

Psychobiological Factors.; Belgian Interuniversity Centre for

Research and Action

6

Acronym

GFH

MHE

MAMK/MUAS

NASP

REGVEN

BICRA

City

Gooik

Brussels

Mikkeli

Stockholm

Venezia

Brussels

Country

Belgium

Belgium

Finland

Sweden

Italy

Belgium


The general aim of the project is to contribute to the prevention of depression and suicide in Europe and the promotion of wellbeing. The main tool will be a web based platform for the collection and exchange of best practices in depression and suicide prevention. The target group will be youngsters in the framework of mental health and promotion of wellbeing. The project will start small with only a few but highly qualified partners. This team will combine multi-disciplinary and inter-sectorial approach, research material (evidence, practice and value-based), governmental institutions from different regions and non-governmental organizations.

This way the project will integrate prevention strategies, good practices and civil society. In this process, the project will be expanded and other partner may join, thus developing a broad ownership throughout Europe and a significant European added value.

4





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

196 350

22 200

18 274

0

0

0

0

13 720

250 544

Incomes

150 544

0

100 000

0

0

250 544













Note

2

2

1

2

1

Comments

The project refers to priority 3.3.3.1 of the work plan, in the sense that it aims to develop guidelines to integrate mental health promotion and mental disorder prevention into training and practice of health professionals through a web based platform. While the overall aim is valuable, the project objectives and actions are not well elaborated, which makes its contribution to the

Public Health programme unclear.

The project description fails to convey a clear picture on how it will enhance the knowledge base or contribute to what already exists. No good evidence or overview of the state of the art is provided, and no reference is made to existing EU-funded projects or databases on depression and suicide (e.g., Cochrane group on mental health). The project refers succinctly to activities at

Member States level but does not indicate how it will build on them. Reference is made to the identification of common denominators to create and implement strategies, but this term is not defined. There is a likely overlap with the EAAD and EAAD-II projects, which are also related to promoting good practices on depression and suicide. The target group is heterogeneous and includes children, youngsters and teachers; if best practices are to be developed or reviewed the target group should be more focused.

As a pilot project the development of guidelines for training and education in regard to mental health could provide an added value, but the method is too unclear to see a real EU added value.

The European policy with regard to mental health, including the Green Paper and the EU Mental

Health Pact, are not mentioned, so it is not clear how this project links to the EU mental health policy and strategy.

Four out of seven partners, including the main beneficiary, are from Belgium. Nordic countries are represented by a Finnish and Swedish partner, and the Mediterranean countries by an Italian partner, but despite a wider geographical representation via the involvement of Mental Health

Europe as an associated partner, other parts of the EU are not directly represented. New Member

States are not participating. The possible inclusion of Wales as a partner is mentioned, but not elaborated and probably only to be seen in terms of the recent epidemic of teenage suicide in

Wales, so the role or input from Wales remains very unclear.

Adequacy with the social, cultural and political context will be addressed by referring to local initiatives and stating the intention to take local social and cultural aspects into account. There is a mismatch between the content of the proposal and the partners' set-up. The target population

(children and adolescents) are not involved in the project, and there is no mentioning of specific high risk groups, e.g. migrants.




8

Note

1



1

1

Comments

The problem of the mental health burden and the need to address depression and suicide are mentioned, but not in terms of real evidence: the applicants refer to the experience of partners and list organisations who hold evidence (e.g., WHO, …) but do not provide any epidemiological evidence as such and do not refer to existing literature or reports. There is no evidence regarding the effectiveness of the proposed actions, which reduces the internal and external validity of the methods proposed.

The general aim of the project - to contribute to the prevention of depression and suicide via a web based platform disseminating best prevention practices – is valuable but probably unrealistic, as the effectiveness of a web based platform for this topic has not yet been piloted. The specific objectives are not sufficiently specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-bound (SMART).

It is not clear at all what type of synergy will be created for whom. The target group of children and adolescents is too general and does not identify specific high risk groups which may require a different approach. The method description is vague for the different components of the approach

(i.e., specific networking methodology to create synergy, selection and validation of inclusion criteria for the "best practices", etc.). It s not mentioned if the approach has been cleared ethically.

The information provided in the proposal is insufficient to testify to its innovativeness. In terms of content, there is a likely overlap with EAAD and EAAD-II, which are also related to collection and dissemination of good practices on depression and suicide. In terms of methodology, creating synergy and building a web platform is in itself not innovative, although it could have an added value. The project should however make this added value more explicit by explaining how it builds on the partners' previous review of best practices and that of others, e.g. the Cochrane group on mental health.




0

2




There seems to be a confusion between the evaluation of national or individual prevention strategies and the evaluation of the project proper. An evaluation of initiatives and their implementation for inclusion in the web based database is mentioned, but no evaluation procedure or indicators are elaborated to evaluate the project in terms of process, outputs or impact. The work package on evaluation does not contain any information about the evaluation questions and objectives, methodology, or indicators.

The dissemination of the project results will basically be achieved via the web platform. Other communications or dissemination channels such as publications or workshops are not envisaged.

A stakeholder to fine-tune dissemination in terms of stakeholder needs and channel preference is not foreseen. The sustainability of the project's results beyond the project life is not addressed.




5

Note Comments






1

0

1

1

3

The description of the envisaged activities for the project remains superficial, both in the overall method section and in the work packages. Although the main activities are foreseen, some essential steps are not given (e.g., selecting resources and inclusion/exclusion criteria for best practices, pilot testing the web tool, …). A timeline with clear indication of milestones is not provided. The period for undertaking the activities (12 moths) is too short to achieve quality results, which is acknowledged in the risk analysis but not addressed in the contingency. The list of deliverables is limited and their presentation very brief. While it is stated that each partner will have a specific task, the responsibilities of each partner and their contribution to the overall result are not clearly described. An organigram would be helpful.

Very limited information is given about the organisational capacity of the partners in the consortium and about the consortium itself. The staff curriculum vitae's are not sufficiently telling to infer experience and expertise in project organisation and management. A management structure is given with enough detail given for he main partner (VAZG) and the evaluator (Finnish partner), but not for the others. Internal communication is not described in detail. There is confusion between the Flemish Ministry and the Agency (VAZG), which are both mentioned as main partner.

The partnership is a small network which is limited in terms of EU coverage and does not represent the variety within the EU except via the involvement of MHE. There seems to be no history of previous collaboration between the partners in the consortium. Synergy could develop over time but is not indicated in the proposal. Not enough details are provided about the structure, task division and interaction processes within the partnership.

Internal communication is not explicitly addressed in the proposal. Internal communication lines and channels are not clear, apart from virtual and actual meetings. The timing, objective and place of meetings are not detailed.

External communication seems to rely exclusively on the web platform. Other communications or dissemination channels such as publications or workshops are not envisaged. A stakeholder analysis to fine-tune external communication is not foreseen.

The overall budget is modest, even for a one-year project of limited scope, but very little detail is provided to justify the items that have been budgeted. The same salary levels for staff cost are given for each partner, which is no realistic. Only non-public staff is budgeted although some partners, including the main partner, are public institutions. Travel and subsistence costs are relatively high, partly due to the high number of meetings, the purpose and place of which is not detailed. The number of trips is not same for different partners, without an explanation. The percentage of Commission co-financing is higher than 60%. Financial management circuits are not explained.



Total:

6

19






No

0

0.00




Although the aim of this project, to contribute to the prevention of depression and suicide via a web based platform disseminating best prevention practices, is relevant and fits with the priorities of Health Programme and the 2008 Work Plan, it is insufficiently elaborated in terms of the evidence base, specific objective formulation, method specification, planning and organisation of the actions, and process and output evaluation to achieve a significant contribution to the existing knowledge base or prevention practice. The project is likely to overlap with existing projects and should make its added value more explicit by providing a state of the art and explaining how it builds on existing reviews of best practices. The partnership is a small network without a history of previous collaboration, and despite the involvement of a European association as an associated partner, the project has a limited geographical coverage and does not sufficiently include New

Member States. The budget is reasonable but not sufficiently justified by the description of the actions. The dissemination of the project results should extend beyond the web platform that is foreseen as the main project deliverable to include other communications channels, and the sustainability of the project's results beyond the project life should be addressed.

The project does not reach the overall threshold of 50 points and is no recommended for funding.





101,056.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: ProHealthyLifeStyle-SusDev


2.1 Preparation of initiatives to increase healthy life years across the life cycle and tackle health inequalities

Promotion of Social Construction of Healthy Lifestyles with a Sustainable Development

19/01/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Familles du Monde

FaMiDo

Public


Belgium


Cellule Environnement de la Ville de Mouscron (B)

Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

2

Acronym

Cellule Environnement

UNED

City

Mouscron

Madrid

Country

Belgium

Spain

2


"Improved lifestyle of European minorities and migrants through psychosocial - mental health, nutrition and physical activity habits, creating supportive environment in the sustainable development."

Specific objectives are to improve the social appraisal, believes, habits of a lifestyle that favours –psychosocial-mental health, -healthy food habits, physical activity and -supporting environment.

Many chronic (psychosomatic and emotional) diseases have been called ‘lifestyle diseases’ due to risk factors characteristic of our society’s life.

Working conditions, anxiety due to lack of time, drugs, alcohol, tobacco abuse, inadequate nutritive diet, lack of fruit, vegetable, rupture of the traditional family structure, social loneliness.

Migrants suffer from quick and abrupt big changes in the physical, economical and social environment, and live in poverty situations, factors contributing to alter lifestyle and able to act as stressors.

All these factors have a close relationship with psychosocial stress, whether as a cause or a consequence.

The project contributes to the HP second objective

Quantitative methods: scales & autoinformed questionnaires, structured interviews, & qualitative methods, discussion groups & gender sensitive participatory analysis workshops will bring the elements of reflexion-action focused on the social participation in lifestyle and health up to the production of a community project.

School pedagogic methods, public exhibitions, local conferences

Expected Results are

- Mitigated the social prejudments of lifestyle of European influents, minorities and lationamerican migrants

- Promoted the social opportunities to identify, choose and construct a lifestyle favourable to psychosocial health, good nutrition,

physical activity and supporting environment in the sustainable development.

- Promoted the positive knowledge and practices about cultural heritage of healthy lifestyle in the European society, minorities and

Latin-American migrants.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

193 105

475 500

30 800

22 344

16 000

52 460

3 000

74 800

60 759

928 768

Incomes

557 247

193 105

0

0

178 416

928 768
















Note

5

4

2

3

5

19

Note

3

Comments

The proposal does not address directly the specific priorities of the Health Programme, nor the

WP 2008.

There is extensive knowledge available about the life-style factors and their health impacts. The issue of migrants and life-style has been addressed in several EU MS. The proposed action could be considered relevant to the target group and might contribute to the knowledge at country level.

Only to a certain extent, the project can contribute to public health development at national level.

The proposed action does not ensure transferability or possible replicability by other MS. It could be useful as a pilot for testing good practices.

Limited to two countries (BE and ES), results could have some relevance to other countries. The target population is well described.

Relevant involvement of the target group and seems adequate from a cultural and political point of view. However, the aim of changing undefined beliefs or behaviours is not convincing. No definition why this specific Latin American minority has been chosen.


3

Comments

The problem analysis was considered too general, contains a list of life styles and other individual

/ structural factors, which might affect the health of people in general. The problem analysis should be targeted to some factors that the project intends to deal with, and focus on their relevance for the immigrant community. No bibliographic references given.

The aims, objectives, methods and outcomes are not well described. There are several statements about the need to improve living conditions and promote healthy life style, general affirmations that some health believes and behaviours must be changed, without clear specification how to prioritise or suggestions how to modify them, in order to achieve the aims.



2

The project team fails to make reference to other initiatives on healthy life style, some funded by

EU. The proposed action is not considered innovative, even though it might mean a lot to the target group.

4





3

15

Note

For the type of action, the evaluation proposed was considered relevant. The project team was congratulated for their effort to include the gender sensitive analysis in the methods. The link between the intervention and the evaluation should have been clearly described. The panel did not understand the proposed '3 strategic momentum' for the evaluation.

It is not clear how the results would be disseminated in Europe, only local target activities. No clear plan of dissemination of results.

Comments


2

Brief planning of activities, making it more difficult to follow the logic steps of the project development. There was no clear timetable, neither milestones nor deliverables were defined.

The achievement of the project will be verified by the use of questionnaires concerning changes in beliefs. But these beliefs are not specified in the application. The risk analysis was not well described.








Total:





No

0

0.00

3

2

3

8

18

52




The network was considered small, and should have sufficient capacity to perform the expected tasks.

The partnership composition was considered peculiar, with low number of partners, with exceptional composition (BE, ES, MX), the choice to involve the Latin American partners was not explained in the proposal.

Considered general, with some description of the actions proposed.

The budget was considered realistic, some discrepancies of the salary level of the Spanish university graduates was identified by the panel.

This proposal should have been considered for funding at national level, the relevance at EU level is limited, possibly reflecting the importance of the target group.This proposal should have been considered for funding at national level, the relevance at EU level is limited, possibly reflecting the importance of the target group.





101,057.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: IMPACT


2.4 Addiction prevention

Implementation of networkmanagement for the development of local alcohol prevention strategies

01/01/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Rhineland Regional Council

LVR

Public


Germany


Caritasverband der Stadt Duisburg

Deutscher Orden, Kinder- und Jugendhilfe

Dipartimento dei Servizi della Direzione Sanitaria

Metropolitan Association for Sustainable Development Brasov

SIA "Dzives Energija"

Siauliai City Municipality

Stadt Mönchengladbach

Verein für Jugendhilfe Böblingen e.V.

Acronym

CVDU

KiJuDO

ASSL10

AMB

DzE

SCM

MG

VFJ

City

Duisburg

Bonn

San Donà di Piave

Brasov

Riga

Siauliai

Mönchengladbach

Heilbronn

Country

Germany

Germany

Italy

Romania

Latvia

Lithuania

Germany

Germany

8 5


General objective:

The objective of IMPACT is to prevent harmful alcohol consumption, especially among children, youth and aged people through the long-term development of community networks of de-addiction aid, adoption of good practices and community health policies in the member countries of the EU.

Strategic relevance & contribution to the programme:

The alcohol strategy of the EU and the national prevention concepts can be successful only if they are anchored permanently in the community de-addiction aid at the local level. The project links the EU alcohol strategy 2008 to the requirements of Work Plan 2007 and embeds alcohol prevention in managed community networks of de-addiction aid.

Methods and means:

The cooperation structures in the 9 partner networks are evaluated and developed with the help of a tested network management concept

(NRQM). The partners initiate control structures that set a standardised cyclical work programme in motion. Structures, processes and results are evaluated; improvement measures are executed and evaluated. Approaches to good practices are identified in the partner networks and further developed with an eye on the possible transfer to other communities of the EU. A multi-professional expert group develops recommendations for community alcohol policies.

Expected outcome:

The project is based on the expectation that preventive concepts can be anchored in community de-addiction aid networks. Recommendations for EU-wide adaption of good community-based prevention and aid practice are available at the end of the project. The recommendations for community alcohol policies should promote technical and political discussion for the further development of de-addiction aid in general and alcohol prevention in particular at the EU level.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

423 760

425 340

75 600

46 008

4 000

0

258 000

40 000

88 280

1 360 988

Incomes

710 152

423 760

227 076

0

0

1 360 988













Note

5

4

4

2

2

Comments

The proposed project has a lot of potential. Its deliverables could be used in support of the implementation of the EU strategy to support Member States in reducing alcohol related harm.

The EU strategy stresses the need for further studies to evaluate the effectiveness of actions and interventions. In accordance with this the project aims to evaluate and improve action at the community level by establishing or strengthening and enhancing effectiveness of the networks of institutions providing help to children and youth and/or to elderly and by providing guidelines for action at local/community level. At the same time the project aims to assure exchange of good practices through networks from different regions and countries and could by this contribute to reducing health inequalities that arise from harmful drinking. Project promotes cooperation between MSs at the community level and also assures participation of different stakeholders in society and by issuing policy recommendations for action at community level offers solutions to decision makers.

The project could contribute to the existing knowledge by developing a system to evaluate the effectiveness of networks that focus on alcohol problems of children, youth and/or elderly and by offering models of good practice. By developing a model of evaluation of effectiveness of networks and recognition of good practices, the project could contribute to more effective approach towards alcohol related harm in most vulnerable populations. Policy recommendations for action at community level could serve as a potent tool in particular if adopted by decision makers.

Local communities are essential for the implementation of national but also EU strategies. The project invests in developing good practices and their exchange and in this regard might present an added value at EU level. Cooperation between local community networks at EU level could foster faster developments in this field and raise the potential of such networks to implement EU strategy. The project should perhaps invest more in identifying and establishing links with other health networks that could serve as disseminators of good practice and recommendations in other EU countries beyond the project time frame (healthy cities, youth organizations).

Additionally the added value in relation to the target group 'youth' is clear but much less in relation to 'elderly' and 'addict adults'.

The project should aim to involve more countries from EU already at this development stage.

There are only 2 countries involved from EU15 (Germany and Italy) and three from EU10. Nordic countries for example or accession countries should be represented to assure the variety of approaches hat would be needed to develop policy recommendations for communities, relevant at

EU level.

There is a clear focus on German partners and an unbalance between associated and collaborating partners in terms of resources distribution has been pointed out.

The project has described the drinking problem of young people but should also try to elaborate on the context in which young people are developing unhealthy life style (advertising, drinking context of entertainment and hospitality industry....). It also does not demonstrate its compatibility with different cultural knowledge, views, customs and roles of target groups in the participating countries; this is just assumed. It could be beneficial if in the project views of target populations on services and networks offering help would be assessed.

The applicant claims that NRQM tool "assures embedment into political, economical and social context" but it does not tell how.




17

Note

3

Comments

The project does offer partial problem analysis but should also offer some analysis of problem solutions: effective measures that could be used at local level (reference to the Alcohol in Europe

- A Public Health Perspective report for example). It is difficult to judge on the basis of the proposal submitted the effectiveness and appropriateness of proposed measures such as evaluation of networks based on 25 criteria. The exchange of good practice and evaluation results as well as of recommendations could most probably have an impact on improvement of approaches at community level if disseminated as planned. Additionally it is to be noted that there is no evidence on the link between national prevention programme and local actions.






3

3

2

4




The aims and objectives of the proposed project are well defined and target groups are in accordance with the Community Work plan. The methods could be better explained and there should be references pointing to their scientific relevance ( NRQM network management concept, mandatory criteria for the comparison of 8 networks?). There is also certain uncertainty regarding recommendations - the method of their development and testing should be described more in detail. Additionally they should have explained how they will guarantee the compatibility. In general their statements are not sustained by evidence or references.

The innovation is not clear, there is a need of proper forums for discussion, knowledge and good practice exchange and the project is offering possible solutions such as a web site. An analysis of existing forums giving priority to public health action at local communities could be helpful regarding dissemination of project deliverables. The project offers innovative approaches such as evaluation of networks for their effectiveness however national strategies an prevention models have already been analysed. Recommendations for policy action at local level could complement existing strategies but would perhaps need to be tested first in different environments for their transferability. They should have explained what they mean by 'mandatory activities'.

Evaluation of networks is a component of the project but the project would also need evaluation strategy/plan of the project itself. Indicators are described, the list of deliverables linked to WPs mentions just Evaluation report. It is not clear which evaluation - of the project or of the networks is considered.

They mention steering groups but it is not explained how this is going to function. The applicant should have considered external rather than internal evaluation.

The indicators are considered as not adapted.

A dissemination strategy is elaborated and planned and assures transferability of results. It is presented in a very transparent manner and is also well linked to outcomes/deliverables. Having said that the methodology should have been further developed and transferability is considered an issue.




15

Note Comments



2

3

The project has well defined activities /components and a reasonable time frame with milestones defined and a list of deliverables available. Tasks are well distributed involving of all partners.

The project proposal includes risk analysis; a risk of applying same methods in very diverse contexts is however not assessed.

however certain issues related to the organisation have not sufficiently been explained (ie how will they implement the good practices??)

The management structure seems well thought through and the competency of staff as described is sufficient. Regular meetings of partners are part of the plan - is it here that decisions on the project proceedings are going to be taken. The process of decision making in the project could perhaps be more transparently described (structures of decision making in the network are clear steering committee, network coordinating body). It is not clear how the decisions would be made in a project as a whole during the process- the role of the management board, meetings). Also the monitoring and supervision of the project should be better defined.

Additionally it is considered that the organisation capacity is clear for the main partner but not so clear for the others.



3

3

The project is all about partnerships - partnership of different organizations in the networks, partnerships among different networks, of communities.... The leading role in all WP is reserved for the LRV. It is not made clear how other partners in the project will participate in decision making.

Politicians are mentionned on the final part of the proposals but the roles and responsibilities are not clear.

Communication strategy is well planed and is using well most of the available tools however the external evaluation and specific adaptation to the target groups should have been further considered.





Total:





No

0

0.00

6




The total budget proposed is perhaps a bit exaggerated taking in account that the project does not include events such as conferences or courses. Expenditures are also not presented for all partners. A substantial budget is foreseen for travelling - four trips per partner a year.

Videoconferences seem costly (2 000 euro each), creating web could perhaps be cheaper if created in for example Romania. Additionally staff costs are too disproportionated between partners as it is certain items in the budget i.e. Self evaluation 240000 Vs improvement of methods 140000.

Financial circuits, responsibilities and reporting procedures and controls are not described.

In general, it is difficult to see the adaptation of the budget to the methods as the methods have not been properly specified.

17

49

The proposed project is in line with priorities of the EU Work Plan in the area of alcohol. By creating opportunities for strengthening networks offering help to target populations and for good practice exchange the project might assure added value at EU level however it is to be noted that to develop and recommend EU wide good practices requires adaptation and testing. The project has been planned and has proper dissemination strategy, but the methodology remains vague and the applicant should have invested more in the evaluation plan and monitoring of the project.

Some of the tasks should perhaps be transferred to other partners than LRV to lower the costs.

The project could gain in terms of capacity building if some of the components could be lead by other partners than LRV. Additionally the total budget proposed is perhaps a bit exaggerated taking in account that the project does not include events such as conferences or courses.

Expenditures are also not presented for all partners.0





101,065.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym:



European Cities That Care: E.C.T.C – Is it Easy?

26/01/2009

36

ECTC


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Co.Ge.S. Società Cooperativa Sociale

Coges

Private


Italy


Center for Dependency Disorders

City of Solna

Diputaciò de Barcelona

District Dispensary for Psychiatric Diseases, Veliko Tarnovo,

Bulgaria

Huddinge kommun

KOMBI Consult Gesell schaft fur Weiterbildung, Beratung, Analyse,

Undorganization

Local Government of District XIII. Budapest

National Anti-Drug Agency

Regione del Veneto

Unidade Municipal de Atencion a Drogodependentes, Concello de

Santiago de Compostela

Valmiera City Counsil

YOPIC - e. Verein

Zeit!Raum - Verein fur Soziokulturelle Arbeit - Wien

13

Acronym

Stad

Solna

Diba

PsyVT

HK

KOMBI

Budapest

NAA

Veneto

Umad

Valmiera

YOPIC

Zeit!Raum

City

Stockholm

Solna

Barcelona

Veliko Tarnovo

Huddinge

Berlin

Budapest

Bucarest

Venezia

Santiago de Compostela

Valmiera

Berlin

Wien


In terms of longer-terms benefits the ETCT project aims at preventing major diseases by tackling the alcohol health determinant as well as the social determinants related with alcohol consumption. It will contribute to better target future research including identification of a problem in underage drinking and development and pre-testing of alcohol prevention interventions. To achieve the project’s objectives, the partnership will put in place 3 main activities: 1) align interventions adopted in Sweden and Italy to 2 validated prevention extra EU Programs and adapt 2 aligned interventions to local Eu contexts; 2) training sessions with the participating partners will be arranged in order to create the preconditions for a wide testing of the 2 aligned interventions; 3) 9 local testing activities during which the coherence with the reference standards of the effectiveness and efficiency of the adopted extra Eu Programs will be verified. The ECTC project is compatible with the newly adopted Health

Programme 2008-2013 – Together for Health - and especially focuses on the objective “to improve citizens' health security and safety”. In terms of Issues of Strategic Importance of the Annual Work Plan, the ECTC project lays its foundations on tested tools and approaches and covers priority “Addiction Prevention” by tackling alcohol addiction health determinants and supporting Member States in reducing alcohol-related harm

(COM 2006 625 of 24 October 2006). Specifically, ECTC focuses on priority “Alcohol Strategy” with actions aimed at “preventing harmful alcohol use among young people (minors up to 18) establishing good practices and formulating prevention guidelines and policies”. The added value of the ECTC project consists in testing in 9 different countries interventions in order to make them transferable and adoptable at Eu level. Expected result: have 2 EU validated alcohol prevention interventions targeted to underage drinkers.

9

Country

Sweden

Sweden

Spain

Bulgaria

Sweden

Germany

Hungary

Romania

Italy

Spain

Latvia

Germany

Austria





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

726 753

272 376

39 515

71 677

0

19 750

102 500

18 900

41 500

1 292 971

Incomes

526 318

726 753

39 900

0

0

1 292 971









Note

5

Comments

By aiming to improve citizen's health security and safety through tacking alcohol drinking in young, the project contributes to the second programme of Community action and its WP.

Although formally in line with the priorities established in the field of health and its 2008 WP, the contribution is limited and only indirect.





5

4

4

4

It is considered that the project does not aim to add/ innovate but rather to expand with the aim to achieve an EU validated intervention (i.e. replicability); but the actual testing tools and approaches for their efficiency and effectiveness could add to the existing knowledge particularly on implementation.

It also aims to assure transferability by adapting existent tools and approaches to EU level however it is narrow in the sense that it is limiting itself to two interventions.

Using existing tools that work in certain environments, test them and adapt for wider use in EU is added value. Additionally the replicability and the transferability are key objectives of the project.

The programmes will impact directly on the target groups and the training assures multiplication and sustainability.

However the added value has limitations since only two types of interventions are involved and only 9 countries.

The project involves organisations in nine MS, some of which are at local level (individual town councils..)

Adding collaborating partners should be seriously considered.

Why the healthy city network is not used to have better coverage trough Europe? The network could be a valuable partner

The aim of the project is to adapt to the local context; should then not be an analysis done to identify relevant differences in different countries in EU? The testing etc. is geared towards it fits with most project countries policy priorities but, how will the testers assure culturally competent adaptations?




22

Note

3


3

Comments

Problem analysis is well done and solid references are provided; also looks at effectiveness and underlining factors of the alcohol drinking problem. However the evidence missing is a comparative analysis on different contexts in EU countries where interventions should be implemented (underlining health determinants at least should be compared)

Methods are in line with aims and objectives. Interventions are not described in the proposal ( are they going to involve young people?)

Methods clear (3 activities), target groups well described but young people involvement not clearly identify. How the risk factors going to be addressed is also not clear.

The outcome would be that the tested intervention would be used widely in EU and that they should be monitored for their effect in a longer period.

The promotion of testers interventions should be addressed.



2

2

It is not innovative in nature and the current contribution with the state of the art is not clear. But it is interesting to link EU programmes and existing local interventions and to explore interventions in the wider EU environment. Developing tools for testing interventions (prevention) is considered pivotal in this proposal.

It includes quantitative and qualitative evaluation and an evaluation plan. An external evaluation should be included

Training, evaluation will be performed to verify that testing process, tools, methods have been achieved however a few uncertainties remain i.e.:

Evaluation group (how many people?)

Indicators: not really clear how they are they going to be monitored. What are the links between indicators and the evaluation (assessing outcomes)? Strategy not clear (assessing process) Do they have an external evaluation?



4




The dissemination strategy is comprehensive and the tools proposed are adequate. The network countries should have been included.

The proposal includes dissemination plan that links deliverables with time and ways (tools and channels) of dissemination

The promotion of web side assured through partners however a problem remains; how to assure the promotion in countries, cities not included in project? This could be solved by involving

European networks

The sustainability of the dissemination is assured.




14

Note Comments



4




4

3

3

6

The project is well defined and the timetable and milestones are clear. Activities appear to be set in line, coherent and sound. The testing of interventions appears possible long M13-M32

Risk analysis is good.

The project holder is competent in the area of research, analysis and development of social projects. The WPs are allocated to different partners in accordance to their specific expertise (real expertise is put into use). There are possible too many SC meetings.

The quality of partnerships seems relevant and sound but they should have expanded on collaborating partners

Visibility of EU co-funding not clear. In the kick off meeting the involvement of EU networks

(aforementioned) would be appreciated.

Well balanced, well distributed among EU partners. Number of steering committee meetings should be reduced, external research position is subcontracted and the fees are too high. Printing cost should check.

The overall budget is substantial taking into account activities proposed but consistent.

The reporting procedures should be clarified, as well as the subcontracting of an external researcher.



Total:


20

56

By aiming to improve citizen's health security and safety through tacking alcohol drinking in young, the project contributes to the second programme of Community action and its WP.

Although formally in line with the priorities established in the field of health and its 2008 WP, the contribution is limited and only indirect. Developing tools for testing interventions (prevention) is considered pivotal in this proposal and should be stressed. EU networks should be fully involved and collaborating partners should be expanded. The number of steering committee meetings should be reduced, external research position is subcontracted (to be revised) and the fees are too high. Printing cost should be check.

The reporting procedures should be clarified, as well as the subcontracting of an external researcher.




No

0

0.00





101,066.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: PEER-Drive Clean II



Peer education to prevent the hazards of alcohol and drug use, with special attention to road safety

01/01/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

SPI Forschung gGmbH / MISTEL

MISTEL/SPI

Private


Germany


Association Avenir Sante France

Acronym

Avenir Sante

City

Lyon

EDEX-Educational Excellence Cooperation Ltd -University of

Nicosia

Faculdade de Motricidade Humana

UNic Nicosia

FMH Oeiras

Fondation Tanguy Moreau de Melen Responsible Young Drivers -

Sencura Forum

Responsible Young Drivers (BE) Bruxelles

Hellenic Research and Educational Institute “Panos Mylonas” RSI “Panos Mylonas” Athens

SZMI Budapest Institute for Social Policy and Labour

Instituto y Red Europea para el estudio de los factores de Riesgo en la Infancia y la Adolescencia

Kur- und Gesundheitszentrum Knappenhof GesmbH

L’Action de Sécurité Routière en Europe

Landschaftverband Westfalen-Lippe

IREFREA-España

Knappenhof

Palma de Mallorca

Reichenau/Rax

LASER EUROPE SAINT MICHEL CEDEX

LWL Münster

Liikluskoolitajate Liit MTÜ (The Association of Traffic Educators)

Open Youth

LKL

Open Youth

Tallinn

Sofia

Responsible Young Drivers asbl

Roehampton University

Slaskie Forum Organizacji Socjalnych KaFOS, The Silesian Forum for Social Organizations KaFOS

Tannenhof Berlin-Brandenburg e.V.

Total Text

Responsible Young Drivers (LU) Dudelange

RU London

Federation of association

THBB

Totaltext

City: Katowice

Berlin

Ede

Univerza v Ljubljani

Villa Renata Società Cooperativa Sociale


Villa Renata

Ljubljana

Lido di Venezia (VE)

19

Country

France

Cyprus

Portugal

Belgium

Greece

Hungary

Spain

Austria

France

Germany

Estonia

Bulgaria

Luxembourg

United Kingdom

Poland

Germany

Netherlands

Slovenia

Italy

17






PEER Drive Clean II wants to point out by means of innovative and creative character the harmfulness of excessive alcohol consumption and especially the incompatibility of alcohol and drug consumption and participation in road traffic to youths and young adults. People of the same age (peers) become active in driving schools, schools and in places of excessive drinking rituals and talk to young people about conflict situations of alcohol and drugs in road traffic and risks of binge drinking "on an equal footing". With this project a European standard of a

„personal zero per mill limit“ shall be initiated and imparted by personal addressing within the driving training. This way, an approved method of health promotion (peer education) becomes effective in the interface of addiction prevention and road safety work.

The phenomenon of overrepresented young drivers and beginner drivers in the traffic accident statistics in all European countries can be better counteracted by this socially innovative method than by technical solutions. PEER-Drive Clean II corresponds to the EC point of view on the role of social innovations (EC: The Society, Last Border, 1998), the EU Drug Strategy (2005 - 2012), the fact sheets of Health and Consumer

Protection (June 2007), the aims of the European Forum "Alcohol and Health" and the results of the "European Alcohol Policy Conference"

(Barcelona 2008).

The project PEER-Drive Clean II includes 20 institutions from 17 countries and aspires to make the methodical approach (peer education at driving schools, schools and in leisure time sector) transferable and sustainable all over Europe and a standard of driving training in future.

PEER Drive Clean II contributes to the prevention of harmful alcohol consumption of young people and the reduction of alcohol and drug related harm.

Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

128 560

1 172 810

207 000

159 600

21 000

78 000

209 300

191 200

151 713

2 319 183

Incomes

1 377 677

128 560

0

0

812 946

2 319 183













Note

4

4

4

4

4

Comments

The project PEER-Drive Clean II is the continuation of a peer education project aimed at preventing drink (& drug)-driving among adolescents and young adults. The application refers to the conclusions of European Alcohol policy conference and to the EU strategy where it is clearly stated that in the area of drinking and driving, legislative measures and their subsequent enforcing were proven to be effective. The EU strategy does not include ideas like the one promoted by the proposal: (page 32, 4.2) "a comprehensive reflection of drink drive conflicts by applicants...."

The project could only contribute to EU PHP and WP if acknowledging this fact. Voluntary measures have not jet been proven to be cost effective in this area although they could have some potential if implemented together with legislative measures. As admitted by the applicant there are differences in legislative approaches in different countries, which has implications for the implementation of the project and its effectiveness in contributing to fulfil EU strategic objectives.

The project brings together all the relevant actors in this area (health, police, yoth, road safety, driving schools, universities.. However, the project has a strong focus on 'education activities, which may not be enough to achieve sustained behaviour change in young people. It is difficult to judge if there will be any contribution at all to existing knowledge and if the project activities or products will have any direct implicatons for health unless combined with more effective legislative meassures.

The clear focus on priority actions and the active involvement of young people, coupled with a fairly broad geographical coverage and a clear description of project methodology, dissemination and evaluation/monitoring, should generate substantial European added value.

The added value at EU level would be young people from different environments participating in an initiative focusing on reducing harm done by alcohol. Getting young people involved at EU level could have some beneficial long term and multiplier effect, but only if the main focus would be on effective action.

There is no conclusive evidence that peer education in respect to drinking and driving has a substantial impact on drinking and driving.

Compatibility with the relevant EU strategy in its aim to reduce accidents.

The project involves 19 associated partners in 17 MS, some of which are at local level, but many of which are country-wide players.

There are 20 partners and none of them from Scandinavian countries, nor are there representatives from those countries - where they have strict legislative measures on drinking and driving - among collaborating partners. Most of collaborating partners are from Germany.

WP's are in most cases lead by German partners.

The project seems to have a limited understanding of the social, cultural and political context of its target population (young drivers), as it strongly focuses on 'edcuation' activities, which may not be enough to achieve sustained behaviour change in young people.

Situation analysis in the countries missing in regard to regulation relevant to drinking and driving.

The activities foreseen in the project will have different applications in environments where regulation is strong and where there is a strong view in general that drinking and driving does not go together than in less strict environments.

Consequently the peer approach should also be different.




20

Note

2

Comments

The problem analysis is missing reference to effectiveness of measures, in particular legislative measures and their implementation and implication for decrease in casualties also among young people. There is substantial evidence that regulation if strictly implemented works. The analysis is also missing comparisons between countries with stricter legislation and other countries. It is also not clear what is meant by technical solutions.

On the other side there is evidence that education as such is not effective if not linked to other effective measures.

The applicant refers to addiction to illegal drugs where harm reduction tools are a priority since legal tools have been used to the point of a total ban and illegality of drugs.

There should be strong references to research supporting peer approach as effective measure in this particular area of drinking and driving.






3

2

2

2




The aims are clear as are the objectives and the target group.

Methods would need to be checked for their effectiveness to make sure that the project will have an effect on drinking and driving in young people.

There is no evidence on how actors will be involved.

Peer education has a long history and has been used in many programmes and with some success in particular in those where population was hard to reach and/or where other measures were already exhausted.

Project aim is multiplication of an existing approach.

An internal evaluation plan exists, but no external evaluation is foreseen. Qualitative and quantitative indicators are identified, but not pointing to the effectiveness of the measure used such as for example the impact of peer advice on the perceptions regarding drinking and driving of target group.

Lacks scientific tools, and approaches have failed to go in depth.

There is a plan of dissemination of project deliverables, but no clear linking to deliverables and time table. To assure transferability, sustainability and participation of other countries and partners in this initiative, the project should also aim to disseminate information on the effectiveness of proposed measures.




11

Note Comments






3

3

2

2

3

The project is coordinated and executed mainly by German partners. Distribution of tasks is hierarchical and decision making is very centralized. A less centralized approach would perhaps be better in terms of capacity building in other countries.

In the risk analysis the risk of not achieving sustainability is underestimated - how will the project ensure that peer approach will be used in driving schools after the project concludes ?

There is no flexible local implementation, or contribution from other partners.

The leading organization provides information on their competence in both management and in the area of work. The leading partner has to many roles - also doing the evaluation of the project.

Internal communication through visits to the sites of project could be costly. A bit more explanation should have been necessary on the 'summer camp' concept.

The WPs are in most cases lead by German partners. The partnership does not provide opportunity for building capacity in less developed environments. Relationships are hierarchical.

Complementarity is lacking. The network should be revised in terms of participation.

Communication through other networks should be better explored. Among target groups media have a potential that could be used.

The total expenditures proposed is huge - 2.319 183. In particular when there are doubts regarding effectiveness and impact on health.

Most of the funding goes to German partners executing also most of the work. Villa Renata partner has a substantial amount of working days calculated with no clear additional role in the project. In some countries only one staff member is involved to do the same job - no extra working days.

Computers should not be given to all partners without checking if there is a need for new equipment.

Involvement of peers and interviewers is done by subcontracting - all countries equal costs per persons. Some countries might need more sessions? The main partner has 3 full time staff but this is not justified.



Total:




13

44

No

0

The additional value of PEER Drive Clean II to what has already been done could only be assessed after evaluating effectiveness of PEER Drive Clean I

0


Maximum percentage to be cofinanced: 0.00








101,068.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: HEALTHY-SNACKS



Reformulation of manufactured snacks based on new nutritional approaches to reduce overweight and obesity

01/01/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF RESEARCH

CNR

Public

International public organisation

Italy


MARTIN LUTHER UNIVERSITY

Széchenyi Scientific Society

UNIVERSITY OF CRETE

UNIVERSITY OF MILAN

4

Acronym

MLU

SSS

UoC

IFGCB

City

HALLE/SAALE

Budapest

HERAKLION, CRETE

MILAN

Country

Germany

Hungary

Greece

Italy

4


Healthy-Snack aims at promoting public health by contributing to reduce the problem of overweight and obesity through the production of new formulations of manufactured foods based on a high content of natural plant metabolites. The project intends to tackle the problem of the presence on the market of snack products with very high content of fat, sugars and unhealthy ingredients. The snack is a reality in modern life and eating habits and it is highly necessary to provide alternative healthier snacks, especially to young people that are suffering for addiction to

TV and computer and lack of physical activity. The consortium will develop snack formats which will be tested in their capacity to host and deliver specific bioactive vegetal extracts to develop a good practice on the reformulation of manufactured foods. The Priority action addressed by this proposal is “Promote health” and healthier living by tackling ”Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity related health issues”. The strategic relevance of this project relies on spreading a new nutrigenomic approach and the latest results of nutrition research in Europe, fostering the practical in-field use through innovative food formulations incorporating beneficial plants components (xanthophylls, mastic, kurkuma).

Macronutrients components of the snack will be selected to ensure a low fat-salt-sugar and balanced content of proteins-lipid-amids with high nutraceutic activity, a low glicemic index and high content of fibers. Elicitation will be used as the method to increase secondary metabolites production. The active ingredients will be isolated and characterized by chromatographic, MS and NMR techniques. We will extensively study the antioxidant properties of Carotenoids. The snack will be tested for taste and nutritional quality to meet the specifications: approx content for

100g: Protein 28g, Carbohydrates 39g, of which Sugars 1.5g, Fat 14g, of which saturated 2g, monounsat. 9g, polyunsat. 3g, Fiber 10g, Sodium

0.5g.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

783 846

226 440

43 200

53 550

112 000

215 000

380 000

2 500

127 155

1 943 691

Incomes

1 159 845

783 846

0

0

0

1 943 691











Note

2

2

2

Comments

The project fits with the WP2008 in that is addresses the reformulation of manufactured food, but it lacks a public health component as well as a consumer/user focus. The WP2008 focuses on development of good practices and not on reformulation / production of reformulated food as such.

The strategic elements are not linked to public health.

Taking component parts out of the diet ignores the combination effects in the diet. There is an aspect of this the applicant does not deal with and that is how will such product reformulation work in the context of substitution/replacement and the psychology of adaptation, so once people have performed a healthy action will they revert to other unhealthy practices.

There is a need for an industry partner to make the possibility of both a public health and industry-wide roll out feasible.

The long term effects are hard to judge.

Sustainability is not ensured. Compatibility with EU policies not discussed.

There are four countries involved in this proposal, but no explanation is given why these countries have been chosen.

A wider range of partners would be advantageous.

The social, cultural and political context has not been addressed.

Ethical issues around taking blood samples from children have not been discussed.


2





1

9

Note


2

2

Comments

Highly technical evidence base on the value of micronutrients has been given, but little mention of food habits, culture and the needs of the consumer.

There is a lot of literature on snacking and why people snack and the socio-cultural aspects none of which is mentioned or drawn on.

There is a reductionist approach to food and diet with the advantages of micro-nutrients being championed and no acknowledgment of the combination effects of the diet and the psycho-social impacts.

No addressing of replacement/displacement.

The objectives are not clear – which are the target groups?

The target group for taste testing has not been identified.

The work packages have not been sufficiently described.


1


1


2




Note

The ongoing NUTRA-SNACK project has been cited, but it has not finished yet. Results of this project would be needed in order to inform the current one and avoid duplication.

Other initiatives have not been referred to.

The production process seems to be monitored, but there is no process evaluation of the project.

The indicators are related to the research part – public health indicators are needed.

Scientific articles and dissemination via mass media is planned, but the strategy lacks clarity and seems to consist of telling public health institutions of the findings.

Comments










2



Total:


3

12

29

3

2

2

The partners seem to have worked together before.

The consortium seems capable to carry out the tasks foreseen.

The partnership needs to be expanded to include public health specialists, industry, marketing specialist etc.

Internal and external communication should have been discussed in more depth.

The subcontracting seems too high. Adding a company (SME) to the partnership would seem more appropriate.

While the project addresses a priority of the WP2008, it does not include any public health aspects, or activities. It is a research project.

The reformulation of foods (especially snacks) in terms of extracting substances from fruit/plants in order to make it "healthier" is questioned, while at the same time fruit and vegetables are promoted through other actions. Promotion of a balanced diet should be championed.

The project would need to include industry and consumer perspectives. Replacement and displacement effects would have to be taken into account.

There is a concern with taking blood samples from children.

The assessment of part A (policy) by a SANCO official (18 points) was presented to the external evaluators.

see conclusion




No

0

0.00





101,073.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: EURIDICE



EURopean Initiative against Diabetes Inequalities in Care

01/09/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Helsingin yliopisto

UH

Public


Finland


Alexandrov University Hospital, Clinic of Endocrinology

Associação Protectora dos Diabéticos de Portugal

Clinical Center of Endocrinology Medical University, Sofia

Consorzio Mario Negri Sud

DEUTSCHE DIABETES FORSCHUNGS-GESELLSCHAFT e.V.

Doc International SIA

FUNDACIÓN PARA LA INVESTIGACION BIOMEDICA. HOSPITAL

UNIVERSITARIO. LA PAZ

Institut d’Investigació en Atenció Primària (IDIAP) Jordi Gol

Kansanterveyslaitos

Lunds universitets centrum for hälsoekonomi

Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität

Dresden

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

Paracelsus Private Medical University

Peninsula Medical School

The Jagiellonian University Medical College

The University of Edinburgh

UNIFOB AS

Universitetet i Oslo

University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

Vestische Hospital for children and adolescents, University of

Witten/Herdecke

Vlaamse Diabetes Vereniging vzw

21

Acronym

AUCHE

APDP

CCE

CMNS

GDC

DOCINT

FIBHULP

IDIAP Jordi Gol

KTL

LUCHE

TUD

NKUA

PMU Salzburg

PMS

UJCM

UEDIN

UNIFOB

UiO

UHL

VKJK

VDV

City

Sofia

Lisbon

Sofia

Santa Maria Imbaro (Ch)

Duesseldorf

Riga

Madrid

Barcelona

Helsinki

Lund

Dresden

Athens

Salzburg

Exeter

Krakow

Edinburgh

Bergen

Oslo

Leicester

Datteln

Gent

Country

Bulgaria

Portugal

Bulgaria

Italy

Germany

Latvia

Spain

Spain

Finland

Sweden

Germany

Greece

Austria

United Kingdom

Poland

United Kingdom

Norway

Norway

United Kingdom

Germany

Belgium

14






General objective: The general objective of the proposed project is to improve the ability to prevent diabetes in Europe. The main achievements of this proposed project are the European Diabetes Prevention Management Handbook and the European Diabetes Prevention Manual. They will enhance knowledge of the development and implementation of public health strategies to prevent diabetes. The development of a European

Action Plan Diabetes Prevention including a guide to cost-effectiveness analysis will realistically add to the capability of responding rapidly to the burden of type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Strategic relevance & contribution to the program: Implementing project achievements will be of major importance to prevent T2D and promote health through addressing health determinants across all policies and activities in Europe. According to the achievements of the European funded Public Health Projects DE-PLAN and IMAGE, it is necessary to develop core deliverables for the practical implementation of T2D prevention programs to reach the next level of action. This project proposal will realistically improve the Member States' capacity to respond to health threats and reduce health inequalities across the EU providing relevant technical material for stakeholders for policy development and intervention program planning.

Methods and means: The EURIDICE project is organised as collaboration between the participating centres with equal rights for every participant and will build upon the experiences achieved of the DE-PLAN and the IMAGE projects. The project will comprise four core and three horizontal work packages. EURIDICE will create an umbrella organization for the implementation of diabetes prevention programs together with

International Diabetes Federation (IDF) Europe.

Expected outcome: 1. Technical Diabetes Prevention Management Handbook; 2. European Diabetes Prevention Manual; 3. European Action

Plan Diabetes Prevention; 4. European Guide to Policy Development

Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

685 210

747 720

95 983

75 591

24 000

85 000

0

115 000

127 983

1 956 487

Incomes

1 155 474

685 210

115 803

0

0

1 956 487













Note

6

8

6

8

6

Comments

The project team did not specify which part of the Health programme the proposal contribute to. It fits partially the WP 2008, only when addressing health inequalities, but the main thrust of the action is a generic approach to diabetes prevention.

The results of the previous projects on diabetes prevention and on the tacking of health inequalities should have been highlighted to avoid the risk of overlaps. The deliverables from the project are likely to be of high relevance to diabetes prevention in Europe, as T2D is increasing and it poses serious public health concerns.

High EU added value, considering the impact of the target groups: patients and health care workers. The extensive network facilitates the transferability of knowledge, replicability and multiplier effect. The applicants did not mention any other initiative at national or at EU level that address the main determinants (physical activity, alcohol and smoke reduction, diet and obesity, etc) of diabetes, several of them supported by DGSANCO.

The geographic coverage is excellent, covering the whole Europe.

The proposal did not take into consideration the known evidence on the social, cultural factors or gender issues. As it is not clear how the views of the target groups will be taken into consideration. The project is completely gender blind; women, and men specific health needs is not taken into consideration. Underserved populations are defined as "immigrants" and other minority groups, without providing evidence of their vulnerability, low education, low income, etc.




34

Note

3





4

3

3

4

Comments

One of the main objectives of the proposal is to reduce health inequalities related to T2D between and within countries. No relevant evidence base has been referred to in this respect. Many studies have demonstrated important sex differences as regards to incidence and risk factors of

T2D, which will call for different preventive measures for men and women. Moreover, no data is referred to show inequalities between the countries.

The content specification is clear and relevant. The potential impacts and expected outcomes are provided. A great plus is that the proposed handbook will be tested in primary health care settings. The project want to contribute to tackle health determinants across all policies, however, it is highly concerned with preventive intervention in clinical practice and health care systems.

Although health care practice have a role to play in T2D, the main risk factors of the disease needs to be tackled in sectors outside the health care system and clinical practice.

The degree of innovation seems limited, more related to the production of new materials to be used by GPs and public health practitioners. Further, the project team seems not to be aware of the many programmes and policies across EU and also at EU level that highly contribute to reduction of T2D and other life style related diseases. There is no reference as to how this project will complement to ongoing activities at EU and International level on reducing health inequalities.

The evaluation strategy is most focused on the monitoring (process indicators) than on the impact on the target group. The indicators listed are mainly to be used after the completion of the project.

No external evaluation is planned.

The dissemination strategy was considered limited. There should be concrete plans how to spread the handbook, the transfer of knowledge to individuals and health care workers across

Europe.




17

Note Comments









Total:





No

0

0.00

4

5

4

4

7




Activities, milestones and deliverables are well planned but are given in different parts of the proposal. Each partner has a given role and responsibility. The risk analysis should include the risk of the coordination of a large network. The timetable deals only with the workpackages and not with the activities.

The capacity and competences of the staff seems adequate. The internal communication is described, with definition of the decision making structure. The monitoring and supervision is also mentioned.

The quality of the partnership is high, with a large EU representation and the work will be performed by an interdisciplinary team. Concerns were expressed with the risk related to the management of a large network. In order to make policy recommendations relevant for women and men special health needs, a gender expertise is desirable in the project.

The internal communication will be ensured through an internal internet site. The target groups are planned to be reached through the partners, national institutes. The channels planned seem appropriate.

The budget seems oversized, arbitrary and not real, with similar amounts for different partners.

The staff cost considered high, with large number of persons days of professors when there are quite a consistent number of experts involved. There is insufficient description of the other costs expenses which should be related to the dissemination, communication or production of materials. Why only some partners need to renew their laptops?

24

75

A comprehensive EU level strategy for preventing T2D is desirable. However the panel was concerned between the discrepancies between the aims and the actions. When the focus of the project is on implementation in clinical practice, it will have low influence on the major causes behind T2D health inequalities. As conclusion, the project fits better a medical research council call of proposals, than the actual priorities of the WP 2008. A comprehensive EU level strategy for preventing T2D is desirable. However the panel was concerned with the discrepancies between the aims and the actions. While the focus of the project is on implementation in clinical practice, it will have low influence on the major causes behind T2D health inequalities. As conclusion, the project fits better a medical research council call of proposals, than the actual priorities of the WP

2008.

The budget needs to be revised as it seems oversized, arbitrary and not real, with similar amounts for different partners. The staff cost considered high, with large number of persons days of professors when there are quite a consistent number of other experts involved. There is insufficient description of the other costs expenses which should be related to the dissemination, communication or production of materials. Why only some partners need to renew their laptops?





101,074.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: RHYME


2.2 Reduction of health inequalities between EU regions

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH FOR YOUNG MIGRANTS IN EUROPE

01/03/2009

30


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

International Organization for Migration

IOM

Public


Belgium


Ethno-Medizinisches Zentrum e.V.

United Nations Population Fund

University of Ghent

University of Porto (Universidade do Porto)

4

Acronym

EMZ

UNFPA

ICRH

FMUP

City

Hannover

Sofia

Ghent

Porto

Country

Germany

Bulgaria

Belgium

Portugal


General Objectives:

Improving sexual and reproductive health and HIV prevention among young people from migrant communities in Europe


The project will bring an added value to the existing initiatives on sexual reproductive health (SRH) and migrants in the EU and will complement the existing EU and national policies on public health, migrant integration and youth by developing a young migrant-friendly approach to the issue.

The Project will contribute to the Work Program 2008 priorities in reducing health inequalities through empowering young people as vulnerable groups in selected EU countries, targeting youth and migrants as non-traditional groups and in developing effective public health policies through the promotion of good practices.

Methods and Means:

-Situation analysis, baseline KAP surveys and country-specific methodology

-Peer-to-peer education methods, Pre/post surveys to evaluate peer-to-peer workshops

-Participatory approach through micro-projects developed by young migrants,

- EU-added value approach through production and dissemination of Europe-wide applicable project materials

-Good Practices study and dissemination

- Multi-stakeholder policy dialogue through national and regional consultation meetings

Expected outcome:

- Country profiles and knowledge gaps identified and evidence-based actions developed

- Increased knowledge and awareness of SRH issues, HIV prevention methods and of right to health services among migrant youth groups

- Strengthened policy dialogue among different stakeholders and good practices disseminated EU wide

4





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

1 176 970

87 370

75 420

0

3 100

433 750

133 610

133 713

2 043 933

Incomes

1 635 147

0

408 786

0

0

2 043 933









Note

5

Comments

The project aims at improving sexual and reproductive health and HIV prevention among young people from migrant communities in Europe. This is to be done by raising awareness and increasing knowledge among this target group. The project is in line with the priorities laid out for in the work programme and work plan 2008 on HIV/AIDS and on sexual health. The application appears more in line with one for an operating grant. It is very extensive and would most likely need a more specific focus if it were to be carried out.

The project would most likely bring limited new elements to existing knowledge. It could contribute to reach some strategic horizontal value together with other EU initiatives, as young people are a priority group.



3


4

6

If successful, this work would result in added value at EU level. However, this is difficult to ascertain, since the description of the project is quite vague, which raises concerns about the transferability of the outcomes which are not easily adaptable to the local contexts. In any case the methodology of surveys and training materials could be shared. The involvement of the public authorities should be seeked from the beginning to ensure their ownership of the project results.

The project has fairly good geographical coverage. It is being coordinated by the IOM in Belgium and has 4 associated partners, from GE, BE, BG and PT. Its collaborating partners include the

European Youth Forum as well as ministerial representatives from PT, FI, MT, and BG. Questions were raised about the criteria for selection of the associated partners: why not involving ES and

IT, countries with recent influx of migrants?

Recruitment and participation may be affected by the diversity of the target group.

The analysis based on a KAP study can take into account the country and target group differences, and orient the intervention.





4

22

Note

2


3

Comments

There was insufficient information on the current situation of the health of young migrants, without clear definition of the target population or the evidence of the proposed interventions: This did not add substance to the proposal. The idea of the involvement of the youths to develop awareness raising activities was appreciated, but insufficient information was provided how the actions will be implemented, monitored and assessed.

The methods were considered well described. However the expected results are limited, and there are not clear outcomes. The reasons to offer the micro projects in only two countries, without a clear description of the meaning of the micro projects and what is expected from them.

Evaluators were quite concerned about the way to reach the "youth migrants", as there is no reference of any structure as school, social club, religion, migrants associations, which makes it very difficult to estimate the population size and apply a sampling technique, to have a representative selection of youth migrants. To avoid stigmatisation the panel suggest creating the youth's day event to foster integration between multicultural youths, not a 'migrant youth day' !



4

Not considered innovative, and the risk of overlap with the other projects in this area funded by

DGSANCO should be highlighted (SUNFLOWER and A&M 2007-2010).



4

5

18

The evaluation plan was considered to be limited, using mainly qualitative indicators, without addressing how the project outcomes and impact will be measured. An external evaluation should have been planned.

Considered limited. It was recommended to involve the public administrations to ensure their role in the dissemination of the project results. It is suggested to develop a sustainability plan, to ensure the continuity of the action.












Note

4

5

5

4

5

Comments

The planning of the activities is adequate, however no clear milestones were presented.

The responsibilities and tasks are not well described, but the organisations involved have previous experience with EC projects.

Sufficiently presented, with involvement of public health authorities.

Considered too general, missing details in how it will be implemented. The use of different modes of communication was considered effective (meetings, brochures, website).

The budget was considered oversized and concentrated on the main partner, with very high daily cost for IOM (coordination), but very low dissemination costs. There is too much administrative support, high travel cost (UNFPA 270 trips), the subcontracting of staff was considered not justified when there are so many staff involved. The request of 80% of EC co-funding was not considered relevant. The proposal of micro projects was considered not suitable following the EC financial regulation.



Total:


23

63

The details of the roles of the partners, and the tasks of the staff involved should have been provided. In the methods more information about the sample size calculation, and the rationale applied would be suitable. The definition of 'migrant' applied for the project and the ways which will be used to reach them, should be included in the technical description. The idea of the involvement of young people to develop awareness raising activities was appreciated, but insufficient information was provided on how the actions will be implemented, monitored and assessed. The organisation of a "migrant day" was not considered adequate, and could be a source of stigmatisation. It should be replaced by a youth meeting to support integration and multicultural activities.The details of the roles of the partners, and the tasks of the staff involved should have been provided. In the methods more information about the sample size calculation, and the rationale applied would be suitable. The definition of 'migrant' applied for the project and the ways which will be used to reach them, should be included in the technical description. The idea of the involvement of young people to develop awareness raising activities was appreciated, but insufficient information was provided on how the actions will be implemented, monitored and assessed. The organisation of a migrant day was not considered adequate, and could be a source of stigmatisation, should be replaced by a youth meeting to support integration and multicultural activities. The budget was considered oversized and concentrated in the main partner, with very high daily cost for IOM (coordination), but a very low dissemination cost. There is too much administrative support, high travel cost, the subcontracting of experts was considered not justified when there are so many staff involved. The request of 80% of EC co-funding was not considered relevant.

The proposition of micro projects was considered not suitable following the EC financial regulation.




No

0

0.00





101,077.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: Road to life



Road to life - Implementing solutions to fight alcohol misuse and addiction among young people and to prevent road injuries

02/01/2009

18


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

MOVIMENTO CONSUMATORI

MC

Private


Italy


Consumedia

Green Meridian

Lithuanian AIDS center/Lietuvos AIDS centras

¿¿¿¿S ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ (¿¿¿¿S ¿¿¿¿¿S - ¿¿¿¿F¿¿¿¿¿ ¿¿¿¿¿¿S

¿¿¿¿¿¿S – ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿)

Technische Universität Dresden

5

Acronym

CSMD

GM

LAC

MoDiak

TUD

City

Rome

Jurmala

Vilnius

DIAKOPTO

Dresden

Country

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Greece

Germany

5


The project aims at reducing alcohol related road injuries through the reduction of alcohol addiction among young people. It will contribute to the promotion of Health according to the general objectives of the HP and 2008 work plan. The project is striving for increasing knowledge and information among young people using all instruments already available by partners and new instruments to be created to enable youngsters acting responsibly.

The strategic relevance is in the deep involvement of School and Family as main contests of education. The project adds value to EU policies and in particular to the promotion of health being correct information the first step to promote health and safer behaviors. The project is easily reproducible and transferable since all instruments will remain available on the radio web page.

The project will inform young people on the risks of harmful alcohol use addressing teenagers who are in the age to take the driving licence: ad hoc instruments (two handbooks, a radio web newscast, a videogame) will be create to rise the right awareness and to lead to proper behaviour among youngsters and to support adult people who often do not know how to behave with their sons/daughters or students approaching alcohol.

Information will be provided also through a radio web page which will attract the direct target thanks to an appealing music and where a newscast will be broadcasted. Training days in the schools for students and conferences for families and teachers will be organized. The project will involve young people through and in the realization of a radio spot and will reduce the juvenile uneasiness as one of the cause of the first approach to alcohol: a forum space will be created on the radio web page where young people will compare each other and find answers and support.

The final outcome will be a sensitive reduction of alcohol misuse among young people and consequently a reduction of road injuries as short-term alcohol related harm





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

43 784

236 955

15 250

18 504

0

0

100 080

36 882

31 585

483 040

Incomes

289 824

43 784

149 432

0

0

483 040










Note

3

3

Comments

Within the general issue of reducing alcohol-related harm, focussing on young people -who bear a disproportionate burden of alcohol harm- and particularly on the drink and drive issue, can make an important contribution to the Programme's objective. The project is addressing drinking problem in young people which is in line with the priorities of PHP and WP. It aims to reduce alcohol related injuries by educational means targeting young people at age when they can apply for driving licence.

Looking at evidence education programmes can only be effective if they are linked to other effective measures in this case legislative measures such as 0 BAC for novice drivers, 18 years for purchasing alcohol beverages and similar. At this age school and family are no longer prevailing factors in young people drinking.

The Project has limited strategic relevance in terms of expected contributions to existing knowledge and/or implication to health. There is a lack of evidence that would support assumptions made in the project proposal that by increasing knowledge and information in adolescents misuse of alcohol and as a consequence injuries and accidents in traffic could be reduced.

Having young people informed id however beneficial if educational activities are linked to some more effective measures and are provided in support to their implementation. Such measures are for example 0BAC level and age limits and other limits for purchasing alcohol. Labelling, although not as effective could also be enforced by educational programmes for youth.




2

3

2

Added value to European level is questionable since the impact on the target group in terms of alcohol and drugs misuses and the long term effect of proposed interventions is not supported with existing evidence. Transferability is also questionable at EU level due to the differences in family customs and school cultures in different countries.

Activities proposed would be better implemented in each country separately, taking in account the different contexts in the countries.

There are only 6 partners in the project from selected countries, not all parts of EU are represented (Nordic countries missing). Transferability to other countries in region to assure good geographical coverage would be difficult at any time because of the cultural differences.

Partners are very diverse organizations, some being involved in activities to improve lifestyle of young people. One of the partners has worked in the area of HIV/AIDS treatment side, not prevention and does not seem relevant to the project. The consumer organization could be relevant but their role in the project is to help with the newsletter and the website.

Of six collaborating partners four are from Greece.

There is no mentioning of assessing social, cultural and political environments in the countries that participate in the project although this would be a precondition for adapting the project to different environments and assure its effectiveness in all countries.

Little on how the products will be socially designed adapted and develop. The handbook content will be split between the partners and has the potential to be messy. Also unclear is how the radio webpage will be able to capture audiences in all the different countries.




13

Note

2


3

Comments

In terms of problem analysis the project proposal includes analysis of the extend of the harmful drinking in EU, its health and economic consequences and of underlying factors. It also provides information on contexts in the countries involved in the project; however this information is not systematic.

In the project there is no reference to effective measures or the effectiveness of measures employed.

Aims, objectives and target group are defined as well as methods. Target group is children between 16 and 18 which seem not appropriate since evidence shows that children start drinking already before 13. The methods are not supported with evidence on their effectiveness. The strongest part of the project proposal is that the target group, young people in the project have an active role in developing tools.

Since only two schools are involved in the project as collaborating partners it will be difficult to assure participation of 25000 children in training activity (?) pre-implementation plan is missing.








2

3

3

It is difficult to judge based on this proposal if there are any similar EU wide projects going on. No analysis has been performed to assure no duplication. There is no evidence that would prove contribution of proposed measures to progress in the area of accidents and injuries reduction.

The handbooks that they intend to produce might as well exist already.

Evaluation, quantitative and qualitative is foreseen, external and internal. The evaluation is based on process indicators, outcomes indicators are missing.

The project has a well developed dissemination strategy however it needs to account for or consider language differences. Considering the target group (youth) a better utilization of the internet is prescribed. Provably the use of online social networks and chatting forums could contribute positively as these forums have a tremendous following amongst the young people.

Transferability of results could present a problem because of different contexts.




13

Note






3

2

2

3

6

Comments

No preparatory activities can be spotted in the proposed plan of outcomes and their delivery.

There could be an evaluation plan prepared in advance and also analysis of different context in countries where project will take place could/should be beneficial.

Scientific committee will be difficult to create by inviting all partners to nominate one person without pointing to criteria for this person that would assure his/hers scientific competency. Not all partners are academic institutions or having staff with academic background. Financial management of project is taken care of but it is not clear how the project will be managed in general. The risk analysis risks not to be able to involve schools as planned is acknowledged, however no remedial measures are provided.

Institutions/partners are very diverse in this project and it is difficult to judge if they posses competence to perform all the tasks foreseen. Scientific committee proposed in this project should perhaps be better exchanged with the management board.

Most of the WP, vertical and horizontal, are lead by main partner, Movimiento Consumatori, all of them by Italian and German partners.

Main partner in charge of the work packages, decision-making is unclear. Monitoring of progress of the project is lacking.

Responsibilities in this project are mainly given to Italian and German partners. Partners are prevailing from Italy and Greece.

Diversity of organizations in this partnership could result in synergy and complementarily if so planned.

Road safety authorities should have been involved. There is no coherence on the partnership and looks more like collection of national organisations.

One of the good sides of the project that young people will be used to communicate massages to young people. They should use long line social networks.

Interal communication seems to be targeted to solving problems not progress.

Most of the budget is reserved for the main partner performing most of the tasks which makes both the budget proposal and the project somehow unbalanced. The projects will have a financial manager and an assistant as part of management team. The employment of budget will be monitored through regular reporting.



Total:

16

42






No

0

0.00




The project lacks EU added value and is based on limited partnership. The methods are not evidence based effective and cost effective. It is not clear how the activities of the project will result in decrease in road accidents and injuries. The target group is perhaps to old for educational interventions since young people at the age of 16 and 18 have in many cases already developed their attitudes towards alcohol consumption. The strong side of this project is that it aims to involve in its activities as active partners also young people, their main target group but the connexions between the two main focus areas is not clear.

Considering the target group (youth) a better utilization of the internet is prescribed. Provably the use of online social networks and chatting forums could contribute positively as these forums have a tremendous following amongst the young people.

Transferability of results could present a problem because of different contexts.

The idea of the video game is good but the way is presented is awareness rising instead of presenting it as e-learning.

0





101,084.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym:


2.6 Action on rare diseases

The ESID Registry for Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases

01/01/2009

36

EURO-PID-REG


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

UNIVERSITAETSKLINIKUM FREIBURG

UKL-FR

Public


Germany


INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA SANTE ET DE LA RECHERCHE

MEDICALE (INSERM)

INTERNATIONAL NURSES GROUP IN IMMUNODEFICIENCY

KAROLINSKA INSTITUTET

MASARYK UNIVERSITY

MEDIZINISCHE HOCHSCHULE HANNOVER

The Primary Immunodeficiency Association

UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI BRESCIA

UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA "LA SAPIENZA"

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON

9

Acronym

INSERM

INGID

KI

MU

MHH

PIA

UNIBS

Sapienza

UCL

City

Paris

Surrey

Stockholm

Brno

Hannover

London

Brescia

Roma

London

Country

France

United Kingdom

Sweden

Czech Republic

Germany

United Kingdom

Italy

Italy

United Kingdom

6


This project addresses the development and maintenance of a rare diseases register and its information network, as outlined in the annual Work plan.

Objective: Improve the knowledge on/the management of patients with primary immunodeficiencies (PID) in order to decrease morbidity and mortality and lower the socio-economic impact on society.

Relevance: PIDs are rare inborn diseases that cause various degrees of physical and sometimes mental impairment. If diagnosed early, many complications can be prevented. Treatment ranges from bone marrow transplantation to blood product replacement. PID centres in Europe have formed ESID, the European Society for Immunodeficiencies. Nine of the larger centres have formed a tight network with the aim to foster clinical and basic research and improve health care.

Methods: On the basis of the ESID registry, this consortium will address the following questions:

1. What is the prevalence of PIDs in Europe?

2. What is the diagnostic delay?

3. What are common/rare complications?

4. What are the current management protocols in place?

5. How does the outcome of these protocols compare to each other?

6. How can we improve the quality of life and the socio-economic output of these patients?

The physicians in the consortium have defined burning questions in their patient care, datasets have already been designed. ESID provides an online registry running smoothly since 2004. Documentalists will be hired to collect the requested data, which is then analysed with support from a biostatistician. The PID patient organisation PIA will disseminate results to patients, general practitioners, scientists and the lay public. The

PID nursing organisation INGID will evaluate the success.

Outcome: We will provide epidemiologic data on PID in Europe, aim to shorten the diagnostic delay by awareness campaigns, disseminate diagnostic protocols, find ways to prevent complications; optimise treatment protocols and improve the quality of life of PID patients.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

3 493 030

131 000

61 500

9 000

25 400

0

21 500

261 896

4 003 326

Incomes

2 388 484

0

775 000

0

839 842

4 003 326












Note

5

5

7


5

5

Comments

This project is probably more oriented towards clinical treatment. In any case it is not possible on the basis of the application form to conclude that it is not within the priorities (development and maintenance of registries on rare diseases).

The PID is a group of rare diseases in which it is important to have a critical mass of information.

However the registry already exists and this is more a clinical and therapy registry. The focus is on 4 of the main diseases in the field. The description of the strategic relevance is rather limited.

If the whole project works, the EU added value will be high but the description of the project is too general and not really concrete. There is a clear description of the target groups and the project could reach an EU dimension through sharing of information and networking.

There are only a few countries involved: mainly UK, Italy and Germany. These countries were chosen because they worked before together. There is no list of potential participant countries.

The system to collect data is strong within the 6 countries but the question is why not to add more countries at least from eastern EU. It is not clear how data from other countries could enter into the registry.

Moreover the links of this project with existing organisms such as Orphanet are not clearly described.

The cultural, social and political aspects have been considered (exploring the differences among countries) through the selection of a representative in each participant country. However the context of cultural differences is difficult to assess with only 6 countries involved.

The main concern of this project with regard to ethical aspects is confidentiality of personal data.

But it is not sure that they are taking into account the ethical aspect because the main objective of the project is to collect data.




27

Note

5

Comments

The problem analysis is good from an epidemiological point of view, but there is no information on the kind of data that will be provided and the level of information that will be addressed by the registry.

There is doubt about the effectiveness of measures and applicability, or in other words on what they plan to do with the information. Some elements of the project are more promises than facts.

There is no specific data provided for the diseases that are under scrutiny but as they are rare diseases it is not an important problem.




3

3

3

The content and objectives are mostly related to the clinical level and observation. There are no details given on the sub studies the applicant want to do. The general objective seems not so clear and the specific objectives are not objectives at all and not really measurable. The first deliverable is planned after 18 months only.

It is not mentioned from which countries the data will be collected: only 6 countries or more?

The registry should be expanded towards the whole EU even if the project is not present everywhere. The role of the librarian (one for each partner) is probably exaggerated: once the registry is built the key problem is to get the data. If this project has other views on the use of data, the objective has to be clarified.

The registry already exists and the funding can only reinforce it, making it more interesting; the project concerns mainly analysis of data and is not really innovative, even if there is no similar action in Europe for this group of diseases. It is not clear how the applicants will reach the objective.

The evaluation strategy is realistic but generic; There are no indicators (except for the evaluation of the quality of life through questionnaire to the patients). In any case the strategy is not really clear. It seems that the applicants have no expertise in evaluation; there is no mention of external evaluation except if it is included in the subcontracting activities.



4




The dissemination strategy is not focused on the project. There is no budget for the countries’ workshops; the use of the website is a positive point even if it already exists. The dissemination strategy as described may work for the main target groups.

Translations are foreseen but the dissemination is only planned within the 6 participating countries except through the internet. The applicants don't seem to have a lot of experience in this field. The communication within the scientific community doesn’t seem to be a problem.

The applicants have to focus more on dissemination.




18

Note Comments






3

4

4

3

6

The partners worked together previously in the EU funded project EUROPADNET so the methodology is already established, the distribution of the tasks is clear. The major project components rest on 3 partners. The deliverables have to be better described but the timetable is good.

The critical point of the organisation of this project is that the risk analysis doesn't address the fact that the data collection could be difficult in some countries. The milestones are not really present.

The partners are highly competent in their field. They are mostly clinicians and therapists. They are not really competent in Public Health. But on the Public Health point of view, the most important issue is the availability of data. So even clinicians can contribute to this objective.

The organisation’s structure is generic but with a steering committee and meetings among partners.

The partnership already existed in the framework of other EU project (EUROPADNET RTD project) and the partners have thus experience working together. The roles are related to the specific expertise of the partners. However the way the different partners will join together in a complementary way is poorly described.

The communication strategy could have been better described. There is no real communication strategy and poor attempt to describe it. Within the network the communication is well organised.

On what concerns the external world, some information is given but it is generic.

The budget is not really realistic; it is very expensive; too much working days are planed collecting data. It is overdone and not well justified. Everything rests on the fact that the applicants will demonstrate a high success rate to recruit patients. If this is not the case (and this problem was not addressed in the risk analysis) it will be a disaster. Too many trips are planned: it seems that everybody will participate to every meeting. The distribution of the budget among the partners is uneven.

There is no public officials’ staff even if the partners seem mainly official bodies. The daily costs are realistic. Only 1 librarian (documentalist) should be enough for the whole project.

With regard to the sustainability of this activity the budget should be drastically reduced: in the future, only 1 person per country would be enough. There is no mention of an existing network on which the sustainability could be based.



Total:


20

65

Overall this project is accepatble but some important improvements have to be provided before starting the project:

Overall the working days have to be reduced and the trips and documentalists costs as well;

The focus must be on strengthening the database and not developing a lot of sub studies.

The potential overlap with the FP7 project has to be carefully checked.

The sustainability of the first project which created the database has to be checked and a strong demonstration of the sustainability of the project has to be provided.

The applicants have to add more members or to develop a strategy to get data from other countries.

They have to check and guarantee the link with Orphanet.

see conclusions




No

0

0.00





101,108.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: ENQ's YP



European Network of Quitlines; Innovation and Best Practice in Youth Tobacco Prevention and Cessation

01/04/2009

24


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

QUIT

QUIT

Public


United Kingdom


IT: NO DATA

1

Acronym

IT: NO DATA

City

IT: NO DATA

Country

IT: NO DATA

1


The European Network of Quitlines; Innovation and Best Practice in Youth Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Project will establish, promote and disseminate innovation and best practice on youth smoking prevention and cessation. This new initiative will build capacity to actively engage youth as peer advisors.

It will improve the health of young people across Europe through training and capacity building within all collaborating Quitlines. The programme will encourage the reduction and uptake of smoking among young people through youth peer advisors using a multi-media approach, with a focus on gender perspectives and will promote the use of effective NRT interventions.

Initiated in pursuance of Addiction Prevention (Work Plan Ref: 3.3.4/ Prog Ref 2.2.1), and under smoking prevention and tobacco control ( WP

Ref 3.3.4.1), this project is an innovative strategy and best practice implementation of prevention and cessation with a key focus on young people and teenagers.

The Project will significantly add value to the current youth smoking prevention and cessation services available to young people across Europe.

It will establish for the first time, a pan-European evidence base for innovative and effective youth interventions. The capacity building and training programme, together with the publication of the European Guide to Best Practice will ensure the sustainability of the programme.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

97 098

27 600

6 342

2 600

18 000

0

151 067

21 189

323 896

Incomes

194 337

0

129 559

0

0

323 896













Note

7

5

5

6

5

Comments

The project targets smoking prevention and cessation in youth, which is a priority under the workplan 2008.

Discussing the strategic relevance the question is raised why after several years of work in this field a best practice guidelines is not already available. Also, is a single guideline compatible with a holistic approach? Is the guide truly European, since there is only 1 partner in the project and the participation of the others may be limited?

No complementarities to pubic health policies described, even though it is complementary with

EU youth tobacco control strategy. Transferability and sustainability not described.

No associated partners, but impact can be achieved through collaborating partners. Those could have been associated partners, to make a stronger network.

A single guideline seems difficult in a holistic approach.

Youth advisors are important. How much they will be involved is unclear.

Diversity and complexity are acknowledged, but vulnerable groups could have been characterized.




28

Note


3

4

Comments

Problem analysis is clear.

Evidence does not take into account national action regarding smoking and young people. It does not address underlying factors. Effectiveness and applicability of measures not mentioned/ discussed.

Ongoing work in the UK by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) regarding a guide on prevention the uptake of smoking by children and young people has not been mentioned.

Clear target group. Objectives are clear, but not formulated as "SMART".

Implementation and evaluation of the project are not outcomes.

The methods could have been described better (e.g. how many young people can participate in the training?).




3

3

4

Need of peer involvement is a long known concept, not new.

A similar guide is presently being developed at national in the UK.

Chosen indicators are not enough to well evaluate the project in the end.

More information about the external evaluator needed.

E-mail is a good tool, especially when targeting youth.

Difference needs to be made explicit between "expert youth practitioners" and "youth expert practitioners".

Focus seems to be on NRT only, to be specified / complemented.

External communication via collaborating partner is a plus, wide reach.

The sustainability of the dissemination is not discussed.




17

Note Comments









Total:





No

0

0.00

3

3

3

4

7

20

65




Milestones are not marked.

There is a need to describe the experts who will develop the guide and their tasks.

QUIT has a long standing experience in leading EU projects.

Details on the qualifications of the main partner missing.

No information on the collaborating partners / the experts which will be carrying out some of the work.

No associated partners. No guarantee of involvement of collaborating partners, even though tasks for them are planned.

Missing information about communication with other organizations in the same field (ENSP, HELP campaign, GlobalLink).

EU funding will be made visible.

Budget overall ok for project grant, QUIT brings own resources. However, other partners are not remunerated for their work.

Not recommended for funding, because:

1. after many years of experience in this field best practice guidelines should have been developed already.

2. A similar guidance to be released in the UK soon. QUIT's Youth Service Manager gave an expert testimony to the Public Health Interventions Advisory Committee, preparing this

"Mass-media and point-of-sales measures to prevent the uptake of smoking by children and young people" guideline ( http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/

PreventingUptakeSmokingChildrenDraftGuidanceConsultation.pdf) This development is not acknowledged in the proposal.

3. The organization of the project is weak, since there are no associated partners. The involvement of the collaborating partners is described, but cannot be guaranteed. These partners are not remunerated for their work. Associated partners need to be added e.g. from the collaborating partners. The budget would need to be shared with such associated partners, since the presented collaborating partners may lack funds for their participation.

Other comments:

More collaboration with other associations should be sought / described, if there.

The assessment of part A (policy) by a SANCO official was presented to the external evaluators.

Given the discrepancy of points (40 from SANCO official, 28 in consensus from the evaluators), the SANCO official was invited for discussion, but did not follow this invitation

Project not recommended for funding.





101,110.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:



Tobacco Control against Poverty

01/02/2009

18

Acronym: TAP


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease

IUATLD

Private


France


European Respiratory Society

Acronym

ERS

1

City

Brussels

Country

Belgium


The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) was developed in response to the tobacco epidemic. So far, 154 countries have become parties, including 40 EURO countries (26 of the EU 27 and the EC) and 16 countries from the EMRO region. However, the success of the FCTC will depend on the effective implementation of its provisions.

The EC and EU MS played a key role in the negotiation of the Treaty. Through sustained collective leadership the EC and its MS can drive down smoking prevalence and create better health outcomes for EU citizens and others. The project intends to strengthen this collective action through the coordination of ongoing initiatives for the implementation of the FCTC at MS and EU level and ensure the integration of health concerns into other relevant EU policies. The project also intends to support preparatory work for the 4th FCTC Conference of the Parties. The project will a) contribute to all 4 strategic areas of the PH programme, priority action 3.3.4.1. and principles 3 and 4 of the EU Health strategy, b) develop synergies between EU heath policy and other relevant EU policies, c) highlight the role of tobacco use on exacerbating poverty and health inequalities and d) develop a better understanding of how existing funding mechanisms can be used to assist the implementation of the

FCTC. The project will be implemented through research and consultation, information providing and sharing, capacity building and technical assistance. Expected outcomes include: a) A key report with a series of papers on tobacco and poverty, b) a capacity building workshop, c) a project website and database with information on funding mechanisms, d) a high level conference and an event at the EP and e) a set of policy recommendations. The project outcomes will be disseminated via the final conference, the launch at the European Parliament, relevant and participating networks and the media.

1





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

194 103

27 000

29 934

1 800

0

180 778

168 020

42 114

643 749

Incomes

386 249

0

257 500

0

0

643 749
















Note

4

3

3

2

4

16

Note

4


5


3



4

5

Comments

The link between tobacco use and poverty is known. Tobacco control is an important part of PHP and of the WP 2008. FCTC implementation not an explicit priority.

Creating network of contact points regarding funding is important. Capacity building in civil society is a main added value. Duplication with CoP work of FCTC to be examined.

The added value is mainly based on capacity building of CSO. It also contributes to FCTC implementation.

There are only two partners, but both are umbrella organizations. They do cover all EU MS.

Collaborating partners are listed as well. Global outreach is mentioned as well.

The project is appropriate in terms of the social, cultural and political context.

Comments

There is good evidence of tobacco use and its relation to poverty. Applicants give adequate evidence for the problems addressed in the project.

A more in depth analysis of poverty and smoking in Europe would be useful.

The specific objectives could have an impact on EU policies, if reached.

Capacity building for civil society is a plus. Project should go beyond FCTC promotion.

Primary health care workers should be targeted as well.

Limited innovation – a report, database, conference… the means are not new; however, this does not influence the technical value.

The health aspects are minimal in this project – consider adding.

There is overlap with the World Bank approach.

The indicators provided in the annex cannot be considered for the project appraisal, as not part of the application form.

External evaluation seems adequate.

The dissemination could be described in more detail (media strategy planned).

Strategy addresses all relevant stakeholders.

The role of WHO should be described. Sustainability is not described.




21

Note Comments



3

3

Timetable in the annex could not be considered for assessment. The distribution of the tasks is not adequately described.

WP8 (coordinator) is lead by the associated partner. This is not possible. The project needs to be coordinated by the main partner.

The milestones are not marked.

Management structure is adequate with a steering committee. International communication is assured. No details given regarding monitoring and decision making.







Total:





No

0

0.00

6

20

57

4

4




There is only 1 associated partner, but collaborating partners are added.

The communication strategy is adequate for the project.

The project costs are high: cut travel, revise staff and subcontracting.

Financial circuits are well described.

EC co-funding should be limited to € 300 000.

The project is recommended for funding.

The project can make a good contribution to capacity building for civil society in the field of tobacco control, focusing on poverty.

EC co-funding should is limited to € 300 000.


Note: and additional timetable and indicator list was presented, however, as the information was not part of the application form, it could not be taken into consideration for the assessment.

Cut travel cost, revise staff and subcontracting. EC co-funding should is limited to € 300 000.





101,111.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: ReClaim



Recovery Enabling Cooperative Learning and Inclusion Management

01/09/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

University of Hertfordshire Higher Education Corporation

UH

Public


United Kingdom


Azienda per i Servizi Sanitari n.1 Triestina

Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Universidade Nova de Lisboa

Global Initiative on Psychiatry - Sofia

Psychiatric Research Unit, Region Sealand, Denmark

4

Acronym

ASS n.1 Triestina

FCML-UNL

GIP-Sofia

PRU

City

Trieste

Lisboa

Sofia

Vordingborg

Country

Italy

Portugal

Bulgaria

Denmark


The project’s focus and objectives are closely related to objective 2 of the PHP work plan 2008-2013, namely the promotion of health, including the reduction of health inequalities. It will also contribute to objective 3 – generate and disseminate health information and knowledge – by generating knowledge presently lacking in Europe (and beyond) on shared learning of recovery, wellness and social inclusion in mental health by users, carers and service providers, as well as about turning new knowledge into a tool of social action in the local media impact projects.

By focusing on priority area 3.3.1:improving mental health and health living this project aims to promote the mental health of individuals experiencing severe mental ill health through the provision of knowledge and skills for recovery, wellness, social inclusion and media impact.

The shared learning of service users with carers and service providers will improve understanding, knowledge and skills of all participating stakeholders, as well as offer a more socially inclusive framework for such learning.

The skills learned within this project are transferable to other areas (e.g. employment and education, social projects).

Furthermore social exclusion and the reduction of health inequalities will be addressed in the project by introducing shared projects aimed at enhancing a better understanding and a more positive approach by local media to mental health.

The innovative aspects of the project include tackling mental health promotion and social inclusion together, at four levels: the individual experiencing mental illness, their carers, service providers (and through them the service organisations) and local media.

The project will provide positive experiences of shared learning and action, producing training programmes and guidelines disseminated through a website and DVDs/CD-ROMS.

4





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

652 620

862 410

147 736

72 139

0

1 743

23 536

97 770

130 041

1 987 995

Incomes

847 588

652 620

487 787

0

0

1 987 995













Note

5

4

3

4

3

Comments

The project aims to establish an effective, evaluated and generalisable strategy to enhance social inclusion for individuals experiencing long term mental illness, targeting their carers and service providers. It addresses a key priority of the mental health section of the 2008 work plan, although general inclusion and wellbeing are very broadly defined. The project does not foresee the development of guidelines which the work plan explicitly calls for.

The synthesis of mental health promotion, social inclusion and the use of the media is novel. If the project manages to establish an effective strategy to integrate social inclusion concerns into the training of health professionals caring for individuals with long term mental illness, a very relevant contribution could be made to the care for these patients. However, the aims of the project are stated too generally and the proposal contains too little detail on how it builds on the existing knowledge base to make the contribution very relevant.

Tackling social exclusion of people with mental health problems contributes to fighting stigma as called upon in the Mental Health Pact. The action research design that is envisaged provides an added value as a new approach to the topic, but the project is probably too ambitious in scope, the target group too vaguely defined and the methodology insufficiently clarified to expect a real and sustainable contribution to policies or practices at EU level. The deliverables (e.g., dvd’s) will become obsolete in the longer term, so no sustainable results can be expected.

The project partnership includes organisations from the UK, Italy, Portugal, Denmark and Bulgaria as well as four collaborating partners from France, Belgium, Sweden and the USA. The reason for the choice of these particular partners is not explained, and it is not clear if this is related to representation of mental health issues or social systems. Overall, the geographical coverage is limited, and no strategy is foreseen to widen it. A comparison on an EU scale is envisaged but little comparability will be available due to the small scope of the partnership. The collaborating partner from the USA does not provide additional value due to the very different social and policy context.

The target group is weakly defined as "individuals with severe mental ill health" (DSM-IV). This does not say anything about their social situation or cultural differences and how they impact on the proposed intervention. It is not certain if a CD and local media are adequate to reach individuals with severe mental illness, and if so, whether that applies to each of the participating countries. No information is given on how each partner will address cultural issues. The policy context is also a very sensitive element for social inclusion, especially in light of the envisaged action research approach, but is not sufficiently explained. Ethical aspects are not addressed although they are also important in this area.




19

Note

3

Comments

Some evidence is provided on the scope of the problem. It is made clear that people with mental illness are among the most excluded groups in Europe and that there is a need to address this problem. However, no evidence is reported on the epidemiological and causal analysis of social exclusion of the mentally ill: how many patients suffer from a severe mental illness? Which disorders? Are there any data on social exclusion? Which factors contribute to the social exclusion of mentally ill patients? Further, no evidence is provided regarding the effectiveness of the proposed measures. An educational approach involving interactive CDs is proposed to harness the problem, but except for one reference (Sainsbury) the effectiveness of this approach is not mentioned. Given the complexity of the issue it is unlikely that a single approach will have an effect. The reference to the potential role of the media is controversial: it is only a statement but not supported by sources of evidence.






2

2

2

2




The aims of the project are overambitious. Involving severely mentally ill people is very challenging, and probably only achievable if one starts at a very early stage in the illness. Only 4 specific objectives are formulated, two of which refer to evaluation and dissemination, which are not really objectives but elements of good project management. The objectives are not SMART formulated. Comparability between countries is not addressed. The deliverables are clear but their link with the objectives is not explicit.

The target group is very broadly defined and includes service providers as well as mentally ill patients. The proposed method (training via media) is not compatible with target group of severely mentally ill, who are not easy to reach by media. The method also does not address the aim to integrate mental illness and social integration. Training is an important component of the method, but the training content and format are not defined or explained. No specifics are provided about sampling, recruitment/inclusion criteria, and data analysis methods, although the risk analysis mentions low participation as a risk for the project.

The project claims to be innovative, and the integration of mental health promotion, social inclusion and media is novel. The action research design could be innovative, but is not sufficiently explained to understand what exactly is envisaged. The proposed training to integrate mental health promotion and social inclusion may be innovative in some countries but not in others (e.g. UK). Insufficient detail is provided about the content and format of the training sessions to infer their innovativeness.

Evaluation of process and impact/outcome is mentioned and an action research paradigm is proposed for this evaluation, but the design is not defined and its application not explained.

Process evaluation appears to be limited to monitoring the timely delivery of deliverables, and does not address the quality of the deliverables.

Impact evaluation of the project is foreseen but does not include an assessment of the impact on policy. Evaluating media impact on the representation of mental illness, on the other hand, is not realistic within the scope of the project. It is envisaged to develop criteria to measure outcomes in the evaluation WP, but the main elements of this outcome evaluation are not yet known. No baseline measures are specified for outcome evaluation. The comparability between countries is not included in the evaluation.

The target group for dissemination is not defined. As it is likely to include health workers, policy makers, researchers and social workers as well as patients (end users), the message needs to be tailored towards different groups, yet the key message for the external communication is not clear and channels are not well identified. A “media impact project strategy” is mentioned in WP4 as a dissemination tool, but this concept is not defined or explained. The transferability of the project’s results is not addressed, and probably will be limited given the limited scope of the partnership.




11

Note Comments




2

2

2

A plan of action for the envisaged tasks is provided and work packages have been outlined, but the project is very ambitious and underestimates scope of the envisaged tasks. The time that is necessary to carry out the tasks listed in the work packages is underestimated. The timetable is very general and only mentions the duration of the work packages and the delivery dates of the deliverables, not any milestones in the process of developing the activities. The envisaged actions are insufficiently detailed. A risk analysis is provided and identifies certain risks, but does not address important risks such as an IT breakdown, sampling/recruitment difficulties, etc. The contingencies to address risks are not always realistic. The reasons for the particular distribution of the tasks between the partners are not explained.

The organisational structure for the project is outlined, mentioning the tasks and responsibilities of the project coordinator, manager and steering group. Internal communication will take place via chatrooms. The main partner appears to take on a dominating role in the consortium. Two meetings per year are scheduled, but it is not specified where and when they will take place, who will attend, and what the main purpose of the meetings will be. There is a discrepancy between the number of meetings scheduled in the planning and in the budget. The experience of the organisations in the consortium with project management is not convincingly demonstrated in the proposal, as the main partner and one associated partners have each been involved in only one

EC funded project as associated partners.

The consortium is rather small with one main, four associated and four collaborating partners. The complementarity of the partners in the consortium is not obvious from the info provided and the composition is not explicitly explained. It is not clear if the partners have been working together before. The division of the tasks and work days suggests a strong dominance by the main partner, which would indicate a leadership-driven rather than a synergy-driven partnership.






Total:





No

0

0.00

2

4




Internal communication will take place via chatrooms and through organising meetings. However, it is not explained how language difference and translation will be dealt with.

The target group for external communication is very broad (health workers, policy makers, patients, social workers, …) and needs to be subdivided in order to identify their information needs; channels need to be tailored to these needs. The key message for the external communication needs to be defined.

The overall budget for the project is very high (nearly 2.000.000 €), yet the % of co-funding requested from the Commission is low (42.6%). This is due to the very low co-funding request by the Danish and Italian partner, whose staff costs are exclusively based on public officials. The costs are not well balanced between partners, with the main partner claiming two thirds of the EU contribution.

For the detailed budget, several items are exaggerated and/or insufficiently explained. For staff costs, full time employment of staff with public official status is foreseen for the duration of the project for the Italian and Danish partners, which is unlikely. Salary costs very high for Italy (4 times as for Denmark). Travel costs are very high and the number of trips exaggerated, especially for the main partner, without justification or explanation. No specification is given as to where meetings will be held, how long they will last, or who will attend. Conference costs are foreseen but not explained in the work packages. Budgeted media costs are the same for different countries (including UK and Bulgaria), which is unrealistic. Costs for travel of collaborating partners are envisaged without any justification.

12

42

By aiming to develop a strategy to integrate social inclusion concerns into the training of health professionals caring for individuals with long term mental illness, this project addresses a key priority of the mental health section of the 2008 work plan. It includes some innovative elements, but the aims of the project are stated too generally, the target group is too vaguely defined and the methodology insufficiently detailed to expect a real and sustainable contribution to policies or practices at EU level. The proposal contains too little detail on how it builds on the existing knowledge base or on the effectiveness of the proposed measures, and the proposed methodology may not be fully compatible with the target group. The consortium is rather small, appears dominated by the main partner, and has no demonstrated history of previous collaboration. The budget is very high, insufficiently justified and not well balanced between the partners in the consortium. The project does not reach the threshold of 50 points for overall appreciation and is not recommended for funding. If resubmission is considered, it will need to be rewritten.





101,113.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: TESS



Trans European ServiceS

20/10/2008

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

MIT MOVIMENTO D'IDENTITA' TRANSESSUALE

MIT

Private


Italy


AIDS COALITION TO UNLEASH POWER - A PASE - HELLAS

CABIRIA

COMITATO PER I DIRITTI CIVILI DELLE PROSTITUTE

FORUM INTERKULTURALITAT

NOVA ONLUS - CONSORZIO DI COOPERATIVE SOCIALI

PASTT (Prevention, action, Santé, Travail pour Transgeneres)

Acronym

ACTUP

CABIRIA

CDCP ONLUS

INTERFORUM

NOVA

PASTT

6

City

Athens

Lyon

Pordenone

Linz

Trani

Paris

Country

Greece

France

Italy

Austria

Italy

France

4


The project aims at reducing health and social inequalities afflicting a particular target group: transgender population that regards all those people that feel themselves to belong to a gender other then that of origin. The main characteristic of the target is the experience of a transition from a gender to the other, that has strong implications on their psyche, body, health, social integration and lifestyle. In fact this population is victim of serious prejudices and stereotypes that negatively influence their access to health services, labour market and civil society: they are often discriminated at work, alienated by families; they encounter many difficult also to rent a house.

All these factors and inequalities are particularly strong in rural areas and in the south of Europe, where the cultural background is more obsolete and the target group is refused, excluded and, sometimes, victim of violence. Health services able to take care of their needs are still lacking. Also in terms of policies and general programmes addressing this target Europe is quite failing.

The project will try to cover this gap through different actions, objectives and related outcomes:

1. Health situation analysis in order to understand transgender population’s health, services, policies and intervention provided in each partner country

2. Definition of guidelines and best practices in order to create some transferable models of intervention

3. Exchange and strengthening of innovative approaches that will be transferred amongst partner countries aiming also at influence the local context (key actors, policy makers)

4. Local experimentation of some local services aiming at the transgender population’s health protection.

Such plan will be extremely innovative since it tackle an emerging phenomenon and a specific target group to whom Institutions pay less attention; furthermore the initiative will give an active role to the target group itself, represented by the main partner





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

717 300

33 960

47 510

0

25 000

112 000

0

34 230

970 000

Incomes

582 000

0

388 000

0

0

970 000













Note

6

4

3

3

6

Comments

While the project fits partially the objectives of the 2008 work plan, it fills the knowledge gap concerning the health status of an extremely vulnerable group.

There is a lack of knowledge about the size and health status of the target group, which is most often not targeted by specific actions. Particularly vulnerable to exclusion, infectious diseases, stigma and discrimination. Certainly, it would be valuable to create such knowledge to guide policy and programmes. However, the proposal is vague; sometimes it seems more a research proposal and not a public health project. The network will benefit by the involvement of a social science research institution, which could contribute in the design of the survey about the health status, following a sound scientific methodology (qualitative survey), what will ensure the requested credibility to the proposal.

Limited, only addressing the organisations involved from 4 countries, without addressing the

European scope. It is not clear how the target population can be reached through the proposed project design and how to make the activities sustainable. There will be as well difficulties to generalise the survey findings, as the study population will not be representative of the transgender population.

There are only four countries involved, two Mediterranean and two from Western Europe. Even when the project refers to German good practices, there is no link through a German partner. The partnership should be more extended and countries from Eastern Europe should be involved.

Acknowledges difficulties, aims at improving the health conditions and reduce vulnerabilities of the target group. Actions appear compatible with culture and views as project partners works with or belong to the target population. The project intends to involve interviews with transgender people, their personal integrity must be ensured as well as confidentiality. For such studies, the request of permission from an ethical committee should be requested.




22

Note

3


3

Comments

The situation is well described, with sound understanding of the main problems, characteristics and general context and issues around the vulnerability of the target group, but there is reference to scientific data or results of previous studies or surveys. It is not clear, as well, what the innovative measures proposed to be introduced in the health services are. These points are very important for the sustainability of the action.

The general aims and objectives of the project are clearly expressed and the target group was well defined. The methods are not specific and not consistent, what is meant as "the development of a new model, the proposal of one existent (Movimento di Identita Transexuale - MIT) or a public health intervention". It is not clear what exactly the health and social inequalities might be and between whom? The methods for a "ad-hoc" survey, it is not considered adequate for a health situation analysis, for a group that is hard to reach. More appropriate would be to use qualitative methods with in depth interview with few representatives from the target groups, associated with focus groups. The main output, i.e., the guidelines on transgender health, appears to remain confined within the niche. The project intends to make local experimentation at local services, but it is not clear who will implement these services, health care providers - social workers? In any case, these actors should be involved from the beginning and agree in the introduction of innovative solutions. These solutions should be in agreement with existing service practices and health authorities' approval would be necessary. The late introduction of services, last year of the project, will not allow their assessment.





4

3

3




The project is innovative, since it tries to increase the knowledge of the health problems of an extremely vulnerable group. So far, few have attempted to undertake systematic research and policy development concerning trans-gender people. The applicants don't acknowledge any link with other initiatives in the field, even tough there is an extensive survey which has been performed (Transgender EuroStudy, a legal survey and focus on the transgender experience of health care, April 2008), by ILGA Europe, and follows another large scale study performed in UK in 2006. Many other international and national organisations have experience in quantitative and qualitative approaches on the transgender - transsexual people experience of inequality and discrimination when accessing health care in Europe, and should have been taken into account when writing the proposal.

The evaluation strategy is simple, does not identify clear benchmarks, the instruments are vague and cannot support the assessment of the project outcomes, objective quality of the actins.

The project team plans a variety of dissemination activities, including conferences and trans national meetings targeting different kinds of stakeholders. The specific activities like meeting and seminars are not quantified or qualified to allow the evaluation of the dissemination activities.

Consequently, it is not clear how the MS in Europe will benefit from all these activities, as they are planned to be carried at local level. As well it is not clear how the sustainability of dissemination activities will be ensured. Concerns were expressed about the feasibility of the planned activities.




16

Note Comments






2

3

3

3

6

The planning of the project is simple and well balanced, even when is not clear why a specific workpackage has been allocated to a particular partner. The risk analysis doesn't include the possibility that some partner didn't collaborate. The timetable seems stretched with 16 months for the production of guidelines and best practices. There is a large number of travel, however no details as purpose, destination, timeframe is given.

The wp3 have lower work load, when compared to the others.

The management structure is simple and the staffs are experience in the topic. The partners consist of private and non-profit organisations, mainly representing the target group. No previous experiences in projects mentioned. The process of decision making, monitoring and supervision are not described. The requested subcontracting could have been replaced by adding a new appropriate associated partner.

The roles and responsibilities seem to be balanced between the partners, who are small organisations with good potential to reach the target group. The panel recommends the involvement of a new partner from a university with expertise in research / survey methods, statistical skills. Competence in qualitative research methodology is also desirable. Most researchers from partner's organisation are sociologist, and they could be complemented by the involvement of public health professionals.

The communication strategy is very simple; many channels of communication will be used to reach the stakeholders.

The overall budget seems oversized for the type of local intervention. The staff cost is disproportionate for the planned activities. Large travel cost, without clear purpose. The subcontracting was considered too high, and probably the resources could be found in some other partner. The project should be revised and restricted to the increase of knowledge on the target group health situation (survey) and the identification of good practices.



Total:

17

55






No

0

0.00




The knowledge of the health situation of trans-gender people is much needed. The revised project should focus on the production of the knowledge through a survey, based in deep interviews

(using qualitative methods) with limited number of transgender people. The collection of existing good practices would also be a valuable contribution. The service delivery component should focus on the development of cooperation with the stakeholders (service providers) who should be involved from early stages, to design the implementation of the innovative service provision. The service provision should not be part of the revised proposal. The knowledge of the health situation of trans-gender people is much needed. The revised project should focus on the production of the knowledge through a survey, based in deep interviews (using qualitative methods) with limited number of transgender people. The collection of existing good practices would also be a valuable contribution. The service delivery component should focus on the development of cooperation with the stakeholders (service providers) who should be involved from early stages, to design the implementation of the innovative service provision. The service provision should not be part of the revised proposal.

The overall budget seems oversized for the type of local intervention. The staff cost is disproportionate for the planned activities. Large travel cost, without clear purpose. The subcontracting was considered too high, and probably the resources could be found in some other partner. The project should be revised and restricted to the increase of knowledge on the target group health situation (survey) and the identification of good practices.





101,115.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym:



European Parents and Children Against Smoking

15/10/2008

30

EPACAS


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Movimento Italiano Genitori in sigla Moige-Onlus

MOIGE

Private


Italy


CONFEDERACION ESPAÑOLA DE CENTROS DE ENSEÑANZA

Istituto Superiore di Sanità

Romtens Foundation

Stichting International Network on Children's Health and

Environment

Vereniging voor Ouders, Christelijk Onderwijs en Opvoeding

5

Acronym

CECE

ISS

ROM

INCHES

OUDERS & COO

City

Madrid

Rome

Bucharest

Ellecom

Driebergen

Country

Spain

Italy

Romania

Netherlands

Netherlands


The project intends to improve the children awareness on the risks of smoking, with a particular focus on tackling inequalities in access to education and information. This general objective will be reached through a series of concrete actions addressed to 6-11 year old children, which are the direct beneficiaries of the proposal. The chosen approach is innovative in regards with the methodologies carried out in the sector: the activities will be implemented in permanent consultation with and within the two environments in which children grow: families and schools.

Moreover, the proposed methodology requires an active participation of the beneficiaries, so that each person should be an active part in the management of its own health in the sense of acknowledging its own resources and of using them. The principle activities and outputs of the project are:

- study of the national contexts (including determinants of smoking) and educational needs;

- elaboration of an educational package to be tested in 10 pilot schools selected in each country: most of the activities foresee the joint participation of parents and children. The package will become a reference educational tool after the project

- activities addressed to parents and teachers, in order to transfer them the ways of communicating in the best way with their children the risks of smoking

- dissemination, including a website and a final conference in Rome

The proposed project addresses the Decision 1350/2007/EC that requires to “place emphasis on improving the health condition of children and young people and promoting a healthy lifestyle and a culture of prevention among them”. Our project is strategic because it is addressing the

National Health Plans, recommending educational actions towards young people and because the Council Recommendation 2003/54/EC recommends that MS continue developing strategies to reduce the prevalence of smoking, such as overall health education.

4





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

46 000

552 970

10 500

14 580

0

0

22 050

103 685

51 032

800 817

Incomes

480 490

46 000

274 327

0

0

800 817
















3

6

23

Note

3


Note

7

3

4

4

Comments

The project generally fits with the PHP and more specifically with the WP2008. Youth is a priority.

The contribution may be limited as work in this area is ongoing. Collaboration could take place with other organizations.

It is also not well described how the project can contribute to existing knowledge.

Best practices are already known. There are no explanations on long-term effect given.

Potential multiplier effects may be there, but not well described.

Performing the project in 4 countries seems to not have greater impact than the sum of similar national activities.

EU context is not relevant, as number of countries is low and number of participants reached per country also.

Geographic coverage limited due to low number of countries participating.

Northern Europe is not represented.

Local governments could carry-out this type of small scale projects. Primary health care workers need to be involved.

Cultural context is taken into account.

Comments

The evidence base is not well described in terms of the awareness of the parents regarding smoking. Need to search for evidence, if not existing, develop research.

References needed.

Aims are clear, but may not be realistic. The target groups are well described.

The specific objective 1 is not "SMART" i.e. difficult to measure, which may lead to a difficult evaluation at the end of the project.

10 schools in 4 countries are not enough.

The approach is good, as it involves parents and children.


4


4





4

19

Note

The innovation is limited, as some of this work is ongoing at national / local levels.

There are no other projects for this age group on smoking prevention at EU level.

There is no indicator regarding the European strategy (which is to be developed), other indicators are not specific. External evaluation is lacking.

Transferring the results needs to go beyond disseminating them to decision makers.

The only related deliverable is a web-site, which may not be enough.

Comments


3

The timetable is ok. Milestones are marked. The European strategy mentioned, is not listed as a deliverable.

The distribution of the tasks among the project partners is not described.








Total:





No

0

0.00

3

3

3

6

18

60




The capacity to carry out a large survey is questioned.

The managing structure is good. The team is multi-disciplinary, which is a plus, but specialized staff seems to be missing for OUDERS&COO. Internal communication is described. Monitoring not detailed.

There are not many partners, but responsibilities and roles are assigned. Work-packages are well distributed between the partners.

It is described, internal and external. The communication with target groups needs to be improved. EU-co-funding could have been described more explicitly.

The cost for WP8 (coordination) needs to be clarified / revised, seems to be high.

Staff expenditure seems high. The distribution between the partners is reasonable.

The project is not recommended for funding.

No problem analysis presented, thus the evidence base is lacking. Preparatory research would be needed to document the awareness status at the chosen age group of children and their parents.

If the results of this research show the needs for such a project, add more countries.

Besides assessing awareness, also focus on health outcomes.

The participating countries are not representative for the EU, while the aim of the project is to make an EU strategy. More countries need to participate in order to be better representative.

The dissemination strategy could be improved.

Staff expenses are high in relation to the overall budget.

Local governments could support such type of projects.

The assessment of part A (policy) by a SANCO official (20 points) was presented to the external evaluators see conclusions





101,116.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: SA-FORUM



“SOFIA - ATHENS FORUM FOR HEALTH” - UNITED TO TACKLE HEALTH INEQUALITIES

01/01/2009

24


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Sofia Municipality

SM

Public


Bulgaria


Municipality of Athens Development Agency S.A

Acronym

AEDA

City

Athens

1

Country

Greece

1


The main partner of the project “SOFIA - ATHENS FORUM FOR HEALTH” - UNITED TO TACKLE HEALTH INEQUALITIES is Sofia

Municipality and the Associated partner is the Municipality of Athens Development Agency. The project duration is 2 years and the total budget is 495.945 €. The partners have a proven capacity and competence for performing high quality work, also with the strong scientific support by their numerous collaborating partners. The general objective of the project is to create a cooperation mechanism (Sofia Athens Forum for

Health) in order to prioritize policies and more effectively use Structural funds to reduce health inequalities with regard to health status and access to health services. Special focus will be made on the needs of Roma minority. The project will build on the existing WHO and EU state of the art knowledge and work on health determinants, will foster cooperation between MS, EU regions and local bodies for capacity building and exchange of best practices for utilizing Structural Funds; will support the implementation of the EU health strategy through creating partnerships among stakeholders and institutions and bring together policies to ensure positive impact on health; use of Health Impact

Assessment (HIA) for health oriented policy decision making at local level will be promoted. The project is supported by the respective Ministries of health in both countries. The created Forum for exchange of best practice is an open forum, which will collaborate with EU wide networks

Euro Health Net, EUREGHA, Committee of Regions. It will be an effective platform to involve also other regions and local authorities in Bulgaria and to other EU MS in the future. The project creates capacity and new skills to utilize structural funds and to achieve better level of cohesion in

EU. Among the target groups are the youths, disadvantaged social groups and Roma population, which experience major inequities due to different factors.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

53 800

60 925

29 000

82 695

18 400

10 080

108 600

100 000

32 445

495 945

Incomes

396 756

53 800

6 714

0

0

457 270












Note

6

5

5

4





6

26

Note

3

Comments

The proposal meets the objectives, and responds to one of the priorities related to the structural funds. The project is more a health system strengthening project addressed to the authorities and does not reflect by what means it is going to improve the health of the target population. The mention of the reduction of health inequalities is not developed in the project, and even when the youth or ROMA community are mentioned, there is no assurance that the actions will impact the target population.

Relevant for the Bulgarian authorities, not to the other EU countries. Low strategic relevance, when there is a lot of knowledge about health inequalities. Many countries (new EU MS) have difficulties to apply for the use of the structural funds and the building capacity initiative will be more relevant when targeted to a large number of beneficiaries (new MS).

The network was considered limited, when the material produced will be elaborated in English and disseminated to other similar countries; there will be a potential multiplier effect and replicability to other MS. The panel suggested the participation of new EU MS to the project events: trainings, inclusion of a final conference or workshop. The real target group are the national institutions which will have an improved ability to apply for structural funds, and might propose actions to reduce long term health inequalities, a component not sufficiently addressed in the proposal. The proposal mentions the geographical importance of the two cities which are relevant in the context of the new EU MS and the neighbouring countries.

Limited to two countries, with municipalities and NGOs as partners, some of them from the Health sector. From the composition of the network, we expect that there will be at least an extension to the participation of further persons to be trained from the same collaborating partners and to new organisations active in the domain of health inequalities of ethnic minorities. As consequence, the project could ensure at least a regional level impact.

The context was considered adequate for the two cities, but there was no political analysis described. The involvement of patients associations and some health NGOs has been appreciated, even tough no clear role has been described for them.

Comments

The evidence was presented in a very general way, the analysis did not characterise the situation of health inequalities, specifically of the "disadvantaged group" in the two cities. Some data about the use of structural funds would have been useful: volume, number of current applications, success rates, etc.





3

3

4

3

The aims, objectives and the definition of the target group were not well defined, the methods were considered adequate for a capacity building project. The involvement of new MS in an international event / conference at the end of the project to ensure dissemination of the project results has been suggested.

There is no innovation in the approach, no complementarity have been highlighted with national initiatives or the extensive EU actions to tackle health inequalities, only to the efforts of EU and national authorities directly related to the structural funds. The proposal was considered limited in the actual dimension, it could benefit from an enlargement to cover other MS, who face similar difficulties at the municipality level to access the structural funds.

Very general, no indicators were presented, no definition of the targets to allow verification of the achievement of the objectives. The external evaluation is presented, but without timeline.

The dissemination strategy was considered satisfactory for the local dimension of the action. The applicants need to define better how the replicability, transferability and sustainability of the action will be ensured. All the project outputs should be translated to English.

Total criteria block B: 16








Note

3




3

3

3




Total:


6

18

60

Comments

For the local dimension of the action the structure seems adequate. The risk analysis is unclear.

The milestones and indicators were poorly defined. The target to train 4 persons and the 10 mentorship's were considered insufficient, the panel suggest to train the trainers at national / municipal level that could replicate the action at national / municipal level, and the training activities should be extended to the new EU MS, even when they are organised in Bulgaria only.

The study visits could be reoriented to AEDA in Greece, to avoid needless costs to visit Brussels.

AEDA is responsible for most WPs, and it will be advisable to share responsibility with the

Bulgarian partner, as it is stated in 5.1.

The partner in Sofia seems competent; the GR organisation staff have more expertise in the financial domain, but not very much involvement in health aspects. Even though the Greek partner is responsible for most of the roles and takes the largest part of the resources.

The local network structure is adequate, and has the potential to manage large initiatives. The project is considered as a bilateral cooperation, where Greece fosters the Bulgarians organisations. The panel suggest that the shadowing exercise planned to be hold in Germany or

Belgium, could well be performed in Greece. There is no mention of the possible language barriers and the need of interpreters.

General definition, no description of how the target group or the beneficiaries will be reached. A variety of channels are proposed. The visibility of the EU was not mentioned, even though the project is designed to improve the use of EU structural funds.

The overall budget was not considered balanced between the partners, the request of 80% of the

EC contribution was not considered justified. The cost of interpretation was considered insufficient and the utility of the subcontracting cost was not described.

The proposal should be reviewed to extend the training activities and dissemination to the new

EU MS, who have similar difficulties to access structural funds. The complementarities with other interventions already developed to tackle health inequalities should be highlighted, with clear description of the actions proposed, providing a health situation analysis, and defining the health related indicators. All project deliverables should be translated to English, and the training activities should be enlarged to more organisations and countries, and include the training of trainers (TOT), to ensure replicability, and transferability of the intervention. At the end of the project, the number of persons capable to apply for structural funds should be larger than 4. The budget should be reviewed, to reduce the subcontracting cost and correct the request of 80% co-funding which has not been supported by the valuators.

The proposal should be reviewed to extend the training activities and dissemination to the new

EU MS, who have similar difficulties to access structural funds. The complementarities with other interventions already developed to tackle health inequalities should be highlighted, with clear description of the actions proposed, providing a health situation analysis, and defining the health related indicators. All project deliverables should be translated to English, and the training activities should be enlarged to more organisations and countries, and include the training of trainers (TOT), to ensure replicability, transferability of the intervention. At the end of the project, the number of persons capable to apply for structural funds should be larger than 4. The budget should be reviewed, to reduce the subcontracting cost and correct the request of 80% co-funding which was not considered justified.




No

0

0.00





101,117.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: Food and Tool



Food and Tool - Preventing overweight and physical inactivity among young people through education and new technologies

15/09/2008

18


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

University SAPIENZA of Rome

USR

Public


Italy


Health and Social Development Foundation

New Dimension

Semmelweis University Budapest, Faculty of Health Sciences,

Dietetic and Nutrition Sciences Department

TILS S.p.A.

Acronym

HESED

ND

SUDIET

TILS

City

Sofia

Rome

Budapest.

Rome

Country

Bulgaria

Italy

Hungary

Italy

4 3


“Food and Tool” is a project that links three different elements: nutrition, education and new media. General objective of the project is the promotion of health generating and disseminating health information and knowledge on nutrition. The project involves 5 organisations from 3

Member States (Italy, Hungary and Bulgaria), that are specialised in deferent sectors (2 universities, 1 non – profit organisation and 2 commercial organisations). The proposal aims to promote a culture of good food habits between young people through the realization and the dissemination at European level of an innovative educational tool. This tool consists in a video game created by students between 11 and 18 years old that will be professionally developed in a real videogame on nutrition, sports and healthy lifestyle. The project has a duration of 18 months and foresees four main action:

1. one desk research on juvenile nutrition behaviours, lifestyle of adolescents among metropolitan secondary school students;

2. the creation of an educational tool that will used in schools;

3. the implementation of an educative campaign with 300 students in Italy, Hungary and Bulgaria for a total of 90 training hours;

4. the realisation of a professional videogame in 4 languages (EN, IT, HU, BG) downloadable for free from a website.

The diffusion of the final product is a crucial aspect for the success of “Food and Tool”, for this reason one partner of the project is a commercial organisation specialised in social network website development. All the international studies underline that the prevalence of overweight and obesity among school children and adolescents is increasing dramatically in Europe. This problem is not only related with health and lifestyle but it is also linked with a knowledge gag. The strategic relevance of “Food and Tools” is the possibility to filling this knowledge gap among young people through education and innovative communication’s solution.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

103 805

300 810

10 400

8 800

0

0

24 500

46 500

33 800

528 615

Incomes

309 343

103 805

115 467

0

0

528 615













Note

6

5

4

4

3

Comments

There is some match with the PHP (3.3.3.4). They do contribute to health knowledge. However, the evidence of the contribution is not that clear. The focus is on new media although there is a lack of clarity over means and theoretical underpinning.

If the tool works, then it could contribute to the present knowledge. There is very little available for the kids even in schools. It could of course depend on the countries concerned by the project. But on the other hand the tool already exists and the idea is to make it more professional. It could have been better designed in term of contributing to the existing knowledge, involving more EU material. The implication for EU health indeed is really difficult to see in the proposal.

The proposal seems not to answer to the actual problem which is to bridge the knowledge behaviour gap with the help of the new media. Here we have something which has a regional focus and the methodology is rather weak. The sustainability is questionable.

Lack of clarity in means and methods implies great difficulty to identify the added value. No clues that it will work in another environment. No description of the announced test.

The strength of this proposal could have been to include several EU countries but it was not the case.

A good try by involving new MS, but very regional proposal, limited geographical distribution of the tasks and unbalanced budget towards the Italian partners.

The context analysis does not really exist in this proposal. To involve the target groups in the problem analysis could perhaps have contributed a little more to the cultural diversity analysis.

The cultural differences between ages categories (13 -18 is a huge age category) or between genders are not taken into account, and also across countries.

May be the sample is too small to give them the ability to include the cultural diversity.




22

Note

3


2

Comments

The problem analysis is good except that no scientific references were added; obesity issues are explained in a good way but there is a lack of evidence on the project itself, the effectiveness of the approach and the proposed measures. An analysis of impact of similar tools is missing or at least the demonstration that references have been actively searched; the impact to add this project to the existing programs against obesity is not clear.

Some points are not clear: for instance does a version of the project already exist? What about the use of Adobe or Microsoft? It is not clear at all.

Publications on dietary habits exist but it is not clear what this project will add to this kind of reports. Overall there is a lack of details in the description of the proposal.

It would have been interesting to indicate which methodology is actually behind the assessment of children and also the existing studies already done in eastern countries.

There is no clear picture on the methodology.



3

There is overlapping with other EU and WHO projects dealing with the topic, but the applicants act as if they were unaware of this.

No real innovative nature, at least no information on what exists: no references.


2

3

An evaluation through the game itself could have been done but it is not the case. Methods and means have been mixed in the evaluation strategy. There is no effort to plan an external or internal evaluation of the project and the indicators are not properly defined, there is no benchmark.

Dissemination is based on a final conference and this is strange for such an IT project. The web-test announced at the end is quite unclear: is it part of the project or just good wishes

No information on target audience of the conference, no presentation on the potential ways to widen the audience through media channels or existing networks in EU or WHO.









Note

4





4

3

4

6

Comments

The planning seems well done with all important topics taken into account (planning, deliverables, milestones, risk analysis…).

But there is a lack of details on all the stuff, it is poorly described and there is a lack of general quality in the management issues.

There is a diversity of partners who are well complementing each others. The partners seem competent and able to do the project. The management structure is lacking (or at least details on it).

The roles and responsibility of the partners are well defined. There is a good potentiality of the partnership. However the extensiveness and synergy of the partnership is not satisfactory: the workloads and responsibilities are not shared, too much focus on the centre and a small number of key players.

More channels should have been explained for communication. At least they have an external communication plan but not an internal one. There is no visibility of EU co-funding described.

There is an independent audit; the distribution between partners is fair even if the geographical distribution could be better. However the balance is more on the side of product development and less on the side of needs evaluation

Budget for translation could be too small.



Total:


21

56

There are several weak points in this proposal such as the evidence base, the partnership, the cultural, social and political context and generally there is a lack of details in the description of the action. The potential overlapping with existing actions should have been addressed.

A Sanco evaluation form on policy relevance was presented to the evaluators.




No

0

0.00





101,118.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: MEDPED.EU



Development and implementation of a microarray for the genetic diagnosis of Familial Hypercholesterolemia in

Europe

01/12/2008

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Academic Medical Centre at the University of Amsterdam

AMC

Public


Netherlands


Fundación Hipercolesterolemia Familiar

PROGENIKA BIOPHARMA SA

Rikshospitalet HF University Hospital

University of Genoa

UNIVERSITY OF MODENA AND REGGIO EMILIA

Acronym

FHF

PROGENIKA

RH HF

UniGE

UNIMORE

5

City

Madrid

Derio, Vizcaya

Oslo

GENOA

MODENA

Country

Spain

Spain

Norway

Italy

Italy

3


Familial Hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a frequent inherited disorder and a major cause for premature cardiovascular disease (CVD) and early death. The vast majority of patients is unaware of their condition and remain undiagnosed and untreated, while optimal treatment for elevated cholesterol levels is available.

In Europe about 1.6 million individuals with FH are present and the WHO estimates that worldwide yearly 200 000 persons die prematurely as a consequence of FH and that most of these deaths could have prevented by early identification and treatment. Experience from our ongoing population based screening programmes (published) confirms that this situation indeed is present in Europe.

General objective: This proposal is directed at initiation of the identification of this large group of Europeans at high risk. Because efficient screening tools and efficacious therapy are already available, we have become aware of our responsibility towards patients and families in countries where a preventive screening programme for FH is not available. Although most European countries are represented in the

International MEDPED programme, initiation of active case-finding by DNA-testing of families with FH is hampered by lack of specialized laboratory facilities. Especially younger, asymptomatic, patients are difficult to diagnose in the traditional way.

Methods and means: Our specialised laboratories make our facilities available for collaborating partners in order to genotype FH index patients by a novel developed DNA micro array (EUROchip). Collaborating partners subsequently can initiate genetic cascade screening in the families of the thus characterized FH-index cases. After successful implementation, governments may take over and support genetic cascade screening on a national level.

Outcome: Early identification of FH patients in a selective and specific manner and efficacious treatment at young age prevents premature CVD and death as a consequence of having FH.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

169 950

259 200

15 600

6 589

45 000

431 000

20 000

7 500

57 281

1 012 120

Incomes

577 021

169 950

265 149

0

0

1 012 120













Note

1

1

5

5

5

Comments

Cardiovascular diseases are important from a public health point of view. The project is covered by the Health Programme in very general terms, but is not a priority in the Work Plan for 2008.

The project will expand the knowledge base on genetically induced hypercholesteremia and could thus be of strategic importance. It could form a base for action against early cardiovascular disease in patients with this syndrome. However, the relevance of screening for this genetic variety is not sufficiently discussed in the proposal.

The added European value is regarded as fairly low due to the small number of countries involved and the questionmarks regarding the preventive value of the method under development. More collaborating partners and analytical discussions on screening (together with cost-effectiveness analysis) would strengthen the proposal. Treatment of individuals who turn out to be positive should also be addressed.

See above. The project includes a limited partnership and a very small number of people will actually be screened. Would there be ways to target areas where the genetic variation under study is more frequent?

Real ethical problems concerning information of risks to positive individuals and their families should have been discussed more in detail as therapy is not always effective. Should people be informed?? Where are the preventive effects??? Privacy as related to collecting data would also need to be described in more detail.




17

Note

5


4

Comments

The evidence base is well described, demonstrating that genetic screening is much better than cholesterol analysis, being very uncertain and inexact.

Generally well described objectives and a very relevant method for identifying the individuals at risk. The target is groups relevant in the context of the project, but considering the relatively low incidence, screening of 4000 individuals seems very little.

Selection of individuals for screening, as well as a cost-efficiency analysis of the method would be desirable. Furthermore there seem to be some confusion as to the number of chips produced and the number of individuals tested in the project.




4

4

4

The project is not considered highly innovative. Is this a new project or is it a part of the ongoing genetic screening project described in the proposal? These programmes are taking place in several countries. The innovative aspect with this screening - to detect hypercholesterolemia with the aim to prevent cardiovascular disease – may be important from a health point of view but this is still something that has to be proven.

Results from the screenings in the Netherlands and elsewhere should have been valuable to discuss in more dept in the proposal and these results should have been better described.

The evaluation strategy is reasonable. It should be done by an external body as is the evaluation of the ongoing genetic screening programme.

The planned dissemination activities targeting local public health authorities and patient organizations are positive. There is little information on the sustainability of the informational efforts towards these target groups. Otherwise dissemination is focused on the scientific society.











Note

4

4

3



3



Total:


5

19

57

Comments

Planning and organisation is well described, the staff experienced, and there is a clear distribution of tasks between the work packages. The activities described are relevant for reaching the specific objectives of the proposal.

The staff is competent and experienced. There is apparently already a model for the type of screening planned in the proposal, but this is not so well described.

This is a good and stabile network with experience from earlier projects. It is not quite clear how competences complement each other. There is also a clear commercial interest in this project by one of the associated partners.

The network is enlarged by the collaborating partners, who will be active in sample collection.

No specific comments.

The main problem with the budget is that approximately 60 % of the requested funds will go to a commercial company for product development and production. This is not acceptable.

Although this project deals with cardiovascular disease, which is clearly relevant from a public health point of view it is not recommended for co-funding for the following reasons:

1. The budget will to a significant extent be used to supports private product development.

2. The positive effects of screening for genetically induced hypercholesteremia are unclear and would have deserved to be analysed together with the ethical aspects of screening for hypercholesteremia – especially in the light of counteractive measures not always being effective.

The preventive value of the screening is thus questionable.

3. The cost-effectiveness of the method is not proven.

4. The study population seems very small taking the low incidence of these genetic variants into account.

5. No clear European added value is demonstrated.




No

0

0.00





101,120.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: SEXCARE



Raising Public Sexual Health Awareness through Innovative Technologies

03/11/2008

24


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

VELTI ANONYMH ETAIPEIA ¿PO¿ONTON ¿OGISMIKOY & SYNAFON ¿PO¿ONTON & Y¿HPESION

VELTI S.A.

Public


Greece


¿¿¿¿¿ ¿¿¿¿ (¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ ¿ ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿

¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿)

ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI

Bulgarian Association for Sexual Medicine

Psicho-Preventiv Bt.

SOCIETATE COMERCIALA REVIMED SRL

Acronym

Velti Ltd.

AUTH

BASM

PP Bt.

SC REVIMED SRL

City

Sofia

THESSALONIKI

Sofia

Budapest

TIMISOARA

Country

Bulgaria

Greece

Bulgaria

Hungary

Romania

5 4


SEXCARE is a project aiming at raising the awareness of general public about sexual diseases, at disseminating good practices between partner countries and improving the sexual culture of society as a whole. The project actions comprise the compilation of a Manual on sexual health by well-recognized professionals and uploading its content into infokiosks installed in key cities of the partner countries (Greece, Bulgaria,

Romania & Hungary). The infokiosks are specifically manufactured interactive devices that offer citizens selected information in electronic form using multimedia technology. People will receive primary medical information and will be directed to physicians’ cabinets to receive crucial for their health status personalized professional treatment.

The project’s success will significantly contribute to the duly execution of the actions pointed out in the HP. It is focused on 3.3.3. Improving mental health and healthier living, in particular on 3.3.3.3 HIV/AIDS-prevention in young people, awareness raising and dissemination of good practices and will elaborate more on sexual problems and target groups' scope. Infokiosks are complemented by an innovative text messaging service targeted mainly towards young people offering sexual health information directly to their mobile phones.

Main methods include collaboration between the scientific organizations engaged in the preparation of the Manual, professional execution of the technical part, monitoring and reporting of the number of kiosks' visits and messages received and compiling guidelines for physicians. The partnership will regularly organize conferences / meetings so as to monitor and report project progress.

Successful implementation will lead to the promotion of sexual health issues, the significant enhancement of sexual culture and better understanding of sexual problems and their solutions. The project outcome thoroughly covers the objectives of HP 2008 to improve mental health and healthier living.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

471 000

15 900

12 876

147 900

15 900

51 100

4 660

15 248

734 584

Incomes

440 749

0

293 835

0

0

734 584













Note

6

3

4

4

4

Comments

The project would partially contribute to the priorities of the Health Programme and WP 2008. A development of new technology on health information is more an application for DGINFSO than on public health. Generic focus targets the general public, and it is not tailored to a particular target group.

The info kiosk technology has been rarely used in Europe, and can be regarded as innovative and beneficial with regard to the sexual health promotion when privacy is ensured. Based on existing knowledge, rather low documentation of the transmission channel (info kiosk). There was no presentation or assessments of the relevance of this tool to target the youth's group or convey health promotion messages.

The target group is not well defined, hence the intervention "project product" risks being ineffective, or too general to meet the needs of a particular target group. The ideas could be replicable in other MS and probably the technology exists in other MS; no data provided on the complementarity with other initiatives at national, European or international level. It is more a project of information technology than a health project. The project could be considered valuable when it provides appropriate information to those, who seek to get information. However, the information can only be accessed by those with mobile phones or internet connection, limiting the accessibility to the tools.

Limited to 4 countries of the Balkans (Eastern European partners), GR, HU and IT, without collaborating partners. The panel suggested broadening the network by involving more partners and especially, the Scandinavian countries which have sound experience on sexual and reproductive health promotion.

No provision of information about possible studies performed on the cultural acceptability of the kiosks on sexual health. The kiosk could be seen as a source of stigma depending on the culture of the country, no clear description of how the tool will ensure confidentiality and privacy. The gender issues related to sexual and reproductive health, very strong in the involved region, have not been addressed.




21

Note


3

3

Comments

Generic, only states that it will provide info and advice but does not specify an appropriate methodology to define what will be the content. The description of the sexual health needs in the countries involved is not sufficiently provided. What are the sexual health needs? What is the available evidence for the methods proposed? The problem analysis focuses on sexual dysfunctions and pathologies (sexual medicine focus). There is no clear description of the manual content, how the issues more relevant to the target population on health promotion and prevention of STI/AIDS will be addressed. The applicability of the measures are not enough documented.

The technical content was considered much more an information technology development

(production of the Info kiosk and setting up of the mobile services), that might interests DGINFSO, but the health contribution was considered insufficient when addressing the needs of sexual health promotion and prevention of HIV/AIDS. The methods were well structured, but the wps 1 and 2 have similar specific objectives. An important issue not addressed was the language accessibility of the tools proposed. No translation of the supporting documents has been foreseen. The risk of under use, by it possibly being considered just a source of sex information, was not addressed.


3

The idea was considered innovative, the text messages with health info work well in some countries outside the EU, and the situation in the EU is unclear. No complementarity has been sought with other existing initiatives on sexual and reproductive health.






4


6




19

Note

The evaluation was considered well described, including process. Outcome indicators, only covering quantitative aspect, are without assessment of the acceptability, assessment of the utility of the information by the target users, user friendliness of the kiosk tool, etc. The evaluation plan starts too late, and should have been planned for the first months of the action.

Considered generic, does not not deal with the issue of language accessibility: how to address different groups of population who are not literate in the main official languages of the country involved?

Comments






3

4

3

2

6

The activities were well planned, including a step wise design, the idea to merge information technology application and sexual health promotion was appreciated. The risk analysis does not address the risk of low acceptance of the devices by the target group due to cultural or social barriers. Low involvement of health authorities or public partners.

The project team was considered qualified, with clear responsibilities and sharing of tasks.

Internal communication channels are not clearly specified.

All partners have an active role, but the network will benefit from the future involvement of organisation with expertise on health promotion, sexual and reproductive health. The network was considered unbalanced with strong representation of commercial partners .

The channels of communication are not existent; the EU co funding visibility is not mentioned.

The overall budget was considered oversized, unbalanced, with high staff cost (wp3 and wp4).

The costs of medical equipment (ultrasound) and consumables (laboratory tests) was not considered justified, as their application is not described in the methods nor in the workpackage description. The use of subcontracting was not explained and consequently is not considered justified. The rental of offices is not accepted following the financial regulation. The panel expressed concerns about the economic exploitation of the kiosk, and possible support should be granted only if there is a guarantee that the services are provided free of charge (non profit principle). The overheads requested are less than 7%.



Total:


18

58

The network should seek the involvement of more associated partners, from countries with more experience on health promotion, sexual health and prevention of HIV/AIDS. The evaluation and dissemination strategies should be revised. The principle of non profit use of the kiosk should be further developed. The overall budget was considered oversized, unbalanced, with high staff cost

(wp3 and wp4). The costs of medical equipment (ultrasound) and consumables (laboratory tests) was not considered justified, as their application is not described in the methods nor in the workpackage description. The use of subcontracting was not explained and consequently is not considered justified. The rental of offices is not accepted following the financial regulation. The panel expressed the concerns about the economic exploitation of the kiosk, and possible support should be granted only if there is a guarantee that the services are provided free of charge (non profit principle). The overheads requested are less than 7%.

The network should seek the involvement of more associated partners, from countries with more experience on health promotion, sexual health and prevention of HIV/AIDS. The evaluation and dissemination strategies should be revised. The principle of non profit use of the kiosk should be further developed. The overall budget was considered oversized, unbalanced, with high staff cost

(wp3 and wp4). The costs of medical equipment (ultrasound) and consumables (laboratory tests) was not considered justified, as their application is not described in the methods nor in the workpackage description. The use of subcontracting was not explained and consequently is not considered justified. The rental of offices is not accepted following the financial regulation. The panel expressed the concerns about the economic exploitation of the kiosk, and possible support should be granted only if there is a guarantee that the services are provided free of charge (non profit principle). The overheads requested are less than 7%.




No

0

0.00





101,121.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym:



Stop children's Malnutrition get Informed, Learn, Exercise.

01/11/2008

12

S.M.I.L.E.


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Northern Greece Physical Education Teachers Association

E.G.V.E.

Private


Greece


Bulgarian National Consumers Association

Cyprus Association of Physical Education and Sports Science

Acronym

BNCA

PASYPEFAA

2

City

Sofia

Limassol

Country

Bulgaria

Cyprus


The wide priority area of the project in accordance with the public health programme is the following: ‘Improving mental health and healthier living - Actions to promote a healthy lifestyle and tackle health problems resulting from lifestyle related health determinants’. The project gravitates to nutrition, overweight and obesity related issues.

The main objective is inculcating the idea of a healthy lifestyle in the minds of young people and their entourage. The direct approach towards children targets to their early and essential involvement and mobilization about health and fitness issues.

For this purpose an information campaign will be developed throughout Greece. This campaign will include a “healthy van”, which will travel around the country, distributing informative material and organizing some interactive workshops and events. At the end of this tour, a conference in each partner's country will take place, in order to achieve the dissemination of the project. A final conference in the main partner's country will evaluate the program results and release them to the public.

The partner from Bulgaria, BNCA, has participated in a number of projects, which concern food safety and consumer education towards promoting their health. It is also a recognized body in Bulgaria, raising its accountability during the dissemination process. The other partner, has a long experience in organizing conferences concerning sports.

The problem of obesity in general and children obesity in specific concerns all European states and therefore, its solution can only be found through close cooperation between them.

When the project objectives are reached, the target group is expected to value a balanced diet and consider regular exercise to be an integral part of their everyday life.

The methods, experience and conclusions of the project will be used by the partners and other interested parts as a source of experience for taking further relevant initiatives in their own countries.

2





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

64 500

11 500

12 008

24 600

166 500

0

4 000

18 900

302 008

Incomes

167 000

0

135 008

0

0

302 008











Note

6

4

2



2

3

Comments

The project is in line with the PHP and the WP2008 as it addressed the promotion of a healthy diet for children.

Contribution to existing knowledge is limited.

Key local partner are missing to enhance the strategic relevance as municipalities, schools etc.

Sustainability and long-term effects are not clear.

The campaign is limited geographically and the spread out to other countries is not well discussed

– what about multiplier effects?

The target group is too broad – needs to be defined.

Long-term effect is questioned.

Although 3 MS are involved, the action will only be carried out in Greece.

It is unclear why the activities are not carried out in BUL and CY as well.

The proposal seems adequate for the Greek context, but social and cultural issues at pan-European scale are not discussed.

The causes of childhood obesity in the participating countries should have been analysed and the messages and means to give those adapted accordingly (e.g. what about access to web?).

The political context in terms of health promotion policies needs to be considered as well.




17

Note

2




2

1

2

Comments

The problem of childhood obesity is described, but no evidence base is provided about the effectiveness of the activities which will be carried-out e.g. the info-van.

Reference should have been added.

The specific objectives are rather titles then objectives – those need to be formulated as

"SMART".

The aims and objectives are poorly transferred into the methods e.g. a network is mentioned in the beginning but no activities to establish this network, its purpose etc are mentioned later on.

There may not be a need to create a network, since many already exist, also at EU scale e.g.

Health Promoting Schools.

It is unclear if and how outcome 6 can be reached.

Outcome 1 is a management task, not an outcome.

The idea of a "healthy van" is innovative, but may not be effective and sustainable.

Putting together a leaflet informing about sport facilities in the local area is a new idea and appreciated.

Ongoing projects such as health promoting schools should have been considered / referenced

(PRO CHILDREN, PRO GREENS, Nutrition Friendly School Initiative by WHO).

The evaluation strategy should look at the process and the outcomes/impact of the project.

There seems to be a contradiction between the evaluation planned (arguing that long term effects cannot be mentioned) and the indicators formulated (awareness, knowledge, involvement).

Also, what about a control group?

Consider to use simple indicators measuring the activities of the project: number of schools visited, number of parents informed, number of teachers informed, children reached with the info-van.

Have a look at questionnaires from the HBSC-study (Health behaviour of school children).



3




There is no pan-European dissemination planned.

Make better use of your own networks for dissemination.

There are a lot of single events planned, which seem to not be connected.

Teachers, municipalities and health promoter need to be targeted.

The time seems limited for a good and wide dissemination.




10

Note Comments






1

2

2

3

4

The activities seem to be too many for the 1 year timeframe of the project. It seems not feasible to visit all the schools mentioned in 1 month.

The timetable should be more detailed.

It is unclear how the parents will be included.

The consortium would benefit from including health promotion, nutrition, and behavioural sciences experts. Consider also to have someone with experience in managing European projects.

The partnership could benefit from adding an academic partner.

It is unclear what the roles of the partners from BUL and CY will do except some dissemination activities.

The external communication activities need to be expanded.

While it is said that communication will be planned after the kick-off meeting, a plan is already need at this stage.

WP1 seems to be over-estimated, while WP2 seems to be underestimated.

It is unclear why the partner from BUL needs 10 travels.

Check if the overall budget is realistic in order to carry out the campaigns in a high quality manner.



Total:


12

39

The project aims to reach children with a creative idea of travelling around with an info-van. The idea of a leaflet listing local sport facilities is good.

However, the project is not recommended for funding as it is limited to one country in terms of the activities and the methods and evaluation are not planned in a professional manner.

The partnership should be expanded to more countries, also experts from behavioural sciences, nutrition, health promotion and someone with experience in managing EU project should be added.

The evidence base should be strengthened by adding existing knowledge from intervention activities in children to promote healthy eating and PA.

Look at the impact of similar information campaigns (e.g from the field of tobacco use prevention) in order to strengthen your planning.

There is no need to create a new network (specific objective 1). Also, there a lot of existing literature already so specific objective 5 should not given a lot of emphasis.


see conclusions




No

0

0.00





101,135.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym:



Strengthening Tobacco Policy at the Workplace

01/01/2009

36

BUSY BEE


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Instytut Medycyny Pracy im. prof. J. Nofera

NIOM

Public


Poland


Institute of Preventive Medicine, Environmental and Occupational

Health

Klinicni center Ljubljana, Klinicni inštitut za medicino dela, prometa in športa

Rigas Stradina universitates Darba un vides veselibas instituts

3

Acronym

PROLEPSIS

UMCLJ

RSU

City

Kastri, Athens

Ljubljana

Riga

Country

Greece

Slovenia

Latvia


The project will contribute to decrease in morbidity and mortality due to tobacco - related diseases in the working population through strengthening and improvement of national and organizational workplace tobacco control polices. Key setting vital for adults' health promotion is workplace. Available data suggests that public health policies regarding tobacco focusing primarily on enforcing smoking bans in public areas

(including workplaces) are unsuccessful. Smoking bans are not always introduced in companies, when introduced they are often neither respected by management nor the employees. On the other hand rigorous observance of smoking bans protects mostly non - smokers from

ETS but to a small degree solves the issue of smoking addiction. Launching effective tobacco control policies is particularly important for three target groups: workers of low socioeconomic status, those exposed to various chemical hazards coinciding with tobacco smoke and child bearing age women. Therefore there is a need for introduction of tobacco control macro policy that would efficiently convince enterprises to implement both - smoking bans and supportive smoking cessation activities. Introduction of such policies requires identification and analysis of reasons for inefficiency of existing measures and incorporation of solutions encouraging companies to implement comprehensive tobacco control programmes. Project realization envisages: review of national workplace tobacco control policies, representative sample survey of enterprises on their tobacco control activities, detailed analysis of relation between the former and the ladder, establishment of national alliances for improvement of workplace tobacco control policies, preparation of key stakeholders supporting introduction of such activities in companies, publication of a guidebook and a website regarding the issue. Project partners come from MS with high smoking prevalence, conclusions will be valid for all EU countries.

3





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

384 820

28 800

19 920

13 600

6 000

160 000

46 950

46 208

706 298

Incomes

423 780

0

282 518

0

0

706 298










Note

7

4

Comments

The project fits generally with the priorities of the WP 2008, tobacco control strategies in the workplace are a specific priority.

The project could contribute to better understand the relationship between national policies and enterprises practices. It could serve as basis for further developments in this area.

It could also contribute to raising awareness and capacity building but only in the 4 Member

States where it would take place. The expected contribution would therefore not have a strong strategic relevance.

No evidence for contribution to existing knowledge is given.

It is complimentary with the EU Strategy on Health and Safety at Work.

The European added value is limited, due to the risk of lack of acceptability of the results at EU level - of value mainly to participating countries.




3

3

6

Limited to 4 MS. This is a weak point of the proposal.

The project is adequate with the social, cultural and political context.

Differences between countries on these aspects are maybe not considered in a detailed way to ensure applicability of (part of) the results to other EU countries.




23

Note

2


2

Comments

The problem analysis is incomplete. The prevalence of smoking in the workplace has not been reported. No data about transposition of EU directives on health and safety in the workplace given.

The general objectives are very broad and not well connected to the specific objectives (4 general objectives and 4 specific objectives?). There are too many general objectives (4).

Also, the general objectives seem to be not transformed into activities in order to reach them.

Too many activities for the final month, no activities in the first 6 months listed.



2

The approach is traditional, but bringing cessation to the workplace is important. New alliances for tobacco control may be formed, including employers.

No evidence of duplication with other activities provided.


4

2

The evaluation is planned, but not detailed.

The indicators are adequate.

Stakeholders and messages have been identified.

The dissemination is limited to national level. Transferability to EY level unclear.

Sustainability has not been addressed.




12

Note Comments









Total:





No

0

0.00

3

3

3

3

5




The distribution of tasks among the project partners has not been described.

The possible difficulty to get information from companies has not been considered in the risk analysis.

The partners have experience in the field. The management structure of the project seems good, except the timetable.

Internal communication, monitoring and decision making need to be addressed.

The partners have been selected according to smoking prevalence. Regarding the background the partners seems to be complimentary. Synergies at EU level have not been addressed.

A stakeholder analysis has been given and relevant media identified.

The EU co-funding needs to be made visible.

The budget seems high for 4 participants.

Main partner received high share, especially for staff, which may not be justified. Subcontracting cost seems high.

17

52


However, the project is interesting per se and for action at national levels. EU added value is limited.

Evidence base for smoking in workplaces is missing.

The general objectives are not balanced with the specific objectives.

Transferability to other countries is not clear.

The project does not reach the threshold in block B. The project did not reach the threshold of 6 points for the budget/financial management.


See conclusions.





101,153.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: Orlando



Reception and health care of immigrants with high risks of psychiatric complications.

01/10/2008

18


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Consorzio MedICare

MedICare

Private


Italy


Association Interrégionale de Guidance et de Santé asbl

Associazione Unitaria Psicologi Italiani

Azienda Ospedaliera Sant’Anna -COMO

Azienda Socio Sanitaria di Rovigo

CJD Frechen im Christlichen Jugenddorfwerk Deutschland e.V.

Fundación INTRAS

Instituto de Formación y Estudios Sociales


Vilnius Center for Psychosocial Rehabilitation

9

Acronym

AIGIS

AUPI

HSACOMO

Ulss 18 Rovigo

CJD Frechen

INTRAS

IFES

UL

VCPSR

City

Vottem

Rome

Como

Rovigo

Frenchen

Valladolid

Valencia

Ljubljana

Vilnius

Country

Belgium

Italy

Italy

Italy

Germany

Spain

Spain

Slovenia

Lithuania


This project focuses on that phase characterized by interventions of reception and health care of immigrants employers in situations of social emargination and showing acute episodes of frustration with high risks of psychiatric complications.

Regarding its strategic importance the project:

• affronts and puts in a social problem of notable importance analysing criterions with which that one is recognised by the institutional services and in particularly by the Services of Mental Health;

• introduces an integrated model of institutional connection that intercepts an aspect of the social life that, also on local scale, reflects and however runs over again situations, processes and events of national and European capacity;

• develops various integrated processes of connection between compartments that also territorially compete to define a “preventive system” to support of the mental health and "the social one" of an important band of "foreign" workers and their families.

There are three the project’s aspects that could furnish the UE added value

• it takes in examination and affronts with systemic criterions sanitary and socioeconomic problematics of transnational importance;

• it could already contribute to experiment operational models of real complementariness inside the same project’s partnership, creating conditions of real future transferability of its contents and methodology;

• on the level of the mental health safeguard, the project is set as model of transferability of innovation because extracts its strategic objectives from the experiences matured by the active share of some partners to HORIZON and Occupation projects of the Communitarian Initiative

Programs.The project foresees the individualization of 3 areas or sectors of reference: sanitary area (Psychiatric and Psycologist Services); social area (Social Relief and Social Cooperation Services) job area (Services of , vocational guidance and accompaniment to a job,

Employment Centres, ...)

6





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

64 050

150 450

36 900

33 720

13 700

11 000

7 000

39 000

24 100

379 920

Incomes

226 360

64 050

0

0

0

290 410













Note

5

5

4

5

3

Comments

The project focuses on migrants as a group at risk for marginalisation and development of mental disorders, and aims to create a network of organisations to exchange information on good practices in dealing with mental health problems among the migrant population while stimulating the intercultural dialogue. In this sense, it relates to the objectives of the work plan 2008, which calls for the identification of best practices to combat social exclusion of people with mental health problems. However, the proposal addresses the issue in a very theoretical way and misses clarity, which makes it difficult to assess the extent to which it will effectively contribute.

The proposal is strategically relevant on a theoretical level, but is very confusing in its elaboration and not sufficiently detailed to ensure an added value. An overview of the current situation and of existing evidence on what works is neglected, and it is not made sufficiently clear what exactly will be done. The sustainability of the actions is not assured.

The project deals with a problem that is increasingly important for the EU and provides for an approach that is complimentary to EU policies in public health. However, the project mostly entails a descriptive epidemiology and does not focus on associated factors to clearly answer the question as to the causes of the problem and the ways to address them. The long term impact is not mentioned and the anticipated effects will not be sustainable. As such, the project will not have much value for EU policies.

There is a large coverage in terms of participating organisations, bringing in a potential for a wider implementation and dissemination across the EU, but only 5 countries are involved. Both EU15 and EU12 countries take part in the consortium but they are all situated in Central and Southern

Europe; Nordic countries are not involved. There is not enough focus on urban areas, where migrant problems are more serious.

The project targets service users, vocational trainers and policy makers, but does not provide an analytical description of the different needs of these target groups or of the social, cultural and political situation of the migrant population in the countries that are involved. Basic data on these issues are available and should be given. Service users will be involved in the project, even if they are only represented by a minority.

The language in the proposal is not always compatible with the sensitivity of the issue.




22

Note

3



2

4

Comments

Data are given to document the state of the art, identifying the scope of the problem and pointing at the difficulty to obtain data. Data sources are listed, but their relevance is debatable as they are not related to the content of this proposal and do not provide a rationale for the measures proposed.

The aim and method (involving the study of 3000 contact points/institutions) are too ambitious for an 18 month project. The stated objectives, expected results and actions do no match the aim.

The description of the deliverables is unclear, and the actions are not outlined with sufficient detail. The target groups are not well defined: the project targets vocational trainers and policy makers as well as service user, no distinction is made between migrants within and outside EU, and the terms of migrant and immigrant are used interchangeably. Information will be collected via mixed methods both at institutional and at individual level, but the size of the data to be collected is vast and no information is provided on the sampling method or analysis. Due to a lack of specification and methodological rigor the data may be of limited epidemiological value. Ethical considerations are not mentioned, although this is important for a target group of people in precarious conditions.

The project is innovative on paper but is not realistic in its scope. The problem is important and relevant, but as existing studies are not reviewed and gaps in the current situation not clearly identified it is not clear how the current project will contribute. It is known that there are not many data available on mental health status and risks of migrants, so there is a risk of overlap, but the complementarity and innovativeness of what is envisaged should be more clearly underpinned.




4

3




A strategy for evaluation is given with an indication of the qualitative and quantitative method that will be used and a specification of indicators. The evaluation of the intervention will be entrusted to an external evaluator with clear terms of reference which will add to the objectivity of the evaluation. However, the evaluation will be focused on process evaluation only, and no clear strategy for valuation of outcomes/outputs is provided. Benchmarks are mentioned but are very ambitious: 90 media interviews are stated but it is not explained on what basis this benchmark was chosen.

Concrete dissemination actions are foreseen, but these mainly involve standard passive dissemination channels, such as scientific publications on a CD and a pamphlet. A stakeholder analysis to identify differentiated needs is not mentioned, and no efforts are made to ensure transferability of the project outputs and sustainability of the results.




16

Note Comments






2

3

3

3

5

The aims of the project are clear but the objectives and actions do no match the aim. The objectives are not SMART formulated. The deliverables are clearly listed but are stated as processes, not as concrete outputs to be delivered. This is also reflected in the indicators, which are not all formulated as variables. Activities leading to the achievement of outcomes and deliverables are well detailed. A timetable is given but it is not realistic given the vast tasks, and milestones not clearly specified. The distribution of tasks is explained in the WP but not in sufficient detail to have a good idea of who will do what when to whom. Work packages are well distributed between partners. The risk analysis is weak and does not list the most relevant risks and related contingencies.

The project requires both clinical and public health expertise. This competence appears to be present in main partner but not in all organisations in the consortium. Only a few persons within the organisations have experience with migrants. Experience with EU project management is limited. The management structure is explained. Decision making procedures and internal communication are outlined.

The partnership covers a number of countries but does not extend to the whole EU or to all relevant organisations with a broader experience in migration. There is a good distribution of tasks, but the experience of collaborating in a project is not mentioned, so synergy and complementarity will need to be proven.

A telematic platform is foreseen for internal and external communication, as well as a project newsletter. External communication of project results and visibility are outlined. External communication channels are however not very well specified. Media will be contacted but it is not explained how input will be given to the media and the target numbers for media contacts are not realistic.

The overall cost of the project corresponds to the planned activities but is fairly high for an 18 month project. Staff costs are not justified: the number of staff per partner is high and the function and tasks are not explained, and salary rates are high for senior management positions in some organisations. Equipment costs (computers and multimedia) are not explained. Travel and subsistence costs are reasonable. The budget is not balanced in terms of expenditure vs. income.



Total:


16

54

The project addresses the highly important and relevant topic of mental health problems in migrants, aiming to identify and exchange good practices in dealing with mental health problems among migrants. It does not directly address the priorities of the work plan 2008, but provides for an approach that is complimentary to EU policies in public health and thus theoretically is of strategic value. However, the project approaches the issue in a very theoretical way, is overambitious in both its aim and method, and is very confusing in its elaboration, without enough methodological detail and rigor to ensure a successful and sustainable outcome and provide an added value. The project does not reach the threshold of 6 points for the budget, and is not recommended for funding.




No

0

0.00





101,154.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: E4H



Eating for healthy life. Promotion of healthy eating habits across life span

01/01/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

The Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine

NIOM

Public


Poland


Agenzia Regionale Prevenzione Ambiente Dell' Emilia-Romagna

Azienda Unita Sanitaria Locale di Modena

: Institute of Preventive Medicine, Environmental and Occupational

Health

Lund University

The Academy of Humanities and Economics in Lodz

5

Acronym

ARPA ER

Azienda USL

Prolepsis

ULUND

AHE

City

Modena

Modena

Kastri, Athens

Lund

Lodz

Country

Italy

Italy

Greece

Sweden

Poland


The E4H Project proposal relates to the Promote Health strand of the 2008 work plan

The general objective of the project is to prevent overweight and obesity among European population with special reference to teenagers, young and middle adults. The multifaceted intervention is proposed aimed at the promotion of healthier eating behaviors, and reduction of some psychosocial risks related to overeating and other forms of unhealthy eating behaviors. Main project actions are: website platform and toolkit development, multicenter study on stress, coping and eating behaviors, development of age-specific multifaceted intervention strategy against overweight and obesity, implementation of strategy developed, project coordination; project results’ dissemination; project evaluation.

The project is in line with 2008 work plan and focuses on integrative approaches on lifestyles; it tackles obesity as one of the key health problems all over Europe. The idea of the project is to enhance the effectiveness of intervention against overweight and obesity by addressing the issues of psychosocial factors related to unhealthy eating behaviors and influencing responsible choice of lifestyle at three periods of life.

The project methodology is based on stepwise approach, which consists of following stages: diagnosis (literature analysis,field study); tailored intervention planning, implementation, and evaluation of intervention results. The aforementioned activities will allow for preparing and publishing a body of material that provides specific guidance and training to public health professionals, teachers and physicians and self-help manuals for general public as well. If successful, the approach tested in the project may be employed in other European countries.

The proposal will expand the scope of currently running projects within PH framework by including additional topics related to promotion of healthy eating habits and prevention of overweight and obesity.

4





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

149 800

720 460

40 160

78 828

69 500

21 200

13 900

85 000

82 517

1 261 365

Incomes

713 214

149 800

398 351

0

0

1 261 365













Note

3

4

3

4

4

Comments

The project does not clearly match the WP2008 priorities. It seems more like a research project.

It is important to consider stress and psycho-social factors in relation to overweight/obesity. The focus on surveys limits strategic relevance. It is not clear what this adds in the practice.

It does not identify how psychosocial factors will be addressed

The proposal highlights diagnosis and useful comparisons of guidelines but these in themselves are not an adequate public health focus.

The consortium is limited to 4 MS. A North – South difference is looked at, but an East-West dimension is lacking.

While it is explained in the text, however, that social and cultural issues will be addressed, gender issues have not been mentioned.

A needs analysis may have been needed in order to take differences in the different age groups at national level into account.




18

Note

4


4

Comments

The evidence presented is limited.

The project locates the issues within an obesity framework and does not show identification with the health promotion and or food choice evidence.

The problem formulation includes a wide scope looking at different age groups.

The topic of stress and overweight is important.

The outcomes and deliverables are not focused or sufficiently defined in terms of the methods to be used.

More information on the surveys is missing e.g. sample size.

It is unclear how "best practice" will be identified.

Three age groups are too many, may be too large for this project.

The deliverables are matched with several workpackages, thus it is not clear which workpackage would produce which deliverable.



4

It is seen as important to look at stress and overweight at a cross-European level. However, duplication with other existing work in this field cannot be excluded, since this is not described in the proposal.

It would need to be described how this project would fit with other work in this area.


2

3

The indicators seem to not measure process, output and impact of the project. They are not formulated as indicators.

As the scope of the project is very large, evaluation is difficult per se, but also not well described in the proposal.

Also, how will the use of the videos be evaluated?

The dissemination strategy is weak and too general. Existing networks have not been mentioned

(e.g. ENWHP).

The use of a good web-platform is a plus.









Note

3





3

4

3

7

Comments

It seems too ambitious and probably under-costed to do national surveys in 3 countries in all the mentioned age groups.

In the workpackages it should be defined which partner has which task.

The management structure is good and the tasks seem well distributed.

The competencies of the consortium in the area of stress and overweight / nutrition sciences seem weak and would benefit from additional partners.

The partners seem wisely chosen, as they can add different competencies to the project.

The proposal does not provide enough details in order to clearly evaluate the internal and external communication. Various channels have been mentioned.

The budget seems low if national surveys are to be carried out in the 3 age groups mentioned.

However, several items in the budget seem to not be clearly related to the actions i.e. their need not well described in the proposal (e.g. the "systems allowing to play video").

Translation cost may be underestimated.

Catering is usually covered under subsistence allowance.

Person days of staff would need to be justified.



Total:


20

55


The focus on stress and nutritional behaviour / overweight/obesity is important.

A needs analysis among the target population (teenagers, young adults) has not been carried out, but would be important.

The scope seems too broad – focus on 1 maximum 2 age groups. The 3 target groups children, young adults and adults do not have coherence to them, are too diverse. There is some mention of the links between teenagers and adults with the latter being identified as parents but this is not operationalised.

Too many activities planned – needs to be focused.

It is unclear what the national surveys can add – what about focus groups?

Overall, the methodology needs to be revised and focused.

The consortium would benefit from partners with longstanding experience in the area of stress and overweight/obesity and from more geographic diversity.

The assessment of part A (policy) by a SANCO official (11 + 4 points) was presented to the external evaluators.

see conclusions




No

0

0.00





101,160.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym:



European Meningitis Information and Support Initiative

01/11/2008

24

EMISI


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Meningitis Trust Limited

TMT

Private


United Kingdom


Galliard Healthcare Communications

1

Acronym

GHC

City

London

Country

United Kingdom

1


In line with the 2008 work programme actions on rare diseases, the Meningitis Trust & its partners propose a project to improve the health & well being of those European citizens who have suffered or are at risk from the rare conditions of meningitis & septicaemia.

The project will promote action across the European Community, adding significant value to national efforts, by connecting organisations & professionals as a means to facilitate knowledge sharing & dialogue &, in the longterm, maintain this network which can provide information on early recognition, diagnosis, treatment & aftercare for sufferers and their families.

The project partners, supported by an international advisory panel of medical experts, will develop (a) an e-library of information resources in

European languages including an awareness-raising tool “the Meningitis Code for Europe” (b) a communication strategy which will put meningitis & septicaemia onto the mainstream European public health agenda and (c) a strategy for identifying & supporting individuals who wish to form patient groups including a programme of workshops on issues of sustainability, information dissemination & patient support.

Launch & evaluation conferences will bring together all stakeholders for maximum dissemination of the initiative & ensure legacy planning.

The expected outcomes are an improvement in health literacy and best practice in respect to meningitis and septicaemia; an increase in information flow, awareness and knowledge of these conditions across all stakeholders from EU and National Government, through healthcare professionals to the public, along with improved health outcomes for current and future sufferers through the stimulation and support of patient groups.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

484 268

40 349

24 743

2 000

6 435

119 517

163 738

16 583

857 633

Incomes

684 566

0

147 338

0

25 729

857 633














Note

7

6

5

2

4

Comments

The topic of the proposed project, even though it touches a borderline issue which might be considered a rare disease/ as well as a communicable disease threat, is in line with priorities of the 2008 WP. A key question concerns the nature of the proposed activities which pertain to regular and ongoing activities of the main beneficiary: in this sense, such a proposal would have been more fitting to an operational grant application, if the organization fulfilled the eligibility criteria.

The proposed actions and expected outcomes, even though they do not aim to produce new knowledge, are of strategic relevance: the building up of a patient-oriented knowledge exchange for early diagnosis and exchange which is also aimed at targeting patients more so than professionals (and identifying local patient initiatives to be supported) can be expected to positively contribute to public health.




24

Note

3





3

3

4

4

Comments

Evidence base is provided and specific references are there, even though they concern only western Europe. As far as the project aims to influence inequalities, there is a lack of evidence base information on possible gender difference and vulnerable groups. As to the effectiveness of the measures, the proposals fails to sufficiently address the key role of the healthcare professionals and remains focused only to patients.

This is a simple project, essentially about knowledge transformation and dissemination and, even though aims and objectives are clearly stated, there remain several weaknesses in the project description: (a) The methodology is not explained, especially in view of the very many objectives and scale of coverage being pursued; (b) The project intends to mobilize a large number of people, but there is no reassurance that they will actually be involved, since they are not partners in the project; (c) Communication strategy development is overdone (see below, budget).

No duplication or overlapping with other projects is identified, although much of the proposed action seems to be part of everyday business of the lead organisation and the COMO international organisation. The project needs to be more clearly identified as an added-value activity on top of these and failing this (which is the case), an Operational Grant application would have been more suitable, even though the possible coverage of the EU is not currently sufficient for the applicant organization under this funding mechanism. Finally, the ECDC should at least have been mentioned in the proposal.

The evaluation section is weak. The proposal needs to provide more details on how it will effectively reach many of the target groups they are aiming at. Some pertinent indicators are defined but they will need to be further expanded to help understand impact in key policy areas.

The project is by nature about knowledge transformation and information dissemination – and even though dissemination aspects are well addressed, the issue of transferability is not adequately addressed: translations alone would not be enough and local cultural aspects would need to be better understood.

17

Although the outlook for sustainability seems good, it needs to be verified and spelled out more specifically – the proposed network needs to find place for more active participation of present and possible future partners, in order to enhance EU-wide added value of outcomes. Also, it is not clear who is going to host the network at the end of the project.

Geographical coverage is limited and this not only because the two existing partners are both UK based entities; it is not certain how collaborating partners will ensure depth of activities for a good coverage of their country, but also an important part of the EU remains outside the project's (i.e.

new MS)

The project takes an adequate account of cultural and social issues and a realistic view to the needs and expectations of the target populations of patients and affected families. However, the fact that only two countries are involved means that differences within EU are not accounted for sufficiently; another weakness has to do with the fact that the information to be disseminated to the professionals is not differentiated from that which is destined to patients.












Note

4

4

2

4

3

Comments

The described activities, timetable, milestones and generally the description of the work is compatible with the nature of the project, with the notable exception of the communication activities.

No specific comment: the applicant is a specialized organization in the field of the project.

There is no real partnership: the project really concerns the activities of one organization, with the small contribution of some collaborating partners; a more expanded partnership needs to be achieved for such activities to become pertinent within the cope of the PHP.

Extensive experience is evidenced in the communications area, to be used as an underpinning of the project activities towards the patients, but is the foreseen scale really necessary? (Also see below, on budget). As for the healthcare professionals, the means proposed are inadequate: although an e-information pack for clinicians is foreseen, an active communication strategy for reaching out to them and supporting them in early diagnosis, which is critical for the outcome of the disease, is not in focus.

There are many problems with the proposed budget: (a) Not balanced and it all goes to the two

UK based organizations; (b) Too expensive for a two-year project without scarcely any real field work; (c) This is reflected in the extremely high rates and volume of expense on the communication activities: GHC rates, although they might reflect market rates, are simply un-acceptable, as is the number and level of staff involved; more than 50 person/ days would have been enough to support a communication strategy (d) It is not clear what the subcontracting costs for GHC are for.



Total:


17

58

Although the thematic area is relevant and the project has valid objectives which, if attained, would usefully contribute to the PH policy area, the proposal suffers from serious weaknesses, the most important of which is the fact that the proposed activities pertain to the regular activities of the applicant organization; they do not provide sufficient added-value, for a project justification to emerge.




No

0

0.00





101,164.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: EUROHHT



Improving information, diagnosis and management of Haemorrhagic Hereditary Telangiectasia (HHT) in Europe

01/01/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas, Research Council of Spain (CSIC)

HHTSUNIT

Public


Spain


Academisch Ziekenhuis Leiden, Acting under the name of Leiden

University Medical Centre

Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris

French HHT reference center

HHT center Odense University Hospital

HHT ITALIAN REFERENCE CENTER

Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

INSERM

INTERDEPARTMENTAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY AND

RESEARCH OF HHT - UNIVERSITY OF BARI

Kliniken der Stadt Köln gGmbH

Rikshospitalet Oslo

Salamanca Spanish Physiopathology unit

UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE

12

Acronym

LUMC

APHP

FRHHTLY

HHTOUHdk

HHTITUNIT

HHTIC London

BMPHHT

HHTS.UN.IT

HHTGER_A

HHTNOR

USAL

HHT-UNEW

City

Leiden Netherlands

Boulogne-Billancourt Cedex

LYON

Odense

CREMA, PAVIA

LONDON

Grenoble fedex 9

France

France

Denmark

Italy

United Kingdom

France

BARI

Köln

Oslo

SALAMANCA

NEWCASTLE

Country

Italy

Germany

Norway

Spain

United Kingdom

8


The general objective of the present proposal, EUROHHT is the formation of a European network to disseminate knowledge, information and care of Haemorrhagic Hereditary Telangiectasia (HHT) patients across Europe. As in many rare diseases, to recognize HHT patients is difficult even among physicians, and ithere is inadequate information in the general population. To ensure optimal outcomes are achieved in management, special attention will be focused on:

1) Generation of a website 2) Clinical diagnosis 3) Clinical treatment 4) using patient networks to deliver and spread the knowledge of the disease to the general population.

The HHT is a potentially life-threatening disease affecting 1 in 5000, and causing severe morbidity amongst affected individuals.The consortium allows the experts across Europe, each with their own areas of expertise, experience and health care structures, to optimise recommendations in a way not possible from within a single centre. The consortium also allows ready dissemination of information across Europe.

We expect to get consensus in clinical screenings and therapeutic strategies for the management of HHT patients based on the best available audience. We will also derive valuable conslusions regarding interventions and chemical treatments where a large number of monitored patients are needed to assess drug efficacy, supplemented by our experience in monitoring the primary processes perturbed in HHT due to mutations in endoglin and ALK1: angiogenesis, TGF-ß signalling, and general endothelial cell processes.

We will focus on standarisation processes to achieve better equality between member states in terms of national HHT databases, clinical management and to facilitate future multicenter trials. Finally we will spread the knowledge of HHT in the general population, targeting clinicans and patients as full partners in our effort to secure better management for families suffering from this potentially life-threatening condition.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

1 494 412

580 632

214 200

117 500

26 610

0

91 461

53 000

180 443

2 758 258

Incomes

1 263 846

1 494 412

0

0

0

2 758 258













Note

7

7

7

7

6

Comments

The topic of the proposed project is in line with priorities of the 2008 WP and especially priorities

3.3.1. and 3.3.6. even though the strong clinical focus of the whole project and the research oriented content of WP4 limit the projects contribution/ relevance.

The project, aiming at collecting and consolidating knowledge through the collaboration of key EU centres will, if successful have impact, especially in the treatment field. There are some doubts about the overall cohesion of the project, between aspects targeting professionals and those targeting patients and their families.

The areas of standardisation, information and knowledge exchange and improvement of care processes are all areas of added EU value. Certain questions were raised on the following, as having impact on added value the project might have: (a) how will implementation of the guidelines be ensured? (b) Transferability of results and sustainability of network (end product of the project) are not clearly targeted (c) Necessity to link up with existing "umbrella" networks

(Orphanet, EURORDIS)

The participants are distributed in a large number of countries and they represent reference canters and specialising research institutions: it appears that the critical mass, necessary to carry out the project objectives is present. The intent to integrate more countries is stated and indeed, more new MS need to be brought as collaborating partners to help disseminate the state of the art the project aims at producing

The project generally takes a good account of cultural and social issues and a realistic view to the needs and expectations of the target populations of patients and affected families. However, issues related to the registry activity and patient data protection should have been addressed, especially since the low number of patients of rare diseases makes them more vulnerable




34

Note


3

3

Comments

The underlying problem analysis is adequate. The problem has to do with the adequacy of the proposed approach: WP 4, which is much more research oriented could have been considered as a pre-requisite, before the applicant's group submits a full-blown proposal which tries to address all the issues at once: diagnosis and treatment, prevention through screening, registry and epidemiological research, patient support. The ambition is too high and this shows in specific weaknesses: important aspects such as the need to take a service approach to the helpline and the high degree of robustness needed for an effective approach to education and training are overlooked. In all, a more step-wise approach is recommended.

As per above, serious doubts exist on the capacity of such a wide-ranging effort to succeed: WP1

(HHT Dbank) and the proposed prospective incidence study require a different, stricter approach, which is not substantiated in the current proposal; WP 4 has a clear research orientation; WP 5 is not sized to deliver. Although the panel understands that in the RD field, "umbrella" RD specific networks, which include many different lines of work (epidemiological studies, diagnosis and treatment guidelines, registers and patient involvement) can be useful, the present project proposal lacks the overall coherence/ cohesiviness in its approach to be able to deliver the expected outcomes .



5

4

This is the first known initiative of collaboration in this area at the EU level (there exists the international group of HHT). It also provides a multidisciplinary approach that is very pertinent to the problem addressed, even in view of the weaknesses mentioned above. No duplication or overlapping with other projects is identified.

Weak component of this project – external evaluation mentioned, not sure how this is to be implemented. Some indicators are defined but a more rigorous approach to understand impact will be needed. For example "number of affected families registered in the Dbase" is mentioned, but what is the benchmark (target value?)



3




A rather standard dissemination approach is described. Nevertheless, the size and spread of the network might be a good basis for dissemination and the intention to actively seek new members is a positive aspect. An important weakness is that dissemination is scientifically oriented towards the clinical level and not sufficiently to the public health level. Finally, it is not clear how sustainability of the activity will continue after the end of the project (this must be secured during the project).




18

Note Comments



3




4

3

3

2

Overall coherence of the project suffers from the caveats mentioned under content specification and planning doesn't seem to address these weaknesses in such a way as to ensure achievement of expected outcomes.

There is strong capacity in clinical expertise, since the institutions involved are among the most specialized in the field, while the coordinator has also a proven track record. However, this is not, or should not be, the only focus of the project and other expertise/ skills need to be brought in: only one statistician is involved, while the number of clinical staff is very important

(disproportionate to the activities described/ expected outcome). Also, technical decisions cannot be made at the level of the coordination team, but more at a steering committee level made up of the WP leaders, under the project leader.

There is logic in the proposed partnership, as the partners are well reputed organisations with high level of expertise in the domains addressed by the project and come from same clinical background. However, the partnership is skewed to the clinical level and therefore, not in accordance with the wider stated objectives of the application.

Although it is claimed that patient associations are included, this is not evident in the proposal –to be verified.

At this stage a rather standard communication approach is foreseen: the communication channels could be further explored. Again the main focus is too clinical for a public health project

The budget is totally out of proportion: there are in total more than 10,500 person/ days or 47

FTE! At the level also of the detailed budget, there are many weaknesses: expenditure per WP is unclear and doesn't pertain to sound evaluation; levels of clinical or assimilated staff are too important while other skills are not there (1 statistician); travel and subsistence allowance budget is excessive and totally out of proportion; WP4 should not be included, representing largely research out of scope of this project.



Total:


15

67

This is an ambitious project proposal in a relevant area, with good stated coherence to EU policy goals. It has however, serious weaknesses, not only confined to the technical content description and the management/ budgetary issues, but also from the conception phase: in essence, the submitted proposal has too strong a focus on research and purely clinical activities and is not as such targeted towards public health goals. Moreover, it suffers from its ambitions, as the area is not yet mature for an all encompassing "umbrella" network on HHT.

In a possible future re-submission, it will be important to limit the project's ambition to achieve fewer and better operational objectives by, inter alia (a) taking out research actions from the core of the project; (b) clarifying the methodological approaches, especially with regards to public health objectives; and (c) reinforcing those activities which effectively supporting the patients

(consultation service, information to patients and MDs, especially GPs).




No

0

0.00





101,167.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: W.I.P. on the road


2.5 Improve the quality of physical environment and reduce accidents and injuries

WORKERS INJURIES PREVENTION on the road.

A gender specific prevention programme of Road Traffic Accidents for Workers

01/02/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

S.& T. società cooperativa

S.&T.

Private


Italy


Consepi S.p.a

Finnish Institute of Occupational Health

Fondation Tanguy Moreau de Melen Responsible Young Drivers –

Secura Forum

Société Anonyme Centre de Formation pour Conducteurs

Test & Training International Planning and Service GmbH

Test & Training Safety Centre Sp. z o. o.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents

Universitat de Valencia, DATS (Development and Advising in Traffic and Road Safety)

University of Turin

9

Acronym

Consepi

FIOH

RYD

CFC

TTI

TTSC

RoSPA

UVEG

University of Turin

City

Susa (TO)

Helsinki

Brussels

Colmar-Berg

Teesdorf bei Baden

Pobiedziska

Birmingham

Valencia

TORINO

Country

Italy

Finland

Belgium

Luxembourg

Austria

Poland

United Kingdom

Spain

Italy

8


The strategic aim of the project is to reduce the risk of injury and death at work caused by the use of vehicles on the road and/or in the workplace. Despite an increasing concern about the question of injury/death at work, in terms of legislation as well as at European level, there is an under-estimation of the level, out of the total number of injuries/deaths at work, relating to road accidents involving workers using vehicles for carrying out their professional duties and reaching their place of work. The project seeks to define and evaluate prevention measures for accidents at work connected with the use of vehicles including accidents while carrying out a work activity as well as on the journey, according the HP, aimed at contributing to the prevention of injuries by collecting data, analysing injury determinants and disseminating relevant information. In order to achieve the above the following methodology will be used: research on risk factors, thorough the collection and analysis of figures on road accidents involving workers and a questionnaire on risk factors to be distributed to involved workers, definition and experimentation of a theoretical and practical training model addressed to workers using vehicles, evaluation of its effectiveness through a follow up action. All long the project, an involvement action of local stakeholders for defining measures for agreements/collaboration and encourage companies to promote an action of prevention, training and awareness among their workers about the problem will be implemented. The activity will produce effects in the medium term and in the long term, by influencing the number of injuries/deaths at work through road accidents. The final outcomes of the project will be the testing of an innovative training model for improving the road safety of workers using a vehicle at work, and the availability of scientific data on risk factors in relations with road accidents involving workers.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

353 965

542 114

49 100

62 513

3 500

0

149 600

526 959

112 100

1 799 851

Incomes

1 008 731

353 965

437 155

0

0

1 799 851










Note

3

2

Comments

The project is covered by the Health Programme and has a clearly preventive approach. It meets with point 3.3.5.2 of the 2008 Work Program. The problem addressed is important from a public healt point of view. Still, this type of studies might be better suited in other Community programmes.

Road traffic accidents are increasing and all measures that will alter this trend have a strategic relevance. This project proposes a special training intervention directed towards the individual driver. If effective this would be one strategic measure. However, the evidence base presented is weak, and outcomes for that reason unclear. Will the methods and measures be effective? There is no information about other possible actions.

Furthermore, data on road traffic accidents are to be collected. Such data is probably obtainable from other sources in most countries.




4

5

5

In Europe the prevalence of traffic accidents vary between countries. In this project mainly countries with high prevalences are included. To understand the mechanisms behind accidents, and evaluating the effect of the training programme, also countries with low prevalences should be included in the project. Networking and transfer of knowledge in this area is an asset. An intervention policy that is effective at European level is planned, taking the differences that exist between individual MS into account.

Eight 8 MS are involved, and the project is multidisciplinary. The presence of UICR which represents 32 associations of driving workers from 19 MS will involve a wide group of beneficiaries. Apart from a lack of countries with few accidents, the distribution of countries and tasks is good.

The partners have good field experience of interventions towards the target groups. They will be able to effectively contribute to the definition of good operational strategies. However, social and cultural differences should be better taken into account. Will, for example, the questionnaires be possible to use in all countries? Will the programme be effective in the different countries? There are lots of cultural and regional differences in driving-related parameters such as attitudes to drink-driving, climate, standards of roads and vehicles, etc. This is not adequately.




19

Note

4


4

Comments

The review of the evidence base is quite poor and would have needed more attention. In particular, a motivation for chosing a training programme should be included. More data are probably available. This review should have been done before the onset of the project to ensure effectiveness of the methods.

In many parts, the content specification is good. Target groups (who will both act in and benefit from the project) are identified and objectives and aims are clear. However, it is hard to find any explanation about the content of the training programme and why this model was chosen. To improve the project, a country with low prevalence of accidents should be included. Outcomes will depend on the effectiveness of the method.




3

3

It is innovative to try to apply the same training programme in several countries. However, training programmes and questionnaires are quite traditional. It is rather the scale that is innovative. Also, stakeholders not commonly seen in public health projects are included and the local level is actively addressed. National activities already in place should be used to avoid duplication.

The evaluation strategy consists of a set of indicators (many quantitative). Evaluation of the effects of the project is essential, preferrably done by an external evaluator.

The dissemination strategy which is crucial in this project seems to have been properly planned and is well integrated in the project.


5

19








Note

3



4

4



4



Total:


6

21

59

Comments

The internal planning and organisation of the project is good, including distribution of tasks between partners. However, a somewhat more even distribution of tasks (less on main partner) would be desirable.

The risk analysis could have been more thorough. It addresses the problem to recruit firms to take part in the project but this could have been further discussed and better fall-back presented.

The organisational capacity seems adequate. The main partner has good capacity to lead the project, including support with financial administration. Management structures are not detailed.

Leadership of the work packages is well distributed among the partners. The quality of the partnership is by and large good, but the network should benefit from inclusion of insurance companies and a partner from a country with proven success in reducing road accidents.

The communication strategy is well explained, but expensive.

The budget is well balanced between the partners but overestimated with very high costs for testing of the model. Also subcontracting is high. For this kind of project funds may be available from other sources as well.

This is an important area and the project contains an interesting approach to reduce work-related accidents. However, the project is not recommended for co-funding in its present form, but would be acceptable after restructring to fit a significantly lower budget. As the methods and measures chosen in the project not seem to be properly validated, a smaller project aiming at confirming the effectiveness of the training programme is appropriate. Furthermore, instead of collecting data as outlined in the project it should be possible to use already existing data bases. See also suggestions for improvements below. - Restructure the project to fit the reduced budget.

- Review the evidece base to ensure effectiveness of methods and measures.

- Ensure proper use of already excisting data bases on accidents related to driving at work.

- Include a partner from a country with low levels of accidents to transfer knowledge.

- Include representatives from insurance companies.

- Take social and cultural differences into account when setting up the training programme.

- Elaborate the evaluation strategy with focus oneffectiveness of the methods used and engage an external evaluator.




No

0

0.00





101,178.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym:



Peer Health Educator Curriculum for Migrant Health

01/11/2008

36

PeerHealthEd


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Verein für Opfer von Gewalt und Menschenrechtsverletzungen - OMEGA Gesundheitsstelle

OMEGA

Private


Austria


International Medical Program, Centre for Teaching and Research in

Disaster Medicine

Kendro Merimnas Oikoyenias kai Pediou

L´ ASSOCIACIO CEPS PER A LA CREATIO D´ESTUDIS I

PROJECTES SOZIALES

Organizace pro pomec uprchlikum

4

Acronym

IMP

KMOP

CEPS

OPU

City

Linköping

Athens

Barcelona

Prague

Country

Sweden

Greece

Spain

Czech Republic

4


The project aims at developing a training curriculum in public health, health promotion and methods of health education in the field of mental health for minors and their families in vulnerable groups. The concept of peer educators is seen as an important public health tool in reaching marginalised communities for the transfer of key health information and supporting access to services.

This project contributes to this concept concretely through the development of a solid curriculum based on public health principles and on assessment of need of target communities. The goal is to provide a European concensus framework curriculum for peer health educators, targeting migrant professionals, such as nurses, educators, physicians, social workers and psychologists. Topics to be covered might include trauma and its consequences, relationships, sexual and reproductive health, social networks, conflict resolution, recreation and physical activities and development of self esteem as well as basic elements of public health, project development and evaluation.

Migrant community leaders, migrant professionals and stakeholders in health services will be consulted and interviewed as an international reference group. The analysis of the inteviews will be a tool in the development of the curriculum.

It is envisaged that the training curriculum would be developed in collaboration with an acredited teaching institution such as University, hospital

.

or other public institution. Local governments are to be involved in the process of the project to ensure the community impact, to support the implementation of local courses.

The project, with partners in 5 European countries also seeks to promote a broader professional exchange, promote innovative research and promote the development of an international and regional networks. Broad dissemination of the results as a "Guideline" is envisaged.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

371 244

18 000

12 810

3 000

3 000

31 100

8 500

25 800

473 454

Incomes

282 232

0

191 222

0

0

473 454












Note

3

4

4

4

Comments

The project addresses general aspects of the 2008 workplan in relation to health determinants as well as sexual and reproductive health (including HIV/AIDS), mental health and social determinants. It does not address any of the specific priorities of the workplan 2008 - in particular no mention is made in the current workplan of either migrants or peer health education. Proposed reclassification under the Mental health priority area.

Relatively little in the proposal about existing knowledge in this field. Using skills of migrants to provide peer health promotion has potential to address migrant health needs. However this is not a priority of the current workplan, even when there will be relevance for the use of peer educator's methods.

Some potential added value, however narrow geographical coverage inhibits the European applicability.

Project is led by OMEGA Austria, associate partners from Sweden, Spain, Greece, and Czech.

Plus 2 collaborating partners from Graz and Barcelona. There is neither clear definition of the target groups in the countries involved, nor the definition of the target for the actions, like how many training, trainees? The issue of health and migration has a large relevance especially in the involved countries(ES, GR).

Relevant social, cultural and political context, but considered generic based on the organisation's experience of work with refugees and migrants.





4

19

Note

4


3


3

Comments

Very general description, without provision of data based on a situation analysis, not on the effectiveness of the interventions proposed.

In the methods, there was confusion between the definition of objectives and activities. The objectives are not SMART and no targets were defined. The reasons for the selection of the 2 countries for the pilot studies were not provided.

As there are several projects already funded by DGSANCO-PHEA on Health and migrants, some of them working with peer education base methods, there is a risk of duplication.


4





4

18

Note

The evaluation methods was considered well described, including internal and external assessment. The impact of the training was not measured, and the definition of targets would make easy to assess the successful achievement of the objectives (quantitative indicators).

Although considered well written, it did not include a stakeholder analysis and the assessment of their needs, it relies on the network of partners.

Comments



2

4

In general terms it was considered generic, without clear milestones. The risk analysis raised doubts about when the project consortium can deliver the proposed action.

The capacity of the partnership was not considered sufficient; even there is the intention to subcontract externally experts. The management structure was considered adequate, and there was previous experience with EC projects.







Total:





No

0

0.00

3

3

7

19

56




Concerns were presented on the mutual confidence within the partnership, and questions were raised on the involvement of public authorities.

The communication task is centralised in the main partner organisation, it was well described and proposed to apply the snow ball principle without engagement from the partners.

The workload of the workpackages is incorrectly calculated. In general the budget was considered balanced between the partners, but the management is centralised by the main beneficiary.

In the methods need to review the definition of the indicators, and the timeline of the activities. On the budget, there is the need to reduce the staff cost that was considered excessive.The methods need to be reviewed the definition of the indicators, and the timeline of the activities. On the budget, there is the need to reduce the staff cost that was considered excessive. There was confusion between the definition of objectives and activities. The objectives are not SMART and no targets were defined. The reasons for the selection of the 2 countries for the pilot studies were not provided. It should as well check the existing projects to avoid duplication. The workload of the workpackages is incorrect, and seems to present the number of persons involved. In general the budget was considered balanced between the partners, but the management is centralised by the main beneficiary.






Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: TAG Inequal



Tackling gender inequalities in health and health behaviour through exchange of European expertise

15/01/2009

30

101,182.00


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:


TUD

Public


Germany



Health

National Institute for Health Development

Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine

REFORM - Resource Centre for Men

4

Acronym

Prolepsis

NIHD

NIOM

REFORM

City

Kastri, Athens

Tallinn

Lodz

Oslo

Country

Greece

Estonia

Poland

Norway

4


General objective: TAG Inequal aims to reduce gender inequalities in health and health behaviour within and between European countries through the exchange of expertise and good practice.

Strategic relevance & contribution to the programme:

In Europe women have significantly higher life expectancy, but also higher morbidity compared to men. The magnitude of gender inequalities in health varies considerably within and across European countries –being above average in some Eastern European countries– indicating the possibility to reduce these inequalities. The public health programme’s objective “to promote health, including the reduction of health inequalities” perfectly fits the aims of the project. It is further clearly stated that gender is an important health consideration and that gender-related health issues should be addressed. So far, European projects focused on socioeconomic inequalities in health and only rarely included gender aspects.

Main methods and means:

Two publicly accessible, extendable databases on the situation of gender-specific health and mortality in European countries and on existing policies and interventions for the prevention of gender inequalities in health will be developed first and followed by descriptive & analytical

European (incl. a special section on Eastern Europe; both databases) and 17 country reports (database 2 only). Secondly, policy recommendations and guidelines for planning best practice interventions to prevent gender inequalities in health will be developed considering country-specific aspects and the transferability of actions. The project and its results will be widely disseminated to policy makers and public health professionals and evaluated internally and externally.

Expected outcome:The adherence to the policy recommendations and best practice criteria developed by the multi-stakeholder partnership of

TAG Inequal will significantly increase European capacity and reduce gender inequalities in health in Europe.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

122 800

574 180

73 500

62 500

11 560

27 080

171 120

283 650

91 150

1 417 540

Incomes

850 000

122 800

444 740

0

0

1 417 540













Note

7

5

6

4

5

Comments

This project addresses the issue of gender inequalities in health. The Health Strategy recognises the importance of the gender dimension for health and the Council Conclusions on the Strategy adopted by the Portuguese Presidency stress the need to address inequities. The Health

Programme explicitly cites gender as a determinant of health inequalities, and the Work Plan

2008 highlights the importance of reducing health inequalities between and within EU MS and regions. As the project aims to achieve a better understanding and recognition of men's and women's specific health needs by formulating indicators for a comparison of gender inequalities in health between MS and aims to identify ways to reduce these inequalities the project is in line with the health programme and WP 2008.

Recognising and understanding the gender issue as a determinant of health inequalities has strategic relevance. There is a lack of data on gender differences in health, and the project can significantly update the pubic health knowledge database by producing two databases/reports: one on the situation of gender health inequalities in the EU MS and one on existing policies and interventions to prevent inequalities. As the project will also develop policy recommendations to reduce gender health inequalities and disseminate them widely, the EU capacity to reduce gender inequality in health can be significantly increased. However, there is a risk of duplication with previous and ongoing activities, including the Closing the Gap and Determine projects and the

Women and Gender Knowledge Network of the WHO Commission on Social Determinants. The complementariness of the current project with these activities is not convincingly documented in the proposal. The creation of a database on health and mortality related to gender would duplicate existing ones. The evaluation committee should also consider that a Call for Tender will be launched for a report on women's health and that another proposal (101161 ENGENDER) envisages the collection of good practices on policies and programmes to promote gender equity.

Addressing health disparities between men and women and comparing polices and practices across MS fosters the achievement of an important EU value (gender equality) and contributes to the increase of population health and healthy life years. The policy recommendations that will result from this project can serve as an important basis for the development and improvement of

EU policies on gender inequality and health, particularly as it will also give guidance for transferability of policies and interventions. The creation of a network to promote the exchange of best practices and expertise in this field will also provide an added value, but the link with established EU networks and expertise on health inequalities should be ascertained.

The consortium is small (5 partners) but reasonably balanced and reflects the geographical and cultural diversity of the EU with partners in Central (Germany), Northern (Norway), Southern

(Greece) and Eastern (Estonia) Europe. Eastern European MS could be better represented. EU coverage will be extended by involving subcontractors from 11 additional MS and one Western

Balkan country (Serbia), but the representative nature of the subcontracting partners is difficult to assess. The database of gender health issues will cover all EU MS, EEA countries and western

Balkan countries, while that of the policies and interventions will cover the 17 countries of the consortium plus subcontractors. Due to langue barriers it may not be possible to integrate material from other countries. So, the geographical coverage of the output will be extensive but not comprehensive.

The need to take into account the gender dimension of health is increasingly recognised at EU and MS level and is considered as important for the development of an evidence based policy. As gender is the focus of this project, this need is well recognized, as is the difference in magnitude of gender inequalities within and across EU MS. Sensitivity to the gender issue in health is mentioned in he proposal, but country specific sensitivities in addressing gender health inequalities are not elaborated. Similarly, the ethnic, religious and developmental components of the issue are not mentioned.




27

Note

4

Comments

Information about the gender inequalities regarding health is well described, but references are missing. Gender health inequalities are observed in all MS for different indicators and at different levels. It is mentioned that the basis for gender health differences is a complex interplay of various factors: environment, behaviour, biology, and that a better understanding of these factors would help to reduce inequalities and increase quality of life. No evidence is provided regarding the suitability of the method proposed or of the lessons learned from other projects on which this one builds.






4

3

5

4




The main objective of the project is interesting but the specific objectives (to analyze gender inequalities, collect and analyze policies and interventions, and identify and disseminate best practices) are too broad. The target group of policy makers, researchers and health professionals is too broad and need to be further detailed. The method on how to collect data, how to select policies and interventions for inclusion, how to analyse them and how to draw conclusions and reach consensus in view of formulating policy recommendations is too vague. The creation of a database on gender related mortality should be revised to take account of already existing databases.

Focusing on gender inequality is novel, but the main innovation will be the comparison of policies and interventions and the identification of best practices, not the description of the situation of gender health inequalities in the EU MS. Databases on health inequalities already exist so the creation of an additional database will not be innovative. Compatibility and complementariness with other projects would be enhanced by identifying items to be added to existing databases, rather than creating new ones.

Evaluation as part of the quality management of the project is foreseen, but no effect evaluation.

An evaluation plan is envisaged and will be discussed. Part of the evaluation will be outsourced to enhance objectivity. Evaluation indicators have already been suggested, which is a strong point, but they are primarily focused on data quality, not on the project outcomes. Outcome evaluation linked to the specific objectives should be more emphasised.

Stakeholders and communication media have been identified, including website, newsletters, scientific papers, brochures and conferences to involve stakeholders. These are mainly

"classical" ways to distribute the projects' results, not ways to ascertain transferability and sustainability of the outcomes. Dissemination is a key element for this topic and should comprise ways to extend the outcomes after the project has ended, e.g., to ensure structures to maintain and update the database. Results should also be disseminated to other sectors, e.g. the education sector.




20

Note Comments






3

3

3

4

5

The planning of the activities to be undertaken is clearly described, coherent, logical and well linked to the objectives. The timetable is clearly presented and realistic. However, a large part of the activities in terms of data collection will be subcontracted, without specification of how the subcontractors will organise their activities and how the quality of their work will be ascertained.

The partners of this consortium are experienced in running EU projects. The staff is competent and represents a complementary range of disciplines (epidemiology, psychology, economy).

However, the team is quite small and may not have sufficient capacity to run a project of this size.

The subcontracting of core tasks to make up for missing capacity is not a legitimate way to organise the work.

The consortium is very small (5 partners). It is possible that there is enough synergy within the consortium as they have been collaborating previously, but the synergy and complementary nature of the partners' capacities and contributions is not made explicit. The consortium does not involve some of the key organisations in the field of health inequalities, which makes it difficult to develop synergies with other projects and to integrate outcomes. NGOs or professional networks are not represented in the consortium.

The tools for internal communication are well explained in the management section and seem appropriate. Regular meetings are foreseen and detailed in the application, and e-communication will be used. The external communication will be further developed and relies strongly on traditional tools such as website, publications, conference presentations, newsletters, and press conferences. A formal stakeholder analysis is foreseen. It would be useful to draw up a detailed publication plan at the start of the project.

The project is expensive (1.400.000 €) and the co-funding requested from the Commission is high in relation to the small size of the consortium. Two thirds of the budget will be for the main partner

(TUD), and one third for co-ordination only. The staff costs are too high, especially for the main partner, and put too much emphasis on administrative costs.



Total:

18

65






No

0

0.00




This project addresses the issue of gender inequalities in health. By aiming to formulate indicators for a comparison of gender inequalities in health between MS and identify ways to reduce these inequalities, the project is in line with the priorities of the health programme and the WP 2008.

The main innovation is the comparison of policies and interventions and the identification of best practices. The project can significantly update the pubic health knowledge database and develop policy recommendations to reduce gender health inequalities, but there is a risk of duplication with previous and ongoing activities. Compatibility and complementariness with other projects must be ensured especially as key organisations and networks in this area are not represented in the consortium. The project is well planned and organised and builds on a good evidence base regarding gender health inequalities in the MS and their determinants, but the objectives and target groups are very broad and the method to collect data, select policies, analyse them and formulate policy recommendations needs to be further specified. A major shortcoming is that the project relies on subcontracting of core tasks. The budget is fairly high and needs to be better distributed among the partners.

The project could be resubmitted for the following Call for Proposals if the following issues are addressed:

1. The consortium needs to be expanded. More associated and/or collaborating partners should be involved, including key organisations or networks with experience in the area of health inequalities

2. Core tasks involving the collection and analysis of data should not be subcontracted but assigned to (new or current) associated partners.

3. Compatibility and complementariness with other projects on health inequality must be more explicitly aimed for. The possibility to integrate the database on gender related mortality and policies/interventions resulting from this project with existing ones on health inequality must be considered.

4. The method to collect data, select policies, analyse them and formulate policy recommendations needs to be further specified.

5. The task division within the partnership must be revised, with fewer tasks and staff assigned to the main partner.

6. The budget must be better redistributed among the partnership, with less budget for coordination and subcontracting and more for actions in core work packages.





101,201.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: IMHCY



IMPROVING THE MENTAL HEALTH OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH IN EUROPE

01/06/2009

31


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Confederación Española de Agrupaciones de Familiares y Personas con Enfermedad Mental

FEAFES

Private


Spain


Associação para o Estudo e Integração Psicossocial

Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red Salud Mental.

European Federation of Associations of Families of Persons with

Mental Illness

Kendro Merimnas Oikoyennias kai Pediou

Mental Health Europe – Santé Mentale Europe aisbl

PRO MENTE: KINDER JUGEND FAMILIE

Romanian League for Mental Health

Schizophrenia Association of Ireland (Schizophrenia Ireland)

Scottish Development Centre for Mental Health

SOCIETY OF SOCIAL PSYCHIATRY AND MENTAL HEALTH

STOWARZYSZENIE NA RZECZ ZDROWIA PSYCHICZNEGO

DZIECKA I RODZINY /The Association for Child and Family Mental

Health in Poland/

University of Dundee

12

Acronym

AEIPS

CIBERSAM

EUFAMI

KMOP

MHE-SME

PMKIJUFA

RLMH

SI

SDC

SSP&MH

ACFMH

UNIVDUN

City

Lisbon

Madrid

Leuven

Athens

Brussels

Klagenfurt

Bucharest

DUBLIN

Edinburgh

Athens

RZESZÓW

DUNDEE

Country

Portugal

Spain

Belgium

Greece

Belgium

Austria

Romania

Ireland

United Kingdom

Greece

Poland

United Kingdom

9


The project "Improving teh Mental Health of Children and Youth in Europe" has as geenral objective the development of tools for the improvement of prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health of European children and youth.

By creating a partnership of mental health advocacy groups in Europe and professionals involved in children and youth mental health, the project intends: a) on the one hand to analyse the perceptions on the quality of social, education and health services that children and youth with mental health problems, their families and professionals have in Europe.

b) on the other hand, with this information and the review of existing evidence and recommendations already identified by relevant institutions, two guides will be developed and disseminated:

1. Guidelines for the promotion of quality services for children and youth

2. Guidelines for prevention actions and early detection of mental disorders.

The outcomes of the project will be developped taking as a basis available evidence based and the input of several grassroots stakeholders and will be disseminated widely.

The partnership comprises 13 partners from 9 countries in Europe, these being: United Kingdom, Austria, Belgium, Greece, Poland, Rumania,

Ireland, Portugal and Spain. Different areas of Europe with very different socio-political and cultural contexts are involved in the project. As the project intends to develop valuable tools for any country in Europe, we find a lack of partners in the Scandinavian countries. However due to the involvement of two European Organisations, through their membership and governing bodies and a strong dissemination strategy we hope to get input from these countries and reach them as well.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

20 000

278 709

28 200

40 876

0

4 100

20 000

160 100

36 109

588 094

Incomes

352 856

20 000

215 238

0

0

588 094













Note

6

5

4

4

3

Comments

The project aims to develop evidence based tools to improve the prevention of mental disorders and promote the mental health of children and youth. The concept of addressing children's mental health links up with the priority of the health programme and to priority 3.3.3.1 of the work plan

2008, which explicitly calls for the development of guidelines to integrate mental health promotion and mental disorder prevention into the training and practice of health professionals and professionals in other services. Whether the guidelines to be developed in this project will effectively add to meeting these priorities will however depend on their long-term transferability, which is not well addressed in this proposal. Work package 2 (survey on perception of services) in itself is not relevant because too research oriented.

Developing guidelines for prevention of mental health problems in young people could be relevant to improve practice, but little information is provided on how the current project builds on what already exists. No (meta) analysis of collected practices is foreseen, and gaps in the current state of play are insufficiently identified. As the transferability of the results is not explicitly addressed, the objectives of the project are not realistic in the sense that guidelines for early detection of mental health problems will not improve the practice of mental health promotion.

A guideline for treatment is not within the scope of the mental health programme and within the

EU mandate, but if the envisaged guideline can serve as a useful tool to detect mental health problems at an early stage and has impact on target groups, it could have an added EU value.

The latter is however not guaranteed as multiplier effects are not explained. In terms of policy relevance, there is no mentioning of the Mental Health Pact, where mental health of young people is a key topic. There is a short reference to EU level policies (Lisbon Strategy), but it is not elaborated how the project will contribute to the realisation of these objectives.

The project consortium included organisations from 8 Member States, including 2 New Member

States, but not all parts of the EU are represented. Scandinavian countries are for instance not represented. The choice of countries for participation in the project is not explained, and is not representative of the geographical variety in the EU, nor of the variety in target group composition or health systems.

Guidelines are going to be implemented at a local and national level, so it is likely that the social and cultural context will be taken into account. However, it is not explicitly explained how the different needs of the target population will be accounted for in the elaboration of the best practices and in the guidelines.




22

Note



3

3

2

Comments

The evidence base for the proposed intervention s too general. The problem is stated in general terms but without proper referencing to sources or key publications, no state of the art is given to identify gaps in the knowledge base or in the application of the available evidence in mental health practice, and no arguments are provided why and how guidelines will be a good way to address the problem. Reference is made to the need for a holistic approach but without further explanation. The SCMHE and CAMHEE projects are mentioned but it is not stated how the current project builds on to these.

The aims of the project are well stated but are not based on an analysis of needs of the target group or on a review of the available evidence base. The specific objectives are not well matched to aim; they refer to outputs (deliverables) rather than expected outcomes.

The target groups are identified and a good differentiation is made between the end users and target groups. The idea to develop a guideline is good, but the approach to developing guidelines is not well explained and does not involve state of the art methodology, in that the step of a meta-analysis is missing between the collection of good practices and guideline development, and that an unspecified and possibly unsystematic way of expert opinions will be used. WP2

(survey) is not well linked to the overall methodological approach, and the methodology does not take socio-cultural differences into account.

The topic is important but the approach taken is not. The project partly overlaps with existing projects (SCMH-E and CAMHEE), without an explanation on how the current project is complementary to these initiatives. The innovative character of the initiative may be in the holistic approach and the dissemination of the results through the partnership, but this is not well explained.






1


2




11

Note

The evaluation strategy as explained in WP10 only lists outcomes of the evaluation but does not specify the evaluation methodology. Indicators are given but only refer to outputs (deliverables), not to the processes or outcomes, and are formulated as actions instead of variables. The evaluation of the guidelines is not foreseen.

A list is provided of dissemination materials, but without indication of how they will be disseminated and to whom. The methodology for the transfer of the outputs is not given and no information is provided about the way sustainability of the project outcomes will be ensured.

Comments





2

2

3

3

The envisaged results and deliverables are explained but no detailed description is given about the activities that will be undertaken to reach them. A timetable is given but no milestones are specified. An organisational structure is outlined mentioning the establishment of a steering committee, but its composition is not specified and a clear division of tasks is not provided: all partners will be involved in all work packages without further explanation. The risk analysis is poor: no specific risks are mentioned and a general statement is given that risks can be avoided via (process) evaluation.

The partners in the consortium have worked in the area of mental health and have expertise.

Some partners have experience with EU projects funded by DG EMPL. An organisation structure is mentioned but not detailed apart from a steering committee.

Decision lines are not explicitly given, rules and procedures not given. Internal communication lines are addressed, listing e-mails, phone conversation and meetings, but should be more detailed and expanded given the size of the consortium.

The consortium submitting this proposal is a reasonably large network of organisations who are active in mental health and who have experience of participating in previous EU projects. There is also experience of collaboration within the network, which suggests a good level of partnership synergy. However, the complementarity of expertise is not explicitly revealed, and the distribution of tasks and responsibilities within the network seems unbalanced, in the sense that the main partner seems to be dominating the consortium.

The internal communication is well addressed, referring to the use of e-mails, phone conversation and meetings. External communication is not well elaborated: recipients of information are identified but channels are not specified and seem to basically involve standard passive communication tools (website, publications, workshops, …). Co-funding will be made visible and it is mentioned that reports will be sent to the Commission.

The budget is modest in relation to the aims and scope of the project, and fairly well balanced between the partners. Budget details are well specified but possibly some costs listed under

"other" should be in a different category. Salaries and travel costs are reasonable.




Total:


7

17

50

The project aims to improve the prevention of mental disorders and promote the mental health of children and youth by developing evidence based guidelines for early detection and treatment of mental health problems. While a guideline for treatment is not within the scope of the mental health programme, detecting mental health problems at an early stage contributes to the goals of the programme and has an added EU value. However, little information is provided on how the current project is builds on the existing evidence base and is complementary to ongoing projects in the field, and the transferability of the results is not explicitly addressed. As such, the objectives of the project to improve the practice of mental health promotion are not realistic. Moreover, the approach to developing guidelines is not well explained and does not involve state of the art methodology, while the evaluation, dissemination and management plan are not sufficiently well elaborated. The project does not reach the threshold of 15 points for technical quality and is therefore not recommended for funding.




No

0

0.00





101,207.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: RADONGAL



RESIDENTIAL RADON IN GALICIA (N.W. SPAIN) AND NORTH OF PORTUGAL.

01/01/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

UNIVERSIDADE DE SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA

USC

Public


Spain


ADMIMISTRACÂO REGIONAL DE SAÚDE DO NORTE,

INSTITUTO PUBLICO.

Acronym

ARSN-IP

1

City

PORTO

Country

Portugal


The present project is a cross-sectional study that will measure a total of 8.200 houses (4,000 in Spain and 4,200 in Portugal) with an approximately coverage of 6 million people and 60.000 km2, describing a high risk area and enabling preventive strategies through a solid methodology. Policy decisions on radon protection will be therefore supported by the Project’s results. The objective is to establish programs for measuring residential radon exposure in the general population and coordinate activities with different public administrations, private entities and professionals using as a starting point the results of the study on residential radon in the regions of Galicia (Northwest Spain) and Northern

Portugal. The study will start on January 1st, 2009 and will end on December 31st, 2011. Radon measurement will be performed with track-etch devices CR-39 placed in the main bedroom. Three months later the detector will be collected and sent to the Galician Radon Lab where it will be quantified. The location of the house with GPS will be registered. Definition and measurement of the variables: dependent variable: radon concentration seasonally adjusted. Independent variables: those affecting radon concentration; house structure, interior and exterior house materials, etc. This proposal fits in the Programme of Community Action in the Field of Public Health (2008-2013) in 3 branches: 1) PROMOTE

HEALTH (HP-2008) Improve the quality of physical environment and reduce accidents and injuries, but also: 2) IMPROVE CITIZEN'S HEALTH

SECURITY (HS-2008) and 3) GENERATE AND DISSEMINATE HEALTH INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE to the general population and the administration on a health-related problem and its possible solutions, informing about exposure prevalence and lung cancer mortality attributable to this exposure. The maps of radon exposure risk will translate this information in an understandable way to the citizen.

1





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

419 534

267 960

102 500

42 575

47 821

47 972

0

49 299

68 408

1 046 069

Incomes

626 535

419 534

0

0

0

1 046 069













Note

7

5

3

3

4

Comments

The project is very much focussed on information on radon concentration in homes in two regions in Spain and Portugal. This could help the local authority there to understand where actions are more needed. However the contribution to the public health programme could be limited in scope given the local focus of the proposal and the strong focus on the information aspects. Additionally the proposal looks more like a management programme than a programme to reduce exposure.

The project is expected to significantly contribute to mapping of radon in two regions in EU. This integrates well EU (JRC) and WHO activities on mapping of radon. Less with preventive and remedial measures for radon identified in the 2008 work plan. Indeed the proposal could be beneficial for the health of people leaving in these two regions, also taking into account the expected high concentration of radon in these areas. But as it stands the strategic relevance is limited, additionally there is little new knowledge expected on dose-response between risk factor and health outcome in this project due to selected study design.

Good complementarity with EU relevant policies; however the project is based on two neighbouring countries, regions; there are many regions in Europe where such a project would be relevant. Additionally the project could develop synergy with other ongoing initiatives on radon.

Added EU value is limited by the very small territorial coverage. Extrapolation to other EU MS is limited.

The project is run by the main partner and one associated partner. Coverage is very limited as the project is carried out in tow regions in Spain and Portugal. The applicant is encourage to search for partners also interested in this issue: more countries, more partners would make it much stronger and more relevant.

Social, cultural and political context contributes to risk perception and in such kind of studies as the proposed one to response rate. The applicants discuss the response rate issue several times across the proposal, but fail to acknowledge the role or risk perception and consequently social, cultural and political context in depth. The regional design do solve problem regarding social, cultural aspects. The political implications might be interesting since the awareness needs to be increased at the political arena.




22

Note

4




3

3

4

Comments

The project contributes with a measurement program. This is of course good but probably not enough to get action.

This is more a management programme the actual outcome raises some questions. The effectiveness of intervention measures should be discussed.

The very sensitive issue of treatment of 'abnormal' out of range data from individual homes is not treated. Confidentiality does not mean that residents who will realise that they are living in a

'hazardous' home will not react when told of their high exposure level and their higher risk to develop lung cancer.

In practice the aims and objectives are well defined but more detailed description of methods for assessment of variables influencing radon exposure would add to the project quality. Similarly, at least some information would be needed regarding health outcome data source and method of obtaining it. In general the process is not well described.

The authors do not compare themsleves directly with existing projects, activities while in other parts of the proposal they mention meta-analysis studies on the topic, hence there might be some overlap with other studies.

The innovation would built on risk communication better addressed but in the present form , this is too limited and not considered innovative because of its 'standard' nature

Very detailed evaluation plan. More structure would make it more clear (process versus project product evaluation). The project's specifications are easy to evaluate but will this lower exposure to radon?

The consequences of not reaching the objectives (which is a significant risk that has been identified as such by the partners) are not clearly addressed.



4




Very clear within the somewhat limited scope of the project. And again if the stakeholders have been properly identified, their inputs on both the implementation and the outcomes of the project are ot well taken into consideration.

In general, this is described as a one-way communication with a top-down approach




18

Note Comments






3

3

2

2

6

WP1 and WP2 are in fact the same; WP2 is the technical presentation of results of WP1. All of the deliverables are scheduled for M36.

WP4 is weakly described, it is not clear where and how do they get lung cancer data or other confounder data (smoking status).

Timetable is a list of items without clear time points; this might be linked to the lack of process evaluation mentioned earlier.

The utility of radon-maps is questionned as they doe not seem to have worked in other EU countries.

USC as main partner is responsible for everything within this project…the associated partner have little participation if any part in the in managerial part.

Although highly competent, the scope is limited and the relations with the other EU stakeholders should be developed.

The applicant does not seem to have reflected on the full implications of communicating the results. Management and communication of the findings will be a difficult task, the legal implications should also be addressed.

Unclear statements: the panel would have like to see justifications for buying two cars and two mobile phones. Management is costly and details should have been included.

The division between public/non public officials is not clear.



Total:





16

56

No

0

0.00

The programme addresses an important and relevant public health issue but the added value expected from an EU project should have been developed in terms of geographical coverage as well as in terms of the applicant communication strategy and risk assessment.0





101,209.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym:



HEalthy Lifestyle Pathways for Adolescents

05/01/2009

36

HELPA


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres - Landsbond van de Onafhankelijke Ziekenfondsen

MLOZ

Private


Belgium


Applied Logic Laboratory

Brand New Day

Centre d'Excellence en Technologies de l'Information et de la

Communication

DOXYS S.A.

European Food Information Council aisbl

Facultés Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix

Facultés Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix

Hamburg University of Applied Sciences - Hochschule für

Angewandte Wissenschaften Hamburg

Info Multi Services (Studio le Caillou)

Karolinska Institutet

OWM CZ Groep Zorgverzekeraar u.a

Research and Education Institute of Child Health

The University of Leeds

Universidad de Zaragoza

Université Lille 2 Droit et Santé

14

Acronym

ALL

BND

CETIC

DOXYS

EUFIC

FUNDP - CITA

FUNDP - CRID

HAW Hamburg

IMS

KI

OWM CZ

REF

The University of Leeds

UNIZAR

UL2

City

Budapest

Herent

Charleroi

Grez-Doiceau

Brussels

Namur

Namur

Hamburg

Paris

Stockholm

Tilburg

Stovolos

Leeds

Zaragoza

Lille

Country

Hungary

Belgium

Belgium

Belgium

Belgium

Belgium

Belgium

Germany

France

Sweden

Netherlands

Cyprus

United Kingdom

Spain

France

9






The aim of the HELPA project is to reduce the care costs of the increasing burden of weight-related problems, by organizing prevention and promoting healthy living in adolescents, especially in those who are socially disadvantaged. Specific attention will be given to adolescent's sphere of influence (parents, educators, carers). HELPA intends to develop a new prevention model of weight-related problems in adolescents, supported by technologies (decision making-tools that enable carers to propose to adolescents personalized lifestyle pathways supported by e-learning, e-coaching, video games).

With its multidisciplinary approach (economics, organization, law, ethics, health insurance) & the setting up of recommendations and guidelines, the project aims at sustainability & addresses the political stakeholders, providing them tools for building capacity for development & implementation of effective public health policies.

INNOVATION will lead us along the process though the METHODS (health management, personalized health pathways, new ways of reimbursement) & the TECHNOLOGIES. All are issues of STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE! By focusing on the use of technologies to help young people in self-managing their health, the results of HELPA will help fill the gap in evidence-based, interactive ehealth applications for children in the field of weight management.

Gathering partners already involved in European projects that address obesity at children or adolescents & used to work together, HELPA is the

BRIDGE between projects such as HELENA, IDEFICS, PRO CHILDREN-EYHS, EPODE European Network, etc.

Our main steps are: setting up the basis of the project & the horizontal measures that will contribute to sustainability and transferability; development of personalized health-pathways regarding the adolescent’s profiles; development of a technological “platform” that will support the

Health Model we’ll develop; giving the floor to the users within 2 pilots: France, Cyprus.

Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

190 008

3 149 321

119 350

108 000

34 500

24 400

84 900

73 197

264 859

4 048 535

Incomes

3 086 822

190 008

771 705

0

0

4 048 535













Note

6

5

5

4

4

Comments

The proposal is inline with the priorities of the PHP and the WP2008, addressing nutrition, obesity and adolescents.

Socially disadvantaged adolescents are mentioned are a target group, which is good, but then this is not further operationalized in the proposal

The involvement of the health insurance sector is a strategic plus, but unfortunately only in one country.

The proposal discusses its complementarity with other past/ongoing projects.

A "single prevention model" may not be feasible for the EU.

The initiative seems to build on clinical work already being undertaken by the partners, thus added value not clear.

The "reward" and "punishment" concept may not be applicable in countries where there is no social/health insurance.

There are several MS involved. The consortium is wide, which is good.

There is only 1 partner from Eastern Europe, more should have been included.

The involvement of 7 partners from BE is questioned.

The diversity is recognized, but it has not been described, how it would be taken care of in the activities.

The pilot study is only in 2 countries, which may not allow for taking social and cultural differences into account for a transferable, pan-European model. Consider to include more countries into the pilot study.




24

Note

2


4

Comments

The problem (adolescent obesity) has been defined, but no evidence has been provided regarding the actions to be carried out (e.g. behaviour change literature should have been mentioned).

No patient education / clinical models have been referenced i.e. there is no clear identification of a theoretical model of operation.

While other projects are cited, their findings have not been included in the reasoning.

There are a lot of research elements in this proposal – whereas community action is lacking.

The objectives have been formulated as SMART.

The target group is defined.

Focus groups or in-depth interview could be added in order to better get an idea of the needs of the target group.

It is questioned whether a web-based system is the most effective way to reach low socio-economic strata adolescents.

The work package descriptions are well formulated.

Piloting in only 2 countries is not enough.

The setting for the project has not been identified – where are the adolescents at risk identified.

What about stigmatisation (ethical issues to be discussed)?



4

3

The clinical work seems already ongoing, partly by the partners themselves. The part on adaptive e-learning is innovative and should be the focus.

While the HELENA study is mentioned, it would have been beneficial to build on its results – how is HELPA complementary?

It is mentioned that a detailed evaluation strategy will be set-up at the first meeting, but more information should have been given in the proposal already.

Some of the indicators are not relevant to the project e.g. care cost – to measure this, the project is too short. Measuring of behaviour change in the pilots may not be possibly due to the fact that they last only for 9 months.

The output indicators have been identified, but process indicators need to be added






5




Note

The users are involved in the dissemination, which is a plus.

One skilled, experienced partner is especially charged with dissemination.

Multiple channels are used.

Comments






4

4

4

4

5

Management structure has been well described.

Milestones are missing, as is the risk analysis.

Timetable seems appropriate.

The distribution of the tasks to the partners is not clear, but the tasks are outlined in a clear way.

The partners have complementary skills, coming from various sectors (academic, private, ICT).

Some partners have been involved in EU projects before, thus they are judged as being capable for managing such a project.

The partnership is extensive.

It is unclear if the consortium includes a partner which is a specialist in adaptive e-learning.

The synergy of the partners could have been better exploited.

Eastern European partners are missing.

The communication strategy seems adequate.

The budget is very high.

76% overall and 80% co-funding for some partners is request, but this request is not substantiated in the proposal.

Several public partners do not list public officials, which is questioned.

The staff seems to be over-budgeted (not more than 220 days / person / year possible).

How are the cost for the pilot calculated – some 600 000€ (workpackage 6), for pilots in 2 countries?

Catering cost may not be eligible, if covered through subsistence allowances.



Total:


21

63

The project is recommended for funding.

The project should take account of lessons learned from HELENA, IDEFICS, EPODE etc.

The project should focus on:

- specific objectives 3,6 and 7 i.e. development of personalized health pathways, the pilot test and the framework for a health care model. This should be preceded by a needs-assessment of the target group e.g. through focus groups.

The EU co-funding should not be more than 60%, the maximum amount is 1 000 000€.

More partners from Eastern Europe should be included (at least two).

A specialist in adaptive e-learning should be included in the consortium.

The roles of 7 partners from BE need to be well justified.


The project should take account of lessons learned from HELENA, IDEFICS, EPODE etc.

The project should focus on:

- specific objectives 3,6 and 7 i.e. development of personalized health pathways, the pilot test and the framework for a health care model. This should be preceded by a needs-assessment of the target group e.g. through focus groups.

The EU co-funding should not be more than 60%, the maximum amount is 1 000 000€.

More partners from Eastern Europe should be included (at least two).

A specialist in adaptive e-learning should be included in the consortium.

The roles of 7 partners from BE need to be well justified.




No

0

0.00





101,217.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: CEMI



”Citizens’ Empowerment monitoring and improvement”

01/10/2008

24


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Laziosanità Agenzia di Sanità Pubblica (Public Health Agency of Lazio Region)

ASP

Public


Italy


Forschungsinstitut des Wiener Roten Kreuzes

Institut für Soziale Infrastruktur, Dr. Karin Stiehr und Dr. Hannelore

Jani GbR

2

Acronym

FRK

ISIS

City

Vienna

Frankfurt am Main

Country

Austria

Germany

2


The general objective of the CEMI project is to promote empowerment among specific disadvantaged population groups (migrants and elderly) and to promote institutions’ competencies on issues relevant to citizens’ empowerment. A first research phase will consist of a legislation analysis and comparison of issues relevant to empowerment, in particular role and responsibility of mayors/administrators in citizens’ empowerment process will be defined. Analysis and comparison of health imaging evolution in participating member states (Italy , Austria,

Germany)will follow leading to the development of a self teaching multi media instrument focalized on empowerment issues. The expected outcomes (comparative report of legislation and health imaging relevant) will serve as solid background for the development of multi-target(elderly, migrant, mayors/administrators/consumers' association) courses to be implemented in the second part of the project.

Programs’ courses and media will be therefore tailored to national culture.Expected outcomes of course implementation phase is to increase knowledge about empowerment process in target groups and to bring political and administrative benefit enhancing accountability for empowerment oriented policies.

In line with the actions referred to in Article 2 of the Programme Decision, and the commitment in the EU Health Strategy (COM(2007) 630 final

White paper ‘Together for Health: A Strategic Approach for the EU 2008-2013) CEMI project work across sectors in improving health, by actions that have significant European added value in terms of the following areas: Contribution to improving the health of European citizens; Reducing health inequalities in and between EU Member States; Building capacity for development and implementation of effective public health policies particularly in areas of high need (elderly and migrants);Involvement of new (non-traditional) actors for health at local level and across participating countries.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

320 000

97 750

19 300

16 952

5 700

0

294 200

225 140

65 000

1 044 042

Incomes

625 742

320 000

98 300

0

0

1 044 042













Note

7

6

5

4

4

Comments

The project aims to perform a comparative analysis of participating Member States' empowerment legislation, define the role and responsibilities of mayors/administrators in citizen's empowerment processes, and develop courses on empowerment. As such, it addresses general objectives on promoting health of the health programme, whilst also acting on health inequalities, targeting elderly, migrants and other disempowered groups. By supporting the development and implementation of actions that foster empowerment it relates to the priority on public health capacity building (point 3.3.1) of the 2008 work programme, but it does not explicitly state how it will contribute to this priority.

The project will contribute to the knowledge base on empowerment and can lead to better approaches for patient empowerment, but the public health aspects of the proposal needs to be more spelled out. The historical research on imaging and analysis of legislation seems an interesting approach, but the starting ground needs to be better defined to see to what extent it contributes. The content of the multi target courses is not sufficiently specified, which reduces strategic relevance.

Due to a very narrow geographical coverage the project has a more regional than EU wide value.

It does not build on existing EU initiatives and the synergy with existing actions or policies in the

EU is not specified. Target groups (e.g. patient organisations) should be more actively involved.

The impact on the target groups and the transferability of effects can be assumed but is not made explicit.

The project is limited to organisations in Italy, Germany and Austria. Especially with regard to migrants other MS should be involved.

Empowerment should by definition take context into account. The adequacy of the envisaged actions with the social, cultural and political context is mentioned but only the analysis of the political context is developed in the proposal. Social and cultural context differences are a key element in addressing disadvantaged and disempowered, and should also be more elaborated.

Examples of citizen empowerment could be added to highlight what works and how the context is taken into account.




26

Note

3




3

3

4

Comments

It is argued that bottom-up approaches, empowerment and participation have become important paradigms in public health and need to be integrated into local, regional and national policies, but no references are given to support this. It is not explained why empowerment is valuable for public health, which approaches can be used for citizen empowerment, what works and how they can be implemented. As such, a justification for the proposed methodology not clearly given.

The general and specific objectives are well laid out but ambitious. The outcomes are not very clear. Target groups are not sufficiently defined and too broad, without making distinction between subgroups (elderly, migrants, …). Stakeholders should be more involved

The methodology is not sufficiently detailed. It is stated hat legislation will be analysed, historical healthcare imaging will be analysed and compared cross-nationally, and innovative teaching media and multi-target courses will be developed, but it is not specified how this will be done and by whom. There may be inconsistency between the method of using innovative teaching media and some target subgroup (e.g. migrants).

The idea to involve and empower citizens for health is valuable but not innovative. It relates to the health promotion principles as laid down in the Ottawa Charter and on principles and paradigms of community development and capacity building, but these approaches or initiatives which applied them are not mentioned and it is not specified how the project build on these paradigms, nor how it is different from them. The legislative analysis may be a new element.

The proposed evaluation strategy pays attention to both process and outcome evaluation, and indicators are specified for both. The outcome indicators are however very ambitious, and do not have sufficient external validity: they do not discriminate between changes due to the activities of the project and due to other events. In this way, the outcomes are unrealistic. There is no description of the way in which the indicators will be measured and how the data will be analysed.



3




The dissemination strategy is not really a strategy, but a list of action points. The usual channels will be used (reports, meetings, …), and a stakeholder analysis is foreseen but not yet specified so it is not guaranteed that the stakeholders will effectively be reached. Public events are scheduled to reach important target audiences but their content and character are not specified.

The time frame for the dissemination is fairly loose. Sustainability is considered but is not elaborated. Patient organisations should be involved to ensure sustainability of the outcomes.




16

Note Comments






3

3

2

3

5

A realistic schedule for the envisaged activities is presented, but more detail is needed on what exactly will be done. The distribution of tasks is not very clear. The organisation of the work mainly relies on scheduled meetings and reports. The division of the work into the five core work package is not very logical; each WP appears to develop courses independently. The risk analysis could be improved and should state better contingencies to deal with risks.

The organisation of the partnership and activities is explained but not very detailed, and mostly relies on meetings. Decision making processes and communication lines are explicit. The staff composition is interdisciplinary and appears to include the right capacities.

The consortium for this project is very small with only three partners. Key organisations in the field of empowerment and community development are not involved and stakeholder groups are not represented. Roles and responsibilities are well defined and complementarity and synergies can be assumed, but are not explicitly mentioned or outlined. It is not clear if these partners have already collaborated. The fact that a partner has withdrawn with no reason is bad sign. The partnership seems to be mostly main partner driven, which is also reflected in budget distribution.

Internal communication is clearly outlined with indication of channels (meetings, e-mail, phone) and arrangements.

For external communication a stakeholder analysis is foreseen but not specified. The usual channels will be used (reports, meetings, …). Public events are scheduled to reach important target audiences but their content and character are not specified. A detailed communication plan should be developed.

The overall budget (1.000.000 €) is too high for a 2 year project with a very limited number of partners, unclear objectives and insufficient specification of the actions that will be undertaken.

The distribution of the budget is not well balanced, as 80% of the budget will go to the main partner. Staff costs are exaggerated due to an unnecessarily high number of staff. Subcontracting costs are budgeted without explanation as to their purpose.



Total:


16

58

The project aims to address the priority on capacity building for public health in the 2008 work programme by supporting the development and implementation of actions that foster empowerment among disadvantaged groups, including elderly and migrants. The idea to involve and empower disadvantaged groups for health is valuable but not innovative, and while it addresses the general objective on promoting health of the health programme and also acts on health inequalities, it does not link up with a specific priority of the work plan 2008. It is unclear how the project differs from and adds to other initiatives for community empowerment and capacity building, as the general and specific objectives, the target group description and the methodology are not sufficiently well defined. The organisation and planning of the activities also remains too general. The consortium for this project is very small with only three partners, and does not include key organisations in the field of empowerment and community development or stakeholder groups. The budget is too high for a 2 year project with a very limited number of partners, unclear objectives and insufficient specification of the actions that will be undertaken.

The project does not reach the threshold for budget and financial planning and is therefore not recommended for funding.




No

0

0.00





101,220.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: COMSTRUC



Cooperation mechanism for the effective use of structural funds for health

01/01/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Maastricht University

UM

Public


Netherlands


ASSEMBLEE DES REGIONS D'EUROPE

EUROPEAN HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

European Health Property Network

Faculty of Public Health, Medical University - Sofia

Gesundheitsmanagement Burger-Wieland OG

HEALTH CLUSTERNET

Landesinstitut für Gesundheit und Arbeit des Landes

Nordrhein-Westfalen

REGIONE DEL VENETO

8

Acronym

ARE

EHMA

EuHPN

FPH

GM

HCN

LIGA.NRW

REGVEN

City

Strasbourg

Dublin

Utrecht

Sofia

Vienna

Peebles

Bielefeld

Venezia

Country

France

Ireland

Netherlands

Bulgaria

Austria

United Kingdom

Germany

Italy

8


COMSTRUC supports the innovative approach of using Structural Funds for health – and is targeted to fulfil the aim of doing this effectively.

COMSTRUC aims at building a cooperation mechanism with project partners and further key stakeholders to help Member States, regional and local authorities and actors to develop, apply and implement structural funds projects for health gain.

COMSTRUC fulfils the priority action 3.3.2 of the Work Plan 2008 that aims at reducing health inequalities in the EU. Furthermore, COMSTRUC addresses fundamental principles of “Together for Health” (e.g. Principle 2 “Health is the Greatest Wealth”). By using structural funds for health, the EU principle of “Health in all Policies” reaches a new dimension that will systematically be pursued by COMSTRUC, covering all EU regions with a specific focus on new MS. COMSTRUC serves the implementation and assurance of DG SANCO and DG REGIO policies.

By establishing the cooperation mechanism, COMSTRUC creates an overarching framework of specialist networks in the relevant fields to provide a reference and support network. To guarantee the effective counselling and empowering work of the cooperation mechanism beyond the running time of COMSTRUC, an Umbrella Organisation will be developed with the help of a Policy Implementation Group to coordinate actions in this field in the long run.

This cooperation mechanism delivers expertise and intelligence (inventory on existing information, analysis of potential stakeholder synergies, examples of good practice, guidebook, training) and makes enabling information available to regions, local authorities and other actors who potentially apply for and implement structural funds. Strategies and mechanisms will be developed, piloted and evaluated to improve the effectiveness of structural funds investment in reducing health inequalities and meeting Lisbon Agenda objectives.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

290 155

1 059 780

46 327

50 688

8 100

0

10 000

292 000

122 981

1 880 031

Incomes

1 118 869

290 155

471 007

0

0

1 880 031













Note

4

4

3

6

4

Comments

The proposal is in line with the objectives set by the Work Plan 2008, priority action 3.3.2 which identifies the need to reduce health inequalities within Member States. If the underlying objective is to provide a platform of access to information and sharing of knowledge on health gains by using Structural Funds, the proposed approach is fitting; however, there are doubts as to whether the chosen approach, of consolidation at the higher level (EU-wide) is the most relevant to the needs of the end-users who require very concrete answers to practical questions and not a simple exchange platform

The proposed cooperation mechanism has the ambition to consolidate existing knowledge in the management of SF for health and make such knowledge available to interested parties through a

"network of networks" approach.

Although the need is real, the description on how this will be achieved is not sufficiently clear, nor is the value of the activities foreseen in the project convincing: the core technical content for producing the required information is very weak and the networking-related parts of the proposal cannot by themselves ensure relevance

The impact to target groups is questionable and this despite the impressive networking capacities; it is not clear how the decision makers will be reached and if they are, how they relate to the content of work envisaged. Information on SFs and their use in the health sector exists: the project description and especially, the weaker, core-work related parts fail to demonstrate the way in which the project will build on the knowledge already acquired: not one single country which has extensively used Objective 1 FEDER funds in health is present in the partnership

Moreover, the project may adhere well to EU relevant policies, but how these will be promoted through the involvement of national/local stakeholders is not clear.

The coverage, if based on the number of the members of the participating networks is impressive, but how this type of membership will be consolidated to create impact and influence regional and local decision makers, is not evident.

While EU health policy and vision may be unique, the way this applies today to the European regions is very diverse. Interventions and the use of Structural Funds vary widely depending on local perceptions and priorities and often an apparent compliance to the regulations for funding does not reflect an actual aspiration and commitment. The project does not incorporate mechanisms for taking account of such local variations and misses the opportunity to reach out to such target groups in local settings.




21

Note

3




3

2

3

Comments

The evidence base as a rationale for intervention is clearly stated and the positive implications for regions outlined, even though facts and references are lacking (as if there has not been any impact assessment of SF activity). However, the evidence base of the actions proposed is very weak: the description on how the proposed measures will effectively address the problem is not clearly described. The project is a "network of networks" and is proposed on the assumption that centralized information on SF will be helpful to local/ regional applicants: this is very doubtful

There is an important discrepancy between the aims and objectives (clearly stated) and the technical content of the actions proposed which cannot deliver the expected results: The proposal lacks robustness of methodology and tends to remain at a theoretical level. This not proportionate to the urgency and the reality of the responsibilities that the national and regional authorities are encountering in making the best use of these funds. Networking and exchange by themselves are not enough, if they lack a clear "peer to peer" exchange mechanism, based on sound evidence to be shared.

Severe overlaps are identified with the EUREGIO III proposal, which are not justified; some parts of the proposal are even written in same language. In fact, the added value of this proposal as to the above stated one in terms of actual value to the target groups is very limited. In order to avoid overlaps, the panel has therefore decided to recommend a merger of activities into one single project base, on what it considers the technically more coherent project which is EUREGIO III.

Keeping the project on track is not an evaluation task, but rather a management function.

Indicators are not outcome oriented but limited to enumeration of events without any view to the quality of outcome versus identified expectations.



4




The participation of several EU networks is an asset for this project, provided that the strategy will focus on appropriately reaching relevant target audiences. It is not evident if such target groups are for example audiences of EHFG and other mentioned conferences. A more targeted strategy towards these specific target groups, as well as a more "peer to peer" level of exchange of information is needed.




15

Note Comments






3

2

4

3

6

Descriptions are general and the relevance of the activities planned within the project is not in line with the objectives: in short, the expected outcome is rated as very low. What is a stakeholder analysis and how does it contribute to the objectives of the project i.e., the good use of SF to the support of health policy and health gains? Where are these stakeholders? Who will be trained by whom and on what? How will the PI group relate to local policy makers and SF beneficiaries?

Based on the above, the panel recommends to keep only the following activities/ WPs, which should be merged to the related WP of EUREGIO III mentioned in the evaluation of that project:

WP1 on inventory of existing information and expertise can be accepted under the condition that the lead partner (EuHPN) can bring its experience in the field of health capital investment, planning and management and compliment the related HCN work in EUREGIO III (SF are still mostly about allocation of capital decisions); WP3 and WP4 are considered technically inadequate, overlapping with EUREGIO III and not recommended for funding. WP2 (Stakeholder conference) is recommended for funding together with WP 5, which needs to be significantly scaled down.

There is no description provided on the management structure, decision making monitoring and in general aspects of the management of the project and quality management of the project. The proposal fails to address the necessity of a strong communication component as a pre-requisite for the efficient functioning of such a complex network

The partnership represents a good mix of public bodies and organisations with a focus on resource planning in the health sector, while the significant number of collaborating organisations is also an advantage. This "network of networks" approach can be pertinent, even if in the current proposal lacks a substantial technical underpinning the proposed networking activities.

The project brings together several networks, but how they will meet under common objectives and a shared vision is not evident. There is a strong element of stakeholder involvement but there are no provisions on how to include end –users/ final beneficiaries of the SF, i.e., citizens and professionals.

The overall budget is very high with regards to the planned activities: the use of 3.847 person/ days or 17,5 FTE is really not justifiable, in view of the weaknesses underlined previously. There are also many issues with the detailed budget: travel budget is 100.000€ on top of the conference expenditure; the conference itself costs 210.000€, which is excessive; UM use of public officials is a disguised effort to subsidize the organization's current expenses: 244.000€ of public official time

(senior professors, financial manager and only one scientist) while with the co-funding it recruits a secretary for 330 days (totally unjustified): the submission of a project proposal is not intended to subsidize MS public institutions. GM has staff with no field profile, experience or tasks (Managing and Executive Director) for 500 person/ days; Under other costs: the Bad Gastein conference is included in the budget (under UM) with no reason; other conference related expenses amount to another 120.000€ (UM) and 50.000€ (EHMA).



Total:

18

54






No

0

0.00




The proposal suffers from a number of serious methodological weaknesses and an unsatisfactory level of structure and coherence of actions, making it doubtful that the project can achieve valid and pertinent objectives. Furthermore, the practice of linking the proposal to other proposals

(EUREGIO III) is considered extremely inappropriate; moreover so, since several parts of the two proposals are exactly the same, while same partners are involved in both.

In this sense the justification of two separate proposals is not convincing and the panel recommends a merger of activities, based on what it considers the technically more coherent project, which is EUREGIO III. It is under this condition that the panel retains the recommendation to fund certain, positively evaluated, activities of COMSTRUC.

General:

- The justification of two separate proposals is not convincing and the panel recommends a merger of activities, based on what it considers the technically more coherent project, which is

EUREGIO III. It is under this condition that the panel retains the recommendation to fund the following, positively evaluated, activities of COMSTRUC.

In specific WPs:

WP 1 - Inventory of existing information and expertise: accepted for funding if complementary approach to similar work in EUREGIO III and cost of related training material development

(250.000€)

WP 2 – Stakeholder conference -ok but scaled down to 120.000€

WP 3 – Analysis of synergies & cooperation between stakeholder and networks – not accepted; work on capacity building within SF users to be integrated in inventory work of both projects

WP 4 – Tools development and Implementation of targeted interventions – not accepted/ again related part to be integrated in training of combined projects

WP 5 – PI group and umbrella organization – activity accepted but cost 100.000€

WP 8, 9/ 10 – Coordination, dissemination and evaluation – not accepted. Budget allocated to these activities in EUREGIO III adequate

Total eligible costs: 470.000€





101,221.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym:



Fight to Obesity

19/01/2009

36

Fig.O.


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

CONSIGLIO NAZIONALE DELLE RICERCHE

CNR UPFC

Public


Italy


CITTA' DI GRUGLIASCO




European Medical Association

Federrazione Italiana Medici Pediatri

Acronym

GRUGLIASCO

CNR-IRPPS

CNR-ISA

CNR - ISOF

EMA

FIMP

4

City

Grugliasco (Torino)

Roma

Avellino

Bologna

Bruxelles

Roma

Country

Italy

Italy

Italy

Italy

Belgium

Italy


The project "Fig.O" intends to set out an integrated approach to contribute to reducing illnesses due to overweight and obesity. Unhealthy diets and lack of physical activity are the leading causes of avoidable illness and premature death in Europe, and the rising incidence of obesity is a major public health concern for the countries of the European Union. The project falls within the scope of 2008 Work Plan and the priority area dedicated to "Promote health", action 2.3 "Improving mental health and healthier living". Within this action, our network intends to present a project proposal on the action 3.3.3.4. as of 2008 WP "nutrition, overweight and obesity related health issues".The project has a strong strategic relevance because it addresses a gap between the known good practices, derived from scientific knowledge in medicine, and its real application in the health care and public information. Therefore, the approach of the project is to establish connections among different subjects: scientists in the field of nutrition and lipid-based diseases, also acting as divulgators of scientific formation and information, medical professionals and associations, young people as students of primary and high schools, teachers, mass media and science writers. Science has indicated several directions for medical care in the metabolic diseases, such as obesity, and its prevention, in particular with the so-called "personalized therapy", which addresses the problem of the individual conditions. The methodology chosen by the project brings a strong content of innovation in the dissemination of health information, because several subjects are involved in a multilevel organization; the participation of the community of

Grugliasco is important because this represents a starting point to tune all the activities and materials for information, as well dissemination strategy and communication tools, that will be reproducible in other interested communities in Europe.

2





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

1 906 540

866 800

126 600

122 360

17 000

3 500

438 200

66 500

234 500

3 782 000

Incomes

1 875 460

1 906 540

0

0

0

3 782 000
















Note

6

3

2

1

3

15

Note

2


3

Comments

The proposal addresses a priority of the WP2008, namely obesity prevention in children at local level.

The proposal brings together the involved stakeholders to act at community level against childhood obesity, but as it does not have European outreach, thus the relevance is low.

Existing knowledge and initiatives in the field have not been taken into account (e.g EPODE project).

The European value is very limited, as the project will only take place in Italy. No transfer to other

European countries is described. Disseminating the results at European level is not sufficient.

Only one country involved.

The project is probably adequate for the Italian population targeted. However, it is not discussed how it fits in the social, cultural and political context in Italy.

Also, the findings of this project are most likely not transferable to Europe as such.

Comments

The ongoing initiatives in this field are not cited.

Main barriers to childhood obesity prevention should have listed.

References are need to proof that the methods proposed will be effective.

The methods are not clearly described – the exact nature of the activities is unclear.

The target group is too broad. No specific goals have been defined.

The choice of one single Italian city is not discussed in a European context.



1

The innovative nature of this proposal is not clear.

No information provided on other, comparative activities.

The ideas presented are not new.

As other activities in this filed are not described, there is a risk of duplication.


1

2




Note

The evaluation strategy is no adequate to measure the process, output and outcome of the project.

The indicators are not measuring the project output/progress/outcome, but the actions within the project.

There may be a confusing between evaluating the project per se (e.g. the impact of the project) and evaluation activities within the project (survey).

The dissemination strategy involves the EMA, which is a plus, but the actions are not well described and are not innovative.

WP9 needs to be elaborated.

Comments









Total:





No

0

0.00

3

3

2

3

5




Most of the WPs are carried out by the main partner.

No milestones are listed.

The activities are divers and not clearly listed in a timetable.

The organization of the consortium is adequate and they seem capable to carry-out this project.

Partners with different skills are involved. Partners seem to have worked together before. Internal communication has been described.

The partners seem complimentary for the project, but it has no European dimension.

The responsibilities of each partner have been described, which is good.

The communication strategy has not clearly been defined.

EU co-funding needs to be made visible.

The overall budget is high and given the sub-national scale of the project not adequate for EU co-funding.

The budget is not balanced between partners.

100% (co-)funding from EC-sources is not possible (normally 60%, exceptionally 80%).

The person days seem to be overestimated (one person cannot work more than 220 days per year).

Number of trips should be revised.

16

40

While the project is generally in line with the priorities of the WP2008 of the PHP, the project is not recommended for funding.

The project tackles a very important topic: childhood prevention and aims to involve many local actors, which is a good strategy.

However, due to the (sub-)national nature it does have any European value.

The applicant may wish to seek collaboration with other, similar ongoing project in other European countries.

The methods are poorly described and need re-working.

The budget is not balanced and seems high.

The assessment of part A (policy) by a SANCO official (12+4 points) was presented to the external evaluators.

see conclusions





101,225.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:



RARE DISEASES REGISTER

01/10/2008

36

Acronym: RA.RE.


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Consorzio FOR.COM. Formazione per la Comunicazione

FOR.COM.

Public


Italy


Associazione “Naufraghi della vita” Onlus

ClinPol Research Sp. z o.o

EUROPEAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University of Bonn

Universidade Católica Portuguesa

5

Acronym

NA.VI.ONLUS

ClinPol

EMA

MOLDIAGN-UNIBONN

UCP

City

Rome

Sopot

Bruxelles

Bonn

Rio de Mouro

Country

Italy

Poland

Belgium

Germany

Portugal


The RA.RE. project aims at improving and disseminating information and knowledge on rare diseases (R.D.), developing a common platform shared by the consumers (patients and their families) and medicine practitioners. Actually, there is a lack of shared and agreed inventory of R.D.

and it is difficult to identify commonly planned and consumer oriented learning paths dealing with this subject. The project investigates on three

R.D. areas: improving codification and classification of R.D.in the context of the ICD-10 revision; developing and maintaining R.D. register and promoting information network. Consortium aims at collecting the data, analyzing them and developing the map of target group (WP 1), the map of the pathologies on R.D. investigated (WP 2); the map of the socio-health paths (WP 3); the Pilot RA.RE. diseases register (WP 4). It is foreseen the development of a model based on the predictive diagnostic approach to R.D. investigated. The pilot RA.RE. Diseases Register is necessary as step towards the realization of information and knowledge network involving both professional and not professional users. After the realizations of the abovementioned tools, the project organizes two different training courses addressed both professional and not professional users (WP 5). Training activities are constituted by workshops and e-learning courses. The RA.RE. project is consistent with HP and annual work plan because it contributes to protect and promote human health. It indicates a correct way to prevent the occurrences of disorders once the specific determinant is individuated. It supplies a common platform of knowledge shared by the consumers and doctors, also through specific training for physicians as front desk, direct, for the consumers: this will be time and money saving and will reduce stress factors.

5





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

447 956

29 400

24 216

20 367

4 200

56 600

49 470

44 251

676 460

Incomes

405 875

0

270 585

0

0

676 460












Note

4

5

5

5

Comments

The proposal fulfils the objectives of the Work Plan in General Objective 3.3.6 (Action on rare diseases) an specially the specific objective: development an maintenance of rare diseases registers an information networks in certain areas.

It addresses critical issues concerning provision of information to relevant stakeholders.

The idea of having a sort of common platform for rare diseases registers could be acceptable, but the implementation of the proposal is confuse and not concrete. When made into concrete plans, the project is very broad and lacks focus on groups of diseases.

Therefore the project is too ambitious and pretentious in relation to the real objectives and seems to be consistent with the annual WP only in wide terms

Rare diseases registration practices are one strategic objective for EC.

The project could be in line with the EU Commission strategy for developing systems based on existing infrastructures and agreements.

It could sketch out existing gaps of knowledge, but it seems to be unrealistic. It is not clear how a register could be the solution for a wide array of problems.

The idea of a rare diseases register that is spread across European area would provide tremendous value for EU. As well the project provides a unique method of capacity building concerning rare diseases, that is based on both consumer and provider input from other stakeholders.

There is a plan for making the results available throughout the EU.

However it seems to have a fair complementarity of medical and communication experts. The target group's impact is possible, but difficult to see. Also the sustainability is questionable, since there is a lack of focus.

This project involves members from the south, central and Eastern regions of Europe. However it includes only 5 countries, none from northern Europe and only one from the new MS's. In this sense the geographical coverage of areas is not enough.

Expertise in rare diseases and relevant project resources are not well spread across partners and countries.

A wider representation could have made the results more general for Europe.

This section was unclear and incoherent. It seems a methods section. Therefore the adequacy in a social, cultural or political context is not addressed and it is difficult to asses.

Here it would have relevant to take up the issue of why only 5 MS have been considered?





3

22

Note

4



2

3

Comments

The project provides a review and analysis of the problem. However in some ways it seems to be an unscientific approach to rare diseases patients and their problems. As well, it lacks reference to previous works done in this area, which could have further highlighted the need of the proposed project.

It is not clear how the project could impact on the evidence presented.

Aims and objectives have been defined. Some of the outcomes/deliverables have been delineated, but should be better specified. They look quite difficult to achieve.

The methodology, sampling, etc, as described, lacks clarity, coherence and quantitative applicability.

The sampling of professionals and no professionals and the use of public data bases for the purpose seems unclear.

The project currectly specifies practitioners and patients as important stakeholders in rare disease care. A "mapping" approach is outlined, but it is not well described and seems incapable of providing trusted information with reasonable coverage.

As well the sustainability and the applicability of the results to the whole EU should have been included.

The project does offer a novel approach in addressing the issue of rare diseases. The utilization of a consumer driven model (doctors/patients/stakeholders) might be an interesting approach.

However the applicants have not specified in which way their project is unique and has not made any attempt to investigate it. It is not clear whether authors have consulted existing project descriptions.

Due to the problematic project outline, the complementarity is hard to assess.

In some ways is likely an overlapping with Orphanet.




3

4




An evaluation strategy is in place along with indicators. The indicators are not sufficient specified and therefore not amenable in terms of measurability. More quantitative and qualitative indicators should be added

The proposal mentions use of checklists for evaluation and it is necessary further clarification

The external evaluation is not addressed.

Multifaceted approach including a Demo video about the project results. The dissemination strategy could be good.

However the expectations about economic exploitation appear unrealistic. Target groups, stakeholders analysis and key messages for dissemination should be specify.

A plan for the continuation of the register/map in the future should be added. It is necessary to assure the sustainability.




16

Note Comments






3

4

3

3

7

The organisation seems to have the capacity and the plan to deliver could be realistic.

However the work packages and task distribution are described in general terms, and the nature of some tasks seems to be partially unrealistic or unclear. Transferability to other regions is not addressed

The risk analysis is described in a very superficial way.

The organizational capacity and competence seems to be adequate. However the project coordinator appears experienced mainly in training and communication / engineering.

There is a lack of specific expertise on rare diseases and clinical background in most of the partners.

The organizations seem to have a capacity to work together and have a good complementary role towards each other.

The development of this network consortium lacks of reference to centres for rare diseases, e.g.

links to Orphanet. There is also no discussion of duplication of resources.

A communication strategy is in place, but it is a general description.

With reference to the internal communication: the channels chosen are adequate, but the frequency of communication is not specified. Also the decision making process is not described.

External communication via dissemination strategy could be successful. There is no mention of the visibility of EU co-funding

Overall the budget seems to be adequate or underestimated if the applicants really would achieve all the ambitious objectives proposed.

It looks reasonable and balanced between the partners, and in general. There are some exceptions: the other cost- especially for the associated partner EMA. The other cost of 14.000

seems to be excessive.

The salary of some staff participants should be checked.

In other hand the translation cost is underestimated

The financial planning seems to be appropriate.



Total:


20

58

This is a proposal that attempts to provide networking and support expertise on all rare diseases.

It is very ambitious and unrealistic. Taking in count the complexity of the proposal the partners have not specific expertise on rare diseases.

There is a lack of clarity in many proposal parts. The methodology, the tasks envisaged and the work packages are not well described, what place the technical quality of the project in the threshold.

The social, cultural and economic differences in member states are not addressed.

In particular WP 2 seems very ambitious and covers in itself a full research project. Genetic epidemiology approaches require major scientific input and expertise and are normally research projects, instead of Public Health ones.

Also the sustainability is questionable, since there is a lack of focus.



No

0










101,226.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym:



HIV as a workplace issue

01/01/2009

24

HIV WORK


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

HELLENIC CENTRE FOR DISEASES CONTROL AND PREVENTION

HCDCP

Public


Greece


Aids Coalition to Unleash Power ¿¿¿S¿ HELLAS

Associazione Nazionale Lotta AIDS - sez.Lombardia

CMT PROOPTIKI LTD CYPRUS

Medical University-Plovdiv

Sex Education Foundation

UNIVERSITA DI PERUGIA

Acronym

ACT UP

ANLAIDS

CMT

MU-PV

SEA

UNIPG

6

City

ATHENS

MILAN

Nicosia

Plovdic

Budapest

Perugia

Country

Greece

Italy

Cyprus

Bulgaria

Hungary

Italy


Approximately 33.2 million people worldwide now living with HIV/AIDS (AIDS epidemic update, UNAIDS, 2007), the majority of those infected are still working and in their most productive years (ages 15-49). AIDS is a workplace issue not only because it affects labor and productivity, but also because the workplace has a vital role to play in the wider struggle to limit the spread and effects of the epidemic. Nevertheless, the number of the companies that actually took action in the European Union remains low. Our project comes to fill a gap on this area by providing training in the scope to change the workers’ behaviors about HIV/AIDS in the participant European countries.

The project aims at raising public awareness about HIV/AIDS in the workplace, by developing, preparing and pilot testing a workplace educational program on HIV/AIDS. The assessment of existing legislation and practices on HIV/AIDS across Europe and the relevant recommendations for improvement will comprise the basis for the development of the HIV/AIDS training toolkit and module. A “train the trainers” workshop will take place during which the "peer educators" will become aware of several issues regarding HIV / AIDS and will work to acquire

“peer training” methodology. During the pilot-testing the education will be provided by "peer - educators", workers also themselves from pre-selected industries; worldwide, peer education is one of the most widely used strategies to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

Although the HIV educational programme will be pilot-tested only in the countries of the associates involved, the final outcome refers to the whole European Region as it will be based on the findings and results on the legislative and practice norms report on “HIV in the workplace” across the entire EU.

5





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

388 250

13 800

11 054

0

0

110 000

125 225

45 378

693 707

Incomes

416 223

0

277 484

0

0

693 707













Note

5

4

4

4

3

Comments

The project is partially in the line with WP 2008, addressing HIV as a workplace issue. It proposes the analysis of the HIV legislation in several countries, addressing social rights and developing a toolkit as objectives. The development of training and educational programs is considered adequate. The project is in line with Commission's initiatives including the HIV action plan.

However it was considered out of the scope of the WP 2008, when it addresses only partially the general population and does not make reference to the work already done in the field.

The project may have a certain impact on the dissemination of knowledge and may contribute to a decreased stigmatisation of HIV as disease in a workplace environment. The workplace environment could be considered as a new sector for actions to prevent HIV/AIDS; however there are large programmes that are known, especially in the Eastern countries. In general the proposal does not present the relevance of the intervention, there is no analysis of the current situation and does not specify which the needs are.

Similar programs and projects are already realised e.g. by ILO, UNAIDS or large multinational economic operators. The EU added value is not evident. There is no description of the synergies with the existing initiatives at international level. There is no definition of expected outcomes or long term effects.

The partners involved was considered limited, and the local context was not described sufficiently.

The criteria of selection of associated partners were missed and the partnership was considered unbalanced, even tough their similarity of expertise was recognised by the panel. Need to include more evidence of the target population. The clustering of countries which will be covered by the partners was not sufficiently explained.

The proposal addresses this point in a very generic way, referring to the charter on fundamental rights and general principles of ethics. The adequacy for the social, cultural and political context was addressed superficially.




20

Note

3


3

Comments

Considered too general, no indication of the assessment of the effectiveness, or applicability of the interventions proposed. Some of the references were directly identifiable as related to the work developed by ILO.

Considered too general, without indication of the target group, and how they will be reached. The situation analysis providing more information on the countries involved was missing. ILO has already developed the handbook on good practices and a toolkit, which might be adaptable to the

EU context.



2

It has been considered that the proposal lacks innovation, as it duplicates ILO activities, without clear explanation of the efforts to complement existing initiatives. Several of the deliverables exist already for other countries.


5

4

The evaluation strategy was considered adequate, covering qualitative and quantitative aspects of the action.

The dissemination plan is well described, but there is no precision how many newsletters would be produced, how many participants will be involved, etc. There are some clear dissemination activities related to the training material which will be produced, but lacking precision on the quantitative aspects, like the number of languages for translation of the outputs.




17

Note Comments









Total:





No

0

0.00

2

3

3

4

4




The timetable was considered adequate, but the timeframe is not consistent between the outcome/deliverables tables and the timeline. There was confusion about the numbering of the workpackages

Positive assessment with well described management structure. However there was not sufficient description of the partner's role, or ways of ensuring internal communication. There is no clear definition of the expected results of the different types of meetings, as steering committee or collaborating meeting

The role of the partners is not well defined.

It was considered well described, including the use of the website and production of brochures, but not sufficiently targeted.

In general the budget was considered overestimated for the type of intervention.

The budget for the training and conference was considered inconsistent, and the main beneficiary budget was considered excessive. Further, the travels cost prevision is unbalanced between the partners. The 'other cost' was considered high, without precision of the details.

16

53

The proposal's methods are not considered sufficiently described to allow the achievement of the objectives. It is not considered innovative, even when it partially addresses one of the priorities of the WP 2008, but will benefit from one in depth assessment of the needs, and the definition how the needs could be reached for specific groups. The preliminary analysis of the actual situation of

HIV at workplace should have been included in the methods; this study could have supported the identification of the existing evidence, the potential benefits and the existing knowledge on the topic. The proposal's methods are not considered sufficiently described to allow the achievement of the objectives. The preliminary analysis of the actual situation of HIV at workplace should have been included in the methods; this study could have supported the identification of the existing evidence, the potential benefits and the existing knowledge on the topic. It is not considered innovative, even when it partially addresses one of the priorities of the WP 2008. It will benefit from an in depth assessment of the needs, and the definition how the needs could be reached for specific groups. In general the budget was considered overestimated for the type of intervention.

The budget for the training and conference was considered inconsistent, and the main beneficiary's budget was considered excessive. Further, the travels cost prevision is unbalanced between the partners. The 'other cost' was considered high, without presentation of the details.





101,229.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: KoPAM



Promoting Knowledge and Prevention on Alcohol Misuse among Elderly People

01/01/2009

30


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

CONSORZIO FRA COOPERATIVE SOCIALI ELPENDU' S.c.r.l.

ELPENDU'

Private


Italy


DIPARTIMENTO DI PSICOLOGIA, UNIVERSITA' DEGLI STUDI DI

BARI

ESCOOP - European Social Cooperative - Cooperativa Sociale

Europea sce

Kemi-Tornio University of Applied Sciences

OBCIANSKE ZDRUŽENIE MAJÁK

SAVOIR ET COMPETENCE FORMATION

The Joint Municipal Authority of Health Care in Raahe area

UMR7043 Laboratoire Cultures et Sociétés en Europe

7

Acronym

PSICOUNIBA

ESCOOP

KTUAS

MAJAK o. z.

SCF

Raahe Health Area

LCSE

City

BARI

Mola di Bari (BA)

Kemi

Zlaté Moravce

Strasbourg

Raahe

Strasbourg

Country

Italy

Italy

Finland

Slovakia

France

Finland

France


General Objective: The KoPAM project should promote the development of successful strategies for prevention and reduction of the risk factors bringing to the abuse of alcohol by elderly people. In particular, the project will promote the elderly well-being at two prevention levels, that is:

1) Primary prevention. It avoids the development of the abuse. The instruments will be a population-based health promotion activities.

2) Secondary prevention. These activities are aimed at early misuse detection, thereby increasing opportunities for interventions to prevent progression of the misuse to abuse.

Strategic relevance and contribution to the programme: The strategic importance of the project is aimed at producing an increase in knowledge on alcohol abuse with positive effects on the health of elderly people. The project is proposed to pursue the goals of health promotion, prevention of alcohol-related disorders, improved quality of life. At the European transnational level, the project is going to carry out the same actions and activities in the various countries involved in order to obtain common and shared results. Finally, the consolidated organizational structure allows the partners to ensure sustainability of the project.

Methods and means: KoPAM Project is divided into three main parts:

1) Quasi-experimental research on psychological and psycho-social predictors of the alcohol abuse and misuse.

2) Guidelines on alcohol abuse prevention

3) Prevention activities

Expected outcome: Research protocols, Final research reports, Guidelines spreading shared knowledge and good practices, Social communication campaign to promote awareness in relation to risks linked to alcohol abuse and misuse, Trained elderly opinion leader, also in a gender-related perspective (female alcoholism), Awareness on topics of alcohol abuse and misuse on the job, especially with workers who approach retirement, in public and private enterprises, Widepsread dissemination at the European level.

4





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

190 000

311 600

56 000

61 200

37 850

34 200

207 200

54 000

47 950

1 000 000

Incomes

600 000

190 000

210 000

0

0

1 000 000










Note

5

4


3

Comments

The project can contribute to the second Programme and its 2008 WP. It also supports implementation of the EU alcohol strategy in its tempt to prevent alcohol abuse in elderly.

However there are concerns that the activities proposed will have limited impact on the target's group health/risk reduction.

On the one hand, this project tries to be a research project, assessing by experimental research, psychological predictions of misuse.

On the other, it wants to focus on population based prevention and individual prevention for those with high risk.

Although all these activities might contribute to knowledge and could have implication for health, however the state of the art should have bee better acknowledge as well as further expanding of the actual impact on the target group's health in order to better assess this point.

The study is considered relevant but it does not seem to bring much added value at EU level; it might have local impact but not EU scope. Additionally it relies on the 'EU cooperation factor' as guarantee that experiences will be shared and on the multiplier effect but neither is planned. The reference to the state of the art is missing; they should have build up from there. Linkage to other platforms should have been necessary.

As a note: Campaigns can only have on EU added value if they are developed to work at the EU level


4

The project has limited partners and no collaborating partners (and only Slovakia from EU 10). It intends to develop country tailored programmes which gives an impression that working at EU level would not increase the project impact on health. Nothen countries should have been included to foster exchange of experiences.





4

20

Note

2






3

3

2

3

13

The project acknowledges cultural and others differences and foresees to be country tailored.

However, no actions are foreseen to cope with the different contexts.

Comments

The evidence base proposed is a problem analysis but lacks details and references; the applicability of results is unclear as it is the nature of the results. Additionally the effectiveness and applicability of proposed measures has not been discussed.

The evidence shows that the most potential actor in dealing with assessing drinking in elderly population is primary health care. Investing in primary care is one of the most effective actions in the field of alcohol.

The target group is a priority of action at EU Level but methods, the sequence and the logic of this project is unclear; additionally the effects and outcomes difficult to predict.

The research does not link to the risk awareness campaings, which could be effective if linked to actions like promotion of interventions in primary health care. The role of the elderly opinion leaders is not clear.

The applicant claims to be innovative in the establishment of cross culture perspective thought the

'sharing of the topic' but this is unclear. An element of novelty could be the intervention to reach old people through younger relatives- however the activities do not pick up on this intervention.

A note is made on the fact that the research part – quasi experimental - is perhaps innovation in this area however is does not completely fit this call.

Evaluation plan exists pre and post implementation assessment foreseen however the applicant do not specify how the data will be collected.

It proposes the establishment of public relations and dissemination office and active PR to include other network and bodies from other countries. However, the purpose is unclear.








Note

3





2

3

3

5

Comments

The sequence of the actions should have been better structured as the elements lack interconnections. The risk analysis could be subject to criticism due to only mentioning the potential risk of lack of participation of elderly, but not providing solutions how would the project team will deal with it.

The management structure has not been clearly defined and some questions arise i.e.:

What bodies involving all partners? How many with what responsibilities.

Communication based on use of electronic. Experimental but not defined.

Is there a kick of meeting? Other meetings?

Partnership appears not to have been well planned prior to present this application; it relies on '

EU cooperation factor to share experiences' but the concept is unclear'.

Potentials for synergy and complementarily are not investigated.

The communication strategy is a bit too much based on brochures, leaflets.. it should be more of media tools, and target also social and health workers, not only the main target group (elderly)those, were the problem starts and those who should deal with the problem.

The project partners are likely to meet at planned conferences however the detail of these is not defined

There salary cost seems to be overestimated. Equipment cost could be discussed as well; subcontracting is definitely high and raises the question why do the partners need researches as subcontractors.

The need of equipment should be first assessed in each organisation. Same apples to office furniture? And software.

The total budget will need revision.



Total:


16

49

Although the activities proposed might contribute to the existing knowledge and could have implication for health, the state of the art should have bee better acknowledged as well as the actual impact on the target group's health. The actual scope would have also needed to be clarified.

The quasi-research proposed in this application might be of an interest but should compete for funding at DG Research.

The communication strategy needs improvement as well as the overall budget.




No

0

0.00





101,232.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: PROHEALTH



Promoting Health in All Policies - Capacity Building to Encourage Integration of Setting-oriented Health Promotion

Strategies

01/11/2008

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

BGZ Berliner Gesellschaft für internationale Zusammenarbeit mbH

BGZ

Private


Germany


Assessorato del Lavoro, della Previdenza Sociale

ASSOCIAÇÃO REGIONAL DE REABILITAÇÃO E INTEGRAÇÃO

SOCIOCULTURAL DOS AÇORES

Berlin School of Public Health an der Charité

Bezirksamt Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg von Berlin

Direcção Regional da Saúde

Gesundheit Berlin e.V., Landesarbeitsgemeinschaft für

Gesundheitsförderung

Helmut Schmidt-Universität Hamburg

Italia Lavoro Sicilia Spa / Italy Work Sicily joint-stock company

Mainstreaming Agenda

Marselisborg Centret - Center for Folkesundhed / Region

Midtrjylland

Országos Egészségfejlesztési Intézet (National Institute for Health

Development)

Senatsverwaltung für Gesundheit, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz des Landes Berlin

Statni zdravotni ustav (The National Institute of Public Health)

Trivselsgruppen A/S

Trnava University Trnavská Univerzita, Fakulta zdravotníctva a sociálnej práce

Universidade dos Açores (Azores University)

ZEBRA – Intercultural Centre of Counselling and Therapy

17

Acronym

AdL

ARRISCA

BSPH

BA Fhain-Kbrg

DRS

GesBln

HSU HH

ILS

MA

MC

OEFI / NIHD

SenGUV

SZU/NIPH

TG

TU, FZSP

U.Aç

ZEBRA

City

Palermo

PONTA DELGADA

Berlin

Berlin

Angra do Heroísmo

Berlin

Hamburg

Palermo

Palermo

Århus

Budapest

Berlin

Prague

Silkeborg

Trnava

Ponta Delgada

Graz

Country

Italy

Portugal

Germany

Germany

Portugal

Germany

Germany

Italy

Italy

Denmark

Hungary

Germany

Czech Republic

Denmark

Slovakia

Portugal

Austria

8






"ProHealth" AIMS at reducing health inequalities through capacity building across diverse policy areas-to integrate health promotion into strategies, addressing socially disadvantaged people. PROJECT ACTIVITIES comprise identifying, systematising, transferring, adjusting & applying Good Practice of setting-oriented policy approaches. Health promotion strategies are tested in pilots – aimed at integrating health promotion into different policy areas (incl. advice & training for actors), accompanied by awareness-raising (expert talks, workshops, conferences) for decision-makers. Finally, the effects are evaluated and recommendations on applicability of strategies in specific settings are given – to encourage further development of HIAP-Processes across EU. Focus is on piloting of strategies at community level in practice.

This RESULTS in transferable & setting-oriented Good Practice of health promotion approaches (tested in pilots), increased awareness of decision-makers and improved capacities to implement health promotion in other policy areas. The findings/results are documented in manuals, guidelines & recommendations – providing assistance of how to foster setting-oriented use, finally leading to better accessibility & acceptance of health promotion offers among disadvantaged. A platform for dissemination & exchange is available, horizontal cross-linking improved & networks strengthened.

A strong partnership - bringing together 8 countries – is built to reach EU dimension, encourage transnational solutions, foster transfer & cooperation to reduce inequalities, thus contributing to EU-HIAP strategies. Outcomes are made sustainable through availability of resources, transferable solutions, multi-stakeholder engagements, improved capacities of actors & empowerment of disadvantaged. Results have

STRATEGIC RELEVANCE for formulating national development objectives & policies, influencing EU-policies, filling the HIAP-goals with life & putting intentions into practice.

Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

404 906

646 795

37 360

60 866

0

1 920

55 880

43 100

87 558

1 338 385

Incomes

803 032

404 906

130 447

0

0

1 338 385









Note

4





3

3

6

3

Comments

The project identifies itself as contributing to capacity building, health promotion and the reduction of health inequalities, and refers to health in al policies. Its aims are in line with the objectives of the Work Plan relating to capacity building, but it lacks detail on how it will specifically address capacity in countries with a high need and presents insufficient detail on how it builds on existing settings based initiatives for health promotion. On account of the unspecific nature of the objectives and actions it unlikely that the project will contribute to the health programme.

The project does not relate adequately to other initiatives on settings based approaches in health promotion (e.g., Schools for Health in Europe and European Network for Workplace Health

Promotion) or health in all policies, and does not identify which gaps in the existing knowledge it will fill. As such it is not clear in which way it will advance the public health knowledge base, contribute to EU policies, or contribute to the health of EU citizens.

An EU added value could be expected in the transfer of good practices and exchange between experts from different MS and between policy areas. However, the long term effects of such exchanges seem limited, and the reproducibility and transferability of the effects are not addressed. No significant impact on EU policy making is to be expected. The project therefore has little EU added value, although it would probably be of value for the participants.

The project has a good coverage in terms of geographical diversity of the EU. Through its associated and collaborating partners it covers all regions of EU in terms of geography and health promotion structures, although it is not exhaustive. While among the associated partners each country is represented by several organisations, it would make more sense to extend the number of countries represented in the project.

The focus of the project is on disadvantaged groups, but the target population is ill defined as no specific disadvantaged groups are targeted. Although migrants are explicitly mentioned, this group are not explicitly addressed. A link is made with poverty but this is not elaborated or clarified. It remains unclear how actions will have an impact on target groups. The policy context is also presented in a very unspecific manner and is not sufficiently focused.




19

Note

3



2

2

Comments

Evidence is provided for the unequal health burden and inequality of health risks both within and between EU MS, with links to explanatory models. The need to address the health needs of disadvantaged groups is acknowledged, as well as the difficulty to reach these groups, but the outline remains too general. No data are presented on good health promotion practices or on the impact and applicability of the measures proposed in this project.

The general aim – to reduce health inequalities and integrate strategies in other policy areas - is too ambitious and too broad. A focus on reducing health inequalities is claimed, but how this will be achieved remains obscure. The project seems mostly concerned with building capacities for settings based health promotion and for health in all policies. The specific objectives are not clearly formulated and not SMART enough. Some of the deliverables are confused with outcomes

(e.g., decision makers understand relations) or have a very unclear nature (e.g., concepts/guidelines).

The target group is widely defined as vulnerable populations, including migrants and others, and is not well detailed or defined. The target groups are not involved.

The methods are not described in sufficient detail to know what exactly is envisaged, what the expected outcomes are and how they will be achieved. The empowerment concept is mentioned but not defined. Good practices will be analyzed, but it is not defined what will count as "good practices" and to which area of health promotion they refer.

The applicant makes a case for the innovativeness of the project, but health promotion focusing on vulnerable groups or using a settings based approach and linking to other sectors is not innovative in itself. No state of the art is given of other related initiatives, so the complementarity with what already exists cannot be inferred. As the settings approach is widely applied and no reference is made to other initiatives or networks duplication cannot be excluded. Links and synergies could be established during the project but it is not clear to what extent this would produce measurable progress towards the end of the project.




4

3




Evaluation is described as a part of quality management and applying mostly qualitative methods for process and output (product) evaluation. External advice foreseen which will add objectivity.

Indicators have been defined for each objective and presented in WP10, but these are more to be regarded evaluation questions, the measurement of which is not specified. Outcome evaluation is not foreseen.

Dissemination is described, listing the usual channels (website, publications, discussions with policy makers, etc.). However, this dissemination does not represent a coherent strategy but rather a mix of methods to reach target audiences, without reference to a systematic stakeholder or target group analysis or specification of the key messages. The sustainability and transferability of the project outcomes is not addressed.




14

Note Comments






3

3

3

3

6

The timetable is provided and is sufficiently detailed and realistic, but milestones could be more systematically specified and better linked to the objectives and deliverables. Deliverables should be more specific.

Four work packages have been specified but no rationale is given to divide the work into these work packages. The distribution of tasks is not adequate: two partners will be in charge of all work packages.

The lead organisation has experience with project management, including international multi-partner projects, and several of the associated partners also have experience. The staff

CV's suggest a high level of capacity. However, the organisational management is not sufficiently outlined, despite reference to cooperation agreement between the partners. Procedures for decision making, planning, supervision, and internal communication should be presented in more detailed.

The consortium consists of 18 partners representing different types of organisations and capacities, but the complementarity and synergies within the partnership are not outlined, and the partnership composition is not HP problem solving based. Key players in settings based health promotion and stakeholders working with disadvantaged populations are not represented in the partnership. No network structure is in place. The responsibilities in the consortium will be laid out in cooperation agreements, which will provide clarity. However, the distribution of tasks is unbalanced, with too many work packages assigned to the main partner.

Internal communication should be presented in more detailed.

External communication is addressed but no elaborated communication plan or strategy is provided. The traditional communication channels such as website, publications, and meetings with policy makers are foreseen but the selection of these channels is not based on a systematic stakeholder or target group analysis. Key messages are not specified. Publication in peer review journals should be envisaged.

The total budget (1.400.000 €) and the requested co-funding (800.000 €) are high for a project with limited strategic and EU added value. The budget is unbalanced and very heavy on staff costs (1.000.000 €). Subcontracting costs are also relatively high and not well justified. Financial reporting procedures are mentioned in the proposal but are not very clear.



Total:


18

51

This project aims to reduce health inequalities and integrate health promotion strategies in other policy areas. While it addresses an important issue with relevance to the Health Programme, it is too wide and ambitious in terms of scope and objectives and too unspecific in terms of target groups, envisaged activities and methodology to contribute to priorities in the 2008 Work Plan and to add to the public health knowledge base or advance EU policies. The project therefore has limited EU added value. While submitted by a strong and well organised consortium with sufficient capacity, the project does not sufficiently relate to other initiatives on settings based approaches in health promotion and health in all policies, and provides insufficient specificity of the planning, method, evaluation and dissemination strategy. The proposal does not reach the threshold for policy and contextual relevance and for technical quality, and is therefore not recommended for funding.



No

0










101,234.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym:



Teaching an Active and Healthy Lifestyle

01/09/2008

36

TAHL


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Hanzehogeschool Groningen

HG

Public


Netherlands


HAAGA-HELIA University of Applied Sciences

Katholieke Hogeschool Leuven

Universidade do Porto

University of Worcester

Acronym

HH

KHL

UP

UW

4

City

Vierumäki

Leuven

Porto

Worcester

Country

Finland

Belgium

Portugal

United Kingdom

4


Overall objective: combating obesity and promoting a healthy lifestyle in children

Relevance for, and contribution to, the Public Health programme: the project is about the development of an integrated methodology for behavioral change in children towards a healthy lifestyle - food (habits) and physical activity.

Methods:

1. Survey of existing models and approaches in the field of a healthy lifestyle.

2. Evaluation and extracting good practices from the survey, resulting in a TAHL toolkit (Teaching an Active and Healthy Lifestyle).

3. Description of the new integrative TAHL model in Physical- and Teacher Education and study programmes in Health/Nutrition.

4. Try out of the TAHL method at primary schools and local health agencies.

5. Finalization of the TAHL method/toolkit.

6. Developing and implementing study material in Physical- and Teacher Education, and in study programmes in Health/Nutrition.

7. Presenting the outcomes of the project in such a way that it can be used by other universities and health agencies as well, disseminating the results within broader European (umbrella) organizations.

8. Concluding symposium on Childhood Obesity and Teaching an Active and Healthy Lifestyle.

Project outcomes:

1. A toolkit (and manual) for promoting behavioral change of children towards a healthy lifestyle in (school) practice.

2. Study material for the study programmes in Health/Nutrition and Physical- and Teacher Education on how to stimulate a healthy lifestyle in children.

3. Concluding symposium.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

1 610 400

26 500

53 760

8 000

0

90 000

15 000

126 254

1 929 914

Incomes

1 157 947

0

771 967

0

0

1 929 914











Note

6

4

3


3





3

19

Note

3

Comments

The project fits with the WP2008 as it looks at life-skills training in primary schools.

It could be said to deliver on the strategic relevance and the outline clearly identifies where it can do this, integration, focus on children and young people etc.

Transferability is challenged.

Value to EU MS not involved in the project is questioned.

TAHL could deliver on the added value if the number and spread of countries was expanded; the current focus on Western Europe is unwarranted.

The important point about the need for a flexible approach leaving room for adaptations is made but it would have added value if the countries involved were expanded.

5 MS are part of the consortium but no Eastern European countries. These should have been added. Even though it is aims to reach "all of Europe" via dissemination, much better value can be added if partner from other countries would be included.

It is not clear how inequalities will be addressed.

It would have been important to discuss cultural and political issues around implementation of the tool-kit into the existing curricula.




3

3

3

Comments

The evidence base is detailed; however, the links between the US example and how it may fit to the European context are not discussed.

A good analysis and setting out of the problem has been done but some of the issues are not picked up again in the work-packages.

The target group would need to be better specified.

The content of the tool-kit needs to be specified in a more comprehensive way.

No needs analysis from the perspective of the children.

It is not clear how many schools will be reached.

The non-duplication with HEPS is addressed, but how TAHL is different has not been clearly addressed and its added value explained.

There is a risk of TAHL overlapping with many national initiatives.

It is not clear how individual countries who might take this up could promote it from a policy perspective - guidance on this would be needed.

Could it displace existing programmes? (to be discussed in the risk analysis)

There seems to be confusion between research and evaluation.

The process of the project is not evaluated.

The indicators are mainly looking at project output.

The indicator about project implementation seems vague.

The deliverables of work-package 10 belongs to work-package 9.

Many tools and channels have been mentioned, but it seems passive with regard to the aim to disseminating the tool-kit widely.





4

16

Note Comments









Total:





No

0

0.00

3

4

2

3

4




The main partner leads all the work-packages – this could be better distributed among the partners.

Key deliverables, nature and distribution of tasks are set out but inflated in the number of hours, time required and the cost.

Timescale is too long.

Good demonstration of capacity to deliver.

The roles and responsibilities are not distributed among the partners. Partners from Eastern

Europe are missing in order to assure cultural adaptation of the kit.

The channels are adequate.

The overall budget is too high.

Work-package 1 is too costly.

The number of days for staff seems inflated. Also, if the work is being carried-out by students, why are the person days calculated for professors?

As the partners are public, why are there no public officials listed?

16

51


The project does not meet the threshold of 20 points in block A.

It is a resubmission from last year, but it seems that many of the comments provided have not been taken on.

Partners from Eastern Europe are still missing.

The budget seems inflated.


see conclusions





101,240.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: SCOP.PE



Sustain Child Obesity Prevention through Policy and Education

01/01/2009

24


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

P.A.U. EDUCATION S.L.

P.A.U.

Private


Spain


ABCittà società cooperativa sociale ONLUS

Hungarian Association of Healthy Cities

School of Education, University of Aarhus

University of Hull

4

Acronym

ABC

HAHC

DPU

UHull

City

Milan

Pécs

Copenhagen NV

Hull

Country

Italy

Hungary

Denmark

United Kingdom

4


The project is a direct response to the lack of effectiveness of child obesity prevention programmes. It is targeted at policy-makers to create new capacity bases at the local level and contribute to the exchange of good practices European-wide. It involves professionals from research, training and community-building fields in order to create new knowledge bases on school-community cooperation for child obesity prevention. It focuses on immediate action through capacity-building seminars, to take place all over Europe and involve policy-makers who are active in the field of child obesity prevention and who work in education, health or mobility departments. It makes continuous use of new technology to promote the creation of communities of practice. It includes a policy dimension, creating discussion fora on curricular issues with national authorities and on future master’s programmes in health education with university networks.

Recent research on child obesity prevention schemes suggests that it is of vital importance that children and young people explore and reflect upon the ways in which living conditions, surrounding environment and society affect their health and lifestyle choices. The key element is for young people to cooperate with adults in the local community to take action and influence the determinants that affect health and wellbeing. The

SCOP.PE project builds upon this innovative research, its results and its methods and is targeted at the policymakers in order to make their decisions more effective. It will create a unique and constantly updated knowledge base on the issue.

The project conceptualises new knowledge bases, addresses several target groups and involves them in different types of capacity-building activities that are scaled up in order to design a consistent and progressive intervention scheme reaching the widest possible audience at the end of two years.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

105 600

1 102 679

44 500

28 768

0

0

57 800

136 230

103 288

1 578 865

Incomes

947 317

105 600

525 948

0

0

1 578 865












Note

7

6

5

5





5

28

Note

Comments

This project is in line with the WP2008 – looking at childhood obesity prevention and schools, a specific priority.

The project builds on the SHAPE UP project, currently managed by the same partners.

The project should look beyond the education sector.

Difference to existing knowledge should have been explained.

Possibility to be sustainable since policy makers will be involved, also possible impact on policy development.

Emphasis is on capacity building – implications for health are not clear.

There is a doubt that a "one model fits all" solution can be found.

Broader issues in public health and the build environment need to be addressed as well, beyond the education sector.

It is not clearly identified how the project adds to the PHP or what is new or different.

It focuses on the local level at the expense of regional/national policy development.

Continuing value (beyond project time) only possible if feeding of the knowledge base is sustained.

The geographic coverage is low, since only 5 partners are involved.

A special focus on Eastern Europe is mentioned, but not operationalized through adding (enough) partners from this region.

As service for all MS is to be provided, including more partners seems important.

See to include some of the former SHAPE UP partners (at least) as collaborating partners.

The proposal needs to be recognizing different education systems.

Question regarding WP1: is the involvement of 3 senior policy makers sufficient in order to take the European diversity into account?



3

4

3

Comments

The problem analysis includes only the own work of the partners, other activities like the work carried out under the EU Platform on Diet, Physical Activity and Health or the European Master in

Health Promotion, the European Master in Public Health Nutrition should have been mentioned.

Evidence base of the applicability of measures –is there evidence of the impact of an online forum for policy makers?

Knowledge /education may not be the main issue that policy makers lack.

Aims, objectives and target groups are clearly defined. However, the link between the methods and the objectives need to be made clearer.

The focus is too narrow on the education sector – local authorities, planners etc should be involved as well.

It is questioned why this training and policy focus has not been addressed in the SHAPE UP project already.

Instead of a Master Programme, maybe only additional modules to the existing ones would be enough – check for existing Master programmes.

Schools would need to be considered in their wider social and physical environment.

Some indication of this ‘new’ knowledge base would have been good and perhaps key lessons from SHAPE UP which might indicate the direction to be taken would have been good.

The planned dialogue between policy makers and teachers is important.

It is a positive point that local school policy makers are going to be reached, while the means are traditional.

A link to existing initiatives need to be made – what about the Health Promotion Schools network

(mentioned at some point, but the involvement is not clear, especially since SHAPE UP is built into this network).






3





5

18

Note

There is a lot of emphasis on process and immediate impact but little on outcomes evening terms of policy development.

Satisfaction may not be the right indicator to measure success – what about usefulness, knowledge gained?

Internet statistics: what will they be compared to / against?

The indicators need to be more precise.

The dissemination is well planned.

Could be done in a sequential manner and case studies added.

Comments






4

4

3

3

3

WPs are well described.

The timetable needs to be more comprehensive.

The risk analysis is comprehensive.

It is not clear if the measures will lead to the objectives proposed, but the planning is well described.

The consortium seems capable to carry out this project.

Seek to include more partners.

The partners are presently collaborating in the SHAPE UP project, but could benefit from other

Eastern European partners.

The sharing of responsibilities is good.

Channels identified, relying on existing networks.

Stakeholders for the Master Programme need to be identified.

The budget seems high. Staff cost seem high.

Hosting and web-site cost seems too high (also taking into account that the SHAPE UP web-site could be build on), need to be revised.

Translation cost may be too low, if many/most EU languages should be covered.

Budget unbalanced towards the Western European partners.

Horizontal WPs seem expensive.

Financial guarantee only for main partner (not to be included into the budget for the other partners).

Hosting is not eligible, when covered by subsistence allowance.



Total:


17

62


Overall the project deals with a very important area, but a number of shrotcomings have been found:

The budget is too high in comparison to what the projects wants to achieve.

Staff cost need to be revised, as the cost for the web-site/hosting.

At least 2 more partners from Eastern Europe should be included.

The scope needs to be enlarged beyond the education sector. Schools need to be considered in their social and physical environment.

The project should focus on developing a framework for a dialogue and sustainable actions at local levels between teachers and policy makers in the education sector and beyond. This framework would need to take the European diversity into account and should be pilot tested in at least half of the EU MS.

Instead of a Master Programme, modules should be developed that would fit into existing

European Master programmes (on health promotion, public health, public health nutrition).

More emphasis needs to be placed on sustainability: how will childhood obesity prevention at local level continue once the project is over?

Before the on-line community of practices for policy makers is created, evidence should be given that this is the best means.


see conclusions



No

0










101,246.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym:



European Network on Myasthenia Gravis

01/05/2009

36

EuroMG


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta

INNCB

Public


Italy


Akademisch Ziekenhuis Leiden - Leids Universitair Medisch

Centrum

Asociatia Nationala Miastenia Gravis Romania

Associazione Italiana Miastenia e Malattie Immunodegenerative -

Amici del Besta Onlus

Hellenic Pasteur Institute

Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset

Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg

The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford

Ulleval University Hospital

Université Paris-Sud XI

Warszawski Uniwersytet Medyczny

10

Acronym

LUMC

MG-R

AIM

HPI

KU

UHEI

UOXF.HM

UUS

UPS

WUM

City

Leiden

Bucharest

Milano

¿thens

Stockholm

Heidelberg

Oxford

Oslo

Orsay

Warsaw

Country

Netherlands

Romania

Italy

Greece

Sweden

Germany

United Kingdom

Norway

France

Poland

10


Myasthenia Gravis (MG) is a rare (prevalence of 10/100000) neuromuscular disease characterized by muscular fatigability. It is clinically heterogeneous and can be life-threatening. Knowledge on MG being generally the domain of specialists, diagnosis is often substantially delayed with severe consequences. Across EU, different clinical and therapeutic approaches are followed in different countries; there are flagrant inequalities, such as drug accessibility, particularly in new Member States. Hence the urgent need for sustained actions to improve knowledge and for capacity building initiatives to promote health and tackle health inequalities related to MG across the EU. EuroMG will build on the results of the EuroMyasthenia Network to address Priority 3.3.1 of the 2008 Workplan via:

1) Implementation of a European MG Registry to be used as basis for epidemiological studies to better understand the plight of MG patients in less favoured countries and for devising policies to remedy problems encountered.

2) Development of recommendations/guidelines and training actions about diagnosis and management of MG patients, in particular to increase the awareness of medical professionals that are not specialists in the field but may need to care for MG patients.

3) Capacity building targeted to patients, physicians, and policy makers through: i. Reinforcing the EuroMG website via a multilingual approach; ii. Tackling Health inequalities in disease management and in accessibility to appropriate therapies within EU through tools such as guidelines in different EU languages and courses for physicians; iii. Recommendations on policy development and formulation through a final Consensus Conference on MG at the European Parliament.

4) Promotion of a European Association of MG patients to ensure capillary distribution of information.

EuroMG should result in improved MG-related health policies, particularly for remote EU countries that may lag behind in the domain of rare diseases.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

443 206

494 786

65 600

87 967

3 000

14 865

0

122 955

86 261

1 318 640

Incomes

778 000

443 206

97 434

0

0

1 318 640










Note

7

4




5

7

6

Comments

The project is relevant to the PH Programme and the WP 2008 and especially priorities 3.3.1. and

3.3.6 as well as 3.4.1. of the WP 2008.

The potential contribution to the existing knowledge could be significant in terms of pooling information and expertise around a rare disease, creating a register where information is collected for research, for healthcare professionals, for patients and for public policy purposes: all these are very worthwhile and strategically relevant goals. However, this strategic relevance suffers from the following: (a) the link with the policy making field is unclear; (b) the expected patient oriented information isn't substantiated sufficiently in the technical content; and (c) it is unclear how the contribution of the present proposal will build on the currently ongoing project.

The foreseen network aims at facilitating exchange of information and supporting coordination at

EU level. It has a considerable coverage and has good compatibility with EU policies in the area addressed. Sustainability is seen in terms of creating a new EU Association for MG patients and less so for the rest of the activities (e.g. questionnaire based data collection): there are however doubts on this, since the currently ongoing project should already have achieved sustainability, at least according to its own web-site.

Also, it must be clarified if it is indeed the intention to produce “Recommendations for Public

Health Policy Makers” as mentioned in 4.5. and a deliverable should be assign to this, and it’s content should be explained and justified.

Geographical coverage is well covered – the participants are distributed in a large number of countries and this distribution has good relevance to the expertise needed in the project. New MS should be brought in, at least as collaborating to help disseminate the state of the art the project will produce.

The project takes good account of cultural and social issues and a realistic view to the needs and expectations of the target populations of patients and affected families.

The assumption that politicians will attend conferences and will be affected by receiving letters may be not very realistic and ways along the line of the example described in 4.4. should be pursued for this objective. National ethical committee is involved and this is positive.




29

Note

2






2

2

4

3

13

Comments

The problematic is well explained and a comprehensive list of objectives and WP to tackle each one of them is provided. However, the evidence base is very weak coming from a team that is currently leading a project in this area: evidence produced from previous project should have been provided for, as scientific knowledge is constructed as a series of building blocks.

The general objective of the project is not clearly expressed. There is also lack of correspondence between the name of the specific objectives and the description; there is a lack of deliverables.

Overall ambition is too high and important aspects such as the need to take a service approach to the counselling services for clinicians and the high degree of robustness needed for producing guidelines seem underestimated.

The present project could potentially have a genuine contribution as it brings all the relevant knowledge together and creates a network with a strong multi-disciplinary, especially through key innovative aspects such as: the creation of the Network, the guidelines and the training, the counselling and the extension of the registry.

The fact though that the EUROMYASTHENIA project is still ongoing and the lack of information on the concrete results achieved/ validated, doesn't give the panel the possibility to make an informed judgment based on facts and not declarations.

Evaluation is addressed and an element of external monitoring is present. Some examples of output indicators are provided which will need to be further elaborated.

A rather active dissemination strategy is foreseen. The concept of a “political” conference is not very convincing. There is no appropriate strategy to target General practitioners.








Note

2





3

4

4

6

Comments

Well defined and clear. It is inappropriate that training should start (M03) before the knowledge is established. There are activities such as the so called recommendation to policy makers and training that are not accounted for by deliverables. Several other activities are not either accompanied by deliverables.

Risk analysis is superficial as it leaves many issues unanswered, such as the quality and the implementation of the guidelines and the function of the Dbase, especially in view of the rather unclear planning of the registry related work.

There is a brief discretion of a management structure and work organisation. The composition of the steering committee foreseen resembles more an executive committee, while the decision making process seems to leave out most of the 49 partners to only involve 7. This concept should be revisited.

The partnership is very strong in terms of participants. They have the experience to complete this study, but a larger partnership could guarantee better exchange of experience with new EU countries. Although focus remains on clinical side, there is a good complementarity through the involvement of other stakeholders. There is only a gap concerning knowledge in public health and this should be addressed with the inclusion of a partner from this field

The size and spread of the current network makes a good start. The consortium has addressed the issues relevantly well at this stage. Public web should be considered as the main depository of the produced material/ deliverables. Support to GPs and patients should be strengthened. The

Conference is of doubtful benefit.

Deduction of any overlap with currently funded activities, the budget is reasonable for such a large consortium and such a long list of activities and well balanced between partners, all ensuring an adequate level of activities and related budget. The travel and subsistence allowance budget for the main partner is excessive.



Total:


19

61

The EUROMYASTHENIA project is expected to be running well into 2009 and since there are similarities between the stated objectives of the two project and also information is not publicly available at this point to judge which of these, possibly overlapping, objectives have indeed been met and what the new activities might be about and build on, it is difficult for the panel to have an evidenced based opinion. Therefore, the most appropriate course of action is for the project proposal to be resubmitted when results of EUROMYASTHENIA become available and are validated.

Such a resubmitted proposal should, as per above, mainly focus on the public health related aspects rated as innovative, such as the consensus guidelines development, healthcare professionals counselling (which needs to be technically strengthened) and the patient oriented work.




No

0

0.00





101,252.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: EMPOWER



Empowering young people for HIV prevention by expanding awareness, sex education, dialogue and services.

12/01/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

MARIE STOPES INTERNATIONAL

MSI

Private


United Kingdom

DESIGN OPTIONS


FUNDATIA MARIE STOPES INTERNATIONAL ROMANIA

MARIE STOPES INTERNATIONAL BRUSSELS

World Population Foundation

4

Acronym

DO

FMSIR

MSIB

You Act

City

London

BUCHAREST

Brussels

Utrecht

Country

United Kingdom

Romania

Belgium

Netherlands

4


With increasing migration between European Union states and Neighbours, the risk of sexually transmissible infections and exposure to HIV is increasing, particularly among young people. This proposal aims to address weaknesses in education, service provision and youth engagement in order to promote sexual and reproductive health and the prevention of sexually transmissible infections (including HIV).

This project takes a unique approach, combining the service delivery experience of MSI in the UK and Romania with the advocacy and communication strength of MSI in Brussels, the research and knowledge management skills of Design Options and Youth Act’s network of peer educators and trainers.

Building on MSI’s experience in Romania and Albania, this project directly targets almost 330,000 young people in Romania, over 390,000 from

Moldova and almost 290,000 from Bulgaria with service delivery to over 20,000 clients. Through an online media campaign, the project will also reach 300,000 young people from wider Europe, teachers, parents and decision makers.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

286 539

32 296

30 772

93 427

104 208

195 681

303 581

73 253

1 119 757

Incomes

671 711

0

10 000

438 046

0

1 119 757













Note

6

6

5

4

4

Comments

The project aims at promoting sexual and reproductive health and at prevention of sexually transmissible infections through educational programmes and services for young people in

Romania, Albania and Moldova. This project is partially in line with the priorities laid down for the area of sexual health in the WP 2008, and will be better classified under 3.3.3.3 on HIV/AIDS.

The strategic relevance is considerable in respect to the target group, but the contribution to existing knowledge is not expected to be great, consequently the contribution at EU level was considered limited. As it addresses the prevention of HIV targeting youths, both the target group and the topic are considered relevant. There is possible duplication with SUNFLOWER, project funded in 2007.

The EU added value is limited by the nature of the project that involves only 4 countries.

Measures of effectiveness are not foreseen and there is no actions defined to ensure reproducibility or transferability to other MS.

Coverage of program is primarily of 4 countries, 2 of which are MS (BG and RO), no basis were given for the estimates of coverage, in terms of numbers of young people the program will like to reach. There is no involvement of health authorities, what could ensure the reproducibility of the interventions. The action in Bulgaria was not well explained, as it seems there is no partner identified.

Fair understanding of youth situation in the target countries, however little is shown on the application of the role of women in the target countries. Questions related to social, cultural and political context are inadequately addressed in the project proposal. Doubts were raised about the ethical implications of the choice of the target group. Additionally similar interventions are planned even though the country situations might be different; there is no description how the specificities related to the social, cultural or political context will be taken into account.




25

Note


3

3

Comments

Considered generic, not really focusing in the two countries involved in the intervention. It is known that exist several sources of information about the HIV situation in the concerned countries. The effectiveness of the proposed interventions is not sufficiently detailed.There is no problem analysis to describe how the current situation of the youths is, are they enrolled at school or are there a proportion of school abandon at adolescent group. What is the frequency of risk behaviour in youths following normal school system when compared with youths who left school?

Which is the defined target group of youths towards who the intervention is oriented? Another issue is the socio economic distinction of youths at low SES, how can they be the only group to the target? How they will be identified? Or better, what are the criteria to select and involve the schools?

The methods is well structured, however the definition of the target groups was considered to broad, no given definitions of youths and adolescents. The measures of impact of the proposed interventions were considered difficult to assess. The geographical areas where the actions will take place were not considered representative of the countries or of Europe, and the problem of transferability was not sufficiently addressed.





3

4

5

18

Not considered innovative at EU level, as there other projects funded who address HIV prevention targeting youths at school (SUNFLOWER). It might be considered innovative for the target countries.

Generally well described, but only addressing qualitative indicators.

The dissemination strategy was considered comprehensive. However there issue of the sustainability of the intervention was not addressed, especially how would be maintained the IST clinics after the project.








Note

3





4

3

3

5

Comments

There are concerns about the capacity of the network to ensure the implementation of the action, as the proposed structure was considered complicated, with the coordination done by one of the associated partner (Brussels office) and not by the main beneficiary (MSI UK). Except that, there is a clear planning, however the risk analysis should be improved; especially to include the possible reactions of the target groups (children, youths, parents) towards the introduction of sexual education at school as well the absence of a partner identified in Bulgaria was considered a weak point. There is no clear definition of milestones, timetable, and the sustainability is not addressed (wp3).

The staff of the network was considered competent and the management structure adequate, as it is a network with previous experience in working together in other projects, even tough they have not experience of actions in BG/AL. There was no clear definition of the decision making process, with unconventional coordination structure.

Roles are defined in good detail, and synergies highlighted. The internal organisation was considered adequate; both there were doubts about the involvement of external collaborators

(Bulgarian partner?)

There were too many channels for communication listed, without timeline, but they are well adapted to the target groups. There is no mention in how the EU visibility will be ensured.

The overall budget was considered excessive, with high staff cost, not consistent with the proposed actions. The cost estimation must be reviewed following the EU Financial rules, as there were several cost estimations that are not eligible (cleaner, renovation, etc).

There is income generation by the Romanian partner, without explanation of the origin of funds, are these related to fees for service? Even when there is the planned media campaign, there is no specific cost which could be identified to support the planned action, only the web application is referred to. There was very high number of trips, at low cost, what make suppose that they are local trips, without description of the methods or the workpackage description.



Total:


18

61

There is the need to review the methods, with the involvement from partner's countries from eligible participants at Work Programme 2008-2013. The cost estimation must be reviewed following the EU Financial rules. The network could be extended with the involvement of more partners, especially health authorities from the concerned countries. An important issue is the respect of cultural sensitivity and the need from a situation analysis at country level, to know how the needs are (problem analysis) and how to address the youths? The overall budget was considered excessive, with high staff cost, not consistent with the proposed actions. The cost estimation must be reviewed following the EU Financial rules, as there were several cost estimations that are not eligible (cleaner, renovation, etc).


There is the need to review the methods, with the involvement from partner's countries from eligible participants at Work Programme 2008-2013. The cost estimation must be reviewed following the EU Financial rules. The network could be extended with the involvement of more partners, especially health authorities from the concerned countries. An important issue is the respect of cultural sensitivity and the need from a situation analysis at country level, to know how the needs are (problem analysis) and how to address the youths? The overall budget was considered excessive, with high staff cost, not consistent with the proposed actions. The cost estimation must be reviewed following the EU Financial rules, as there were several cost estimations that are not eligible (cleaner, renovation, etc).




No

0










101,258.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym:



Media and Mental Health In Europe

22/11/2008

36

MMHE


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Università degli Studi di Cagliari

UNICA

Public


Italy


Associazione Università Europea del Mediterraneo

Acronym

UEM

Center for Public Mental Health CPMH

Fondation d'entreprise MGEN pour la santé publique; EA 4069

Université René Descartes

FESP

Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattare Scientifico San Giovanni di

Dio – Fatebenefratelli Brescia

IRCCS Fatebenefratelli Brescia

New University of Lisbon (Faculty of Medical Sciences) FCM-UNL

NGO "Globali Iniciatyva Psichiarijoje" on Psychiatry-Vilnius

THE NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH

Unione Nazionale delle Associazioni per la Salute Mentale

GIP-Vilnius

NIPH

UNASAM

8

City

Cagliari

Gösing

Paris

Brescia

Lisbon

Vilnius

Oslo

Bologna

Country

Italy

Austria

France

Italy

Portugal

Lithuania

Norway

Italy


General Objective: The goal of this project is to reduce stigma against people with mental health problems by improving how the problems and related issues are communicated by the media.

Strategic relevance: Mental illness tends to be portrayed negatively in media. It results in the development of more negative beliefs about mental illness which in turn may lead to stigma and discrimination and impacts significantly on people experiencing mental illness. This stigma also renders people less likely to seek treatment for mental illness. Evidence indicates that an action of monitoring, educating, and informing media personnel may successfully change the quality of the media communication about mental health and suicide. Thus improving information on mental health is a main priority also in the European setting

Methods: The method deals with the quality circle structure. The key points will be: 1) Definition of the critical problem; 2) Definition of indicators and agreement concerning cutt-offs; 3) Carrying out surveys to assess the entity of the problem; 4) Agreement in action to improve quality (if in general the kind of actions are partially pre-defined e.g. education for media professionals, It will be more specifically determined by the results of the surveys and the interaction of different professional’s point of view); 5) Measuring the change;6) Re-starting with the circle.

The working group is constituted of a number of representatives of European countries includes professionals of mental health (from center leaders in Europe), media professionals, mental health care services users and their families

Outcome: define the state of communication on mental health in Europe (reviewing literature and carrying out ad hoc studies); build an

European Network bto promote quality control in this field; create the European Guidelines on Media and Mental Health; educate

Mediaprofessionals on communication regarding mental health and suicide-related issues.

6





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

302 000

462 000

45 000

35 100

0

0

0

0

59 086

903 186

Incomes

527 186

302 000

74 000

0

0

903 186













Note

5

4

4

5

3

Comments

The proposal could match with Action 2.3 of the Health Programme, corresponding more specifically to the action "assessment of the impact of media, advertisement and role models on mental health" but it seems that the objectives of the project are not so clear. Weakness is the focus: the description of the mental health problems could be better even if the project concentrates on suicide.

The needs analysis is weak and the link between the project actions and the Programme is not really well described and justified, may be due to the lack of data.

The strategic relevance of the project is overall well justified, bringing to our consideration key aspects of the issues tackled by the project and their importance under HP objectives. However, the brief information and examples on the current status of the identified problems and needs in

Europe, which is provided in the proposal, is not sufficient to justify the project’s strategic importance, and does not refer to other complementary actions undertaken at the level of the member states or European-wide organisations.

In addition, no clear reference is made to the potential for sustainability of the actions promoted by the project once the Commission’s co-financing will end and to the long term impact.

The proposal would have much more strength if a methodological approach for the sustainability of the proposed actions was proposed, also in consideration of the needs of the target groups.

Despite a detailed description of the EU relevant policies, the authors of the proposal are not convincingly demonstrating the links of the project with those policies. In addition, the anticipated impact on the target groups (short and long term impact) is not demonstrated in a way to prove the project’s added value. Moreover the target group is poorly defined. In addition, the proposal is not bringing real arguments to prove that the proposed actions will be sustainable overtime and that after the end of the Commission’s financing and that the networks created will be viable.

Complementarities and/or synergies with the EU policies are not clearly defended.

The partnership is composed by a large number of countries and organisations bringing a potential for wider dissemination of the project at the level of the EU. However the project is unbalanced towards Italy.

The project proposal makes strong reference to the geographical dimension of the actions, especially to the trans-national ones, which according to the promoters, will boost the European dimension of initiatives such as the one proposed in this application.

However, the proposal is not stating in which way the promoters are planning to reach a wider geographical level of their selected target groups, especially as regards the particular groups of end-users listed in the application form (newspaper readers, TV auditors, etc), compared to other projects/initiatives of similar content.

The proposal is not including an analytical description of the current situation in the specific countries involved in the partnership, besides wider references at the level of the EU. No information is provided either on the situation in the selected area of work (mental health references in the media) in relation to the participating countries and/or target groups. It is however expected that the project itself increases the level of knowledge in that area, as well as in better understanding the problems and how to tackle them.




21

Note

2

Comments

The explanations on the current state of affairs in the selected sector help a better understanding of the proposed activities and list of deliverables, as well as their justification according to the project promoters, but it is presented in a rather confusing, and not justified way. For example there is a very superficial analysis of the negative impact of the media only for schizophrenia but no evidence is provided for other diseases. The examples are very weak,

The action should have been completely revised in order to comply with a more realistic analysis of the situation and should have brought more information on the Australian project.






2

3

3

2




The description of the project activities included in the relevant parts of the application form is overall clear, as well as the project’s specific objectives. On the contrary, when it comes to the anticipated project results, deliverables and expected impact, the information provided is not enough explicit. he proposal is also lacking to present the methodology of work for achieving the results, especially the information collection processes.

It would have been also advisable that concrete actions be addressed to particular needs of the target groups and their geographical location, as well as actions ensuring the sustainability of the results beyond the project implementation period.

The proposed project may be considered as innovative, since it tackles an emerging problem of

European public health and other relevant policies. However the approach is not adequate and the areas of work are expected to overlap with other similar projects which are possibly implemented by other organizations in Europe; networking with other organizations working in the same field would therefore be strongly advisable.

The evaluation strategy included in the project proposal is well developed but mainly oriented towards project's process management. There is no mention of the target population; the indicators should have been better worked up. The evaluation is mainly based on the impact of the project on media and measurements such as the change in citizens' attitudes but there is no information on the way the information will be collected.

There is no unanimity among the evaluators on the chance the applicants have to succeed in their evaluation activities.

The proposed dissemination strategy quite clear and concrete dissemination actions are planned.

No clear information is provided however on the concrete implementation aspects of the dissemination, neither on the transferability of the project results towards targeted populations.

Also, the information provided on the practical implementation aspects of the dissemination activities is brief and generic. Important channels of dissemination are not used.




12

Note





2

2

2

2

Comments

Project activities are detailed and the proposed work packages are well developed. The distribution of the project tasks among the partner organisations is however not balanced, nor justified and there is only one partner with media experience. The timeline is not clear

The proposed risk analysis is well analysed.

It is however considered that the project duration is too long compared to the activities and outputs proposed in the application form; duration of 24 moths would seem more appropriate for this project.

It would be also advisable to include in the management structure of the project the creation of an evaluation committee to ensure a close follow-up of the trans-national project activities.

The management structure of the project is correctly developed, although brief and not making reference to the particular competences of the staff of the partner organisations. The tasks of project monitoring are not shared by the consortium partners, and they are mainly ensured by the project leader. Decision making mechanisms and internal communications and information flaws are fairly presented.

The project is dominated by the Italian partner, and the partners seem to have never worked together. The role and responsibilities are described but not distributed among partners in a balanced way.

The EU dimension is not satisfying; there is a lack of EU or national press organisations in the project.

This kind of project should absolutely cooperate with or involve an EU association of journalists.

The proposed Communication strategy is rather generic, especially for a project which should be largely disseminated.

The references to the particular target groups are vague (i.e. press conference to address journalists), no concrete actions are described (how, when, which target group, etc) and no clear information is provided on the sustainability of the information overtime





Total:





No

0

0.00

5




The proposed budget is corresponding to the activities planned, but it is largely overestimated, especially as regards WP 2, 3 and 8. Staff inputs of the lead partner are overestimated. The distribution of the budget among the partners is not balanced: the lead partner is receiving more than 40% of the funds.

The total amount requested is very high when compared to the number of the project outputs, and it is proposed to be reduced at least by 25% (staff costs), following a reasonable reduction of the project overall duration.

13

46

Due to the different comments raised during the consensus and mainly because the technical and management quality of the project as described in the application is not corresponding to the required standards for such a project, it has been decided not to fund it.






101,259.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: ASMENT



Assessment of Educational Needs for Mental Health Planning

01/04/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

ŠENT - Slovenian Association for Mental Health

ŠENT

Private


Slovenia


Association Interrégionale de Guidance et de Santé asbl

Azienda per i Servizi Sanitari n. 1 “Triestina”

Babes-Bolyai University

Bedfordshire Centre for Mental Health Research in Association with the University of Cambridge

Ceska asociace pro psychicke zdravi/Czech Association for Mental

Health

Istituto di Ricerche Economiche e Sociali del Friuli Venezia Giulia

Kaunas University Medicine pro mente Upper Austria

Psihiatricna bolnica Idrija/Psychiatric hospital Idrija

Univerza v Ljubljani, Medicinska fakulteta

10

Acronym

AIGS

A.S.S. n. 1

BBU

BCMHR-CU

CAMH

IRES FVG

KUM pmOÖ

PBI

UL MF

City

Vottem

Trieste

Cluj-Napoca

Bedford

Praha

Udine

Kaunas

Linz

Idrija

Ljubljana

Country

Belgium

Italy

Romania

United Kingdom

Czech Republic

Italy

Lithuania

Austria

Slovenia

Slovenia

8


The project aim is to assess present knowledge, skills and educational needs of MH workers at primary level of care in different EU countries; and creating a set of basic competencies needed for each specific professional group. The available skills will be compared with basic competencies. The expected outcome is defining the gap among present and needed MH professionals’ knowledge and skills. Existing and needed skills shall be compared in different EU countries. Basic guidelines for the development of educational curricula will be developed. Three postgraduate EU educational curricula will be created for different professional groups. The project is strategically important because of observed differences in MH education in under/postgraduate levels, observed lack of competencies of professionals and problems in communication in multidisciplinary teams. The project answers to PHP in promoting cooperation among educational institutions and adds EU added value with development of common EU educational goals in MH. It targets teaching basic skills in early detection, quality treatment and care on primary level of care directed to different MH professionals. It is a research project providing data for improvement in planning education at primary levels of care. Results, guidelines and curricula will be disseminated to educators, providers’ users of MH services and education planners. The project will involve educational institutions and providers, with the continuous supervision and consultation of consumers and international agencies at all stages of the project. Involved partners are from West, Central and East Europe and are important service providers in their regions. Partners from psychiatric, general practice and social NGO institutions are connected with educational institutions and are able to conduct the coordination needed. ŠENT as the main coordinator has been involved in numerous EU project, which proves its ability to coordinate international projects.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

619 419

48 400

40 203

15 000

71 520

33 000

133 200

67 234

1 027 976

Incomes

616 782

0

411 194

0

0

1 027 976










Note

4

2

Comments

The proposal aims for the assessment of training needs and development of a training curriculum for workers in the mental health field. It is submitted to priority 3.3.3.1 of the 2008 work plan, which refers to the development of guidelines to integrate mental health promotion and mental disorder prevention into the training and practice of health professionals. However, due to its narrow scope towards mental health care rather than mental health promotion and its focus on academic training, the proposal only marginally fits in with this priority. It also relates to the priority on capacity building, but does not refer to this. The relevance of the proposal could significantly be improved if the focus of the project would be redefined in such a way as to highlight the aspects of mental health promotion and metal illness prevention.

The project could have indirect relevance for the improvement of mental health care practices if the results and deliverables would be acceptable to professional bodies, but this is not guaranteed as the partnership is not sufficiently representative and does not include all key actors in the field. There is an overlap with actions on curriculum development funded through the

European Social Fund, which implies that the current project is unlikely to bring something new and has limited strategic value.




3

4

2

The benefits to public health are not demonstrated in the proposal, and its focus on mental health care rather than prevention and promotion puts it outside the mandate for public health action at

EU level. While the contribution to mental public health will only be indirect, the link between public health and education is important, and there may be an added value for the field of education, but this is not mentioned.

The major EU regions are represented in the proposal, and the New Member States are strongly involved, but given the scope and purpose of the initiative and in order to achieve a wide impact on curriculum development in the EU a more encompassing coverage would be necessary. No provisions are made in the proposal to enlarge the coverage in view of ensuring a wide uptake.

The social, cultural and political context is unclear. The involvement of NGOs and partners from different countries suggest that the European diversity will be reflected in the results, but local situations and differences are not addressed. The target groups are not very well specified in terms of how their needs will be incorporated in the project.




15

Note

1


2

Comments

Evidence is provided with regard to the size and importance of mental health problems, and the potential of training mental health professionals to address this problem is stated. However, no analysis is provided of the existing professional standards and the gaps that need to be addressed, or of the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed measures. Key references or systematic reviews on the topic are not mentioned.

The general aim, to assess knowledge and skills and build a tool for curriculum development of mental health professionals, is well stated and appropriate. The specific objectives match the general aim and are SMART formulated, but are not logically linked to each other. The deliverables are in keeping with the objectives, but existing standards for some professionals, e.g.

psychiatrists, are ignored. Target groups are identified but some relevant professional networks are not included, and neither are service users. Target values for reaching the target groups are given, but it is not clear how they will be addressed. The method is well explained but some detail is missing.



1

The project overlaps with work that has already been done in developing professional educational standards, both at national level and in the context of the ESF. More linkages should be made to existing standards for individual professional groups.

1

A very general evaluation plan is provided, but it mainly contains standard project management material and does not apply it to the objectives and actions of this project. Only formative, process and output evaluation is foreseen, while impact or outcome evaluation is not mentioned.



2




Service providers and policy makers are mentioned as target audiences for dissemination besides the academic community, but the way in which the results will be disseminated to hem is not clear. Many dissemination activities are planned, but these are not focused. Besides the organisation of an international conference most activities are not explained nor tailored to the needs of the target groups. No strategy is presented to ensure the transferability of the project deliverables and the sustainability of its outcomes.




7

Note Comments






2

1

1

2

3

An adequate planning of the project activities is provided, with an identification of milestones and deliverables. The time table is brief but clear and appears realistic. An organisation structure for the project is outlined, with a steering group made up of all partners, and the work is well distributed between the partners. However, several work packages (1, 3, 4, 7 and 10) are overestimated in terms of staffing. The risk analysis does not address some key points such as lack of evidence for the effectiveness of the proposed measures.

The capacity of the partners can be inferred from their CV's and experience with involvement in other projects is mentioned, but no adequate management structure is presented with an indication of the responsibilities, internal communication, decision making rules and procedures for monitoring and supervision. It is assumed that lead partner will lead, but this is not explained.

The consortium provides a good mix of NGOs, academic and governmental organisations, but it is not clear if enough educational expertise is available within the consortium to achieve the stated outcomes. No justification is given for the composition of the partnership, and the choice of partners does not suggest complementarity. Some key institutions or professional associations are not involved.

Internal communication is briefly described, using usual channels (phone, email) is not well specified. The external communication strategy lacks a proper identification of stakeholder needs and ways to address them. Several communication activities are listed including a conference, but these are not explained nor tailored to the needs of the target groups.

The overall budget is reasonable but not well balanced: one third of the budget goes to the main partner. Staff costs are inflated due to the high number of staff. The number of working days for main coordinator is too high (720 days). Travel costs are inflated with an excessive number of trips (6-8 trips per staff member). Costs for workshop, rental and testing claimed under "other costs" are insufficiently explained. Costs for consumables are inflated.



Total:


9

31

This is a resubmission of a project that was not accepted for funding in the CFP 2007 due to an insufficient fit with the priorities of the work plan 2007. It unfortunately fits in even less with the priorities of the Health Programme 2008-2013 and the Work Plan 2008. Given fact that this is a resubmission, one would have expected an improvement of the technical elaboration and management of the project, which does not seem to be the case. The evidence base does not address the gaps in existing professional standards or of the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed measures, the specific objectives are not logically linked to each other, the target groups do not include all relevant professional networks or service users, and adequate evaluation, dissemination and management plans are missing. The project does not reach the threshold of 50 points for the general appreciation, and is not recommended for funding.




No

0

0.00





101,260.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: Agrhealth



Occupational Health Surveillance in Agriculture and Fishery in the Enlarging European Union

01/01/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Università degli Studi di Milano

UNIMI

Public


Italy


Finnish Institute of Occupational Health

Institute of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health of Riga

Stradins University


Health

National Institute of Public Health

Netherlands Center of Occupational Diseases, Academic Medical

Center Amsterdam

Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine

Spanish Institute of Rural Health


The University of Manchester

University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Victor Babes”

University of Zagreb, School of Medicine, Andrija Stampar School of

Public Health, Department for Environmental and Occupational

Health

Wederslöf Gatugård AB

12

Acronym

FIOH

IOSEH

Prolepsis

NIPH

NCOD

NIOM

ISR

TUD

UNIMAN

UMFT

ZAPEOH

WGAB

City

Helsinki

Riga

Athens

Praha 4

Amsterdam

Lodz

La Coruna

Dresden

Manchester

Timisoara

Zagreb

Wederslöf

Country

Finland

Latvia

Greece

Czech Republic

Netherlands

Poland

Spain

Germany

United Kingdom

Romania

Croatia

Sweden

12


In a world where the demand of food is quickly growing, agriculture and fishery are becoming more and more important for the European economies, both in the new members and candidates and in the original core of the Union. The request of safety and healthiness of food is growing as well. Therefore, agricultural and fishery workers are a great asset for the Union, and the healthiness of millions EU citizens and of the EU environment also depends on their active involvement in a “healthy” system. Despite its relevance, OH is poorly implemented in this sector: only a small number of workers is provided with health surveillance at the workplace, and for most of them access to health care services is difficult or even impossible. This inequality in the access to the health care brings to an underreporting of occupational diseases and accidents. General objective of the project is to reduce inequalities in health care among EU workers of agriculture and fishery promoting the growth of OH services in the sector and the harmonization of the approach in EU. The objective will be reached with: 1.Definition of local situations through “country profiles”, made up by the collection of a minimum set of indicators; 2. Discussion of the results with local authorities and stakeholders in five area seminars. 3. Production of a recommendation document, which will be discussed and finalized in the final workshop, planned at the end of the project. The project covers all the main EU areas, and considers several future EU countries, including

Balkan ones. A further product of the project will be a pan European Rural Health Network, which is supposed to continue its activities after the end of the project, using as a dissemination tool the project website. Several Institutions, leaders in the field of rural and occupational health, form the consortium. Partners have already had a lot of opportunities to work together in the past in a fruitful way. This is a further guarantee of success.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

626 810

480 665

114 700

78 814

8 400

16 500

6 400

120 400

96 600

1 549 289

Incomes

922 479

626 810

0

0

0

1 549 289













Note

3

5

4

7

5

Comments

The project addresses the topic of the health and safety of workers in agriculture and fisheries. It refers to inequalities and as such relates to a priority of the health strategy to reduce health inequalities between regions, but does not address this priority directly. As a Health and Safety at work project it is not within the scope of the health Programme but within the mandate of DG

EMPLOYMENT and OSHA.

The project addresses an important and relevant problem and is likely to contribute to the public health knowledge base as well as to the health of the target groups. It may also contribute to local economics, food quality and environmental risks. The scope is however very broad, encompassing injures as well as health care, communicable and non-communicable diseases.

This lack of focus reduces the strategic relevance. It is not explained how the project links up with and builds on to existing initiatives and networks, and how sustainability will be ensured. The method for dissemination is insufficient to have an impact on policy processes.

Developing indicators regarding the health of agricultural workers and fishermen and addressing major health threats in these groups could have an EU added value. However, the project's objectives are too general and the content is not sufficiently elaborated to ensure that it will deliver. It continues ongoing work of a previously funded project (EC-DIRERAF) and would feed into the activities if the network, but overlap with other activities cannot be excluded on the basis of the information in the proposal.

The project consortium includes a sufficient number of organisations from different Member

States to ensure geographical coverage. Among the associated partners and collaborating partners each region of the EU is represented, as well as the target group of farmers and fishermen and policy makers. Involvement of experts from the USA could be useful, but it is not mentioned that the US occupational and health system and the context of farming and fishing is very different from the EU.

It is stated that the project takes account of the target group's context but this is not well elaborated. The target group is represented in the consortium, but a more detailed description of the social, cultural and political context and of the way in which the project will take it into account is necessary.




24

Note




4

4

3

3

Comments

The poor health status of agricultural workers and fishermen and their enhanced health risks are satisfactorily documented, and a link with inequalities is made. However, no reference is made to the extensive literature on explanation models for the enhanced health risks and risk behaviour among agricultural workers which could be included in the indicators and provide a basis for action. Quality of life should also be included as an indicator for this population but is not mentioned. Effective measures, including interventions for workplace health promotion, are not described. The effectiveness, applicability and transferability of the proposed measures are not well elaborated in the proposal.

The project is overall well elaborated but the aim is very broad and ambitious. The outcomes are not specified and confused with deliverables. There is a long list of deliverables but in fact many of them refer to the same kind of profiles for different groups of countries, and it is not explained why they are separated. The project is targeted at the population of agricultural workers but should also include policy makers and the education system. The methodology is too general and does not specify the criteria, models or methods to define indicators. Results are expected of seminars, but their content, setup or approaches are not sufficiently elaborated.

The project could contribute to the knowledge on health of agricultural workers and provide a basis for improving the health of the target groups, but due to the broad scope and lack of focus it is not possible to pinpoint the exact value of its contribution. The approach in itself – developing indicators and studying policies and practices to make recommendations – is not innovative. A state of the art of current knowledge and practice is not provided, and it is not explained how the project builds on existing initiatives and knowledge. Duplication cannot be excluded.

The evaluation strategy is not sufficiently detailed and is exclusively focused on process and output (product) evaluation, not on the effects in terms of reaching the stated objectives.

Indicators have been formulated but the way in which these will be measured is not given or unrealistic (e.g., measuring the impact of papers goes beyond the scope of the project).



3




A dissemination strategy is given, but it is very research community oriented and relies on the traditional means of disseminating information (research reports, publications and workshops). A project website is not mentioned. The dissemination strategy does not include a stakeholder analysis to select appropriate communication and dissemination channels and does not entail efforts to ensure sustainability of the project results after the project is finalised.




17

Note Comments






3

4

5

4

6

The project is well elaborated, with a good description of the major steps and milestones. The division of the work into the work packages seems logical, but the distribution of tasks and responsibilities needs to be more detailed. WP9 involves too many associated partners. The timetable should be more realistic and is not consistent: the duration of similar actions is different for different countries, and no reason is given for this discrepancy. The work could also be done in a shorter period of time. The risk analysis needs to be expanded and should refer to the difficulty of co-ordinating a network of this size and scope and to the possibility that no indicators will be found for all countries; contingency plans need to be provided for these risks.

The consortium seems to have the necessary organisational capacity to deliver, although co-ordinating a project of this size and scope is a difficult task. The staff CV's suggest a sufficient level of competence or the envisaged tasks. The tasks of the steering committee should be more elaborated to provide assistance in the supervision and coordination of the project and to ensure adequate communication between partners and work packages.

The consortium seems to represent an adequate and capable network with a good combination of complementary skills and expertise and possible synergy, although it is not yet an existing network and experience of previous collaboration in multi-partner EU projects is not sufficiently documented.

A communication plan is mentioned, which adequately covers internal and external communication and foresees in the evaluation of the impact. However, communication will be largely research community oriented and involve traditional means of info dissemination (research reports, publications and workshops). A stakeholder analysis to define subgroups of stakeholders, identify their information needs and select appropriate communication channels would add to the quality of the project.

The project is expensive and the budget could be better balanced. The number of working days and related staff costs for work package 1 (indicators) could be reduced.

The costs for dissemination and for travel should also be reduced. Some of the meetings could be replaced by teleconferencing.



Total:


22

63

The project addresses the topic of the health and safety of workers in agriculture and fisheries, referring to the poor health status and high health risks of this population. While it relates to the priority of the Health Programme to reduce health inequalities between regions and could contribute to the public health knowledge base as well as to the health of the target groups, occupational health and safety is not within the scope of the Health Programme but within the mandate of DG EMPLOYMENT and OSHA.

The project is well elaborated with a good description of the major steps and milestones, and can rely on a consortium with the necessary expertise and synergies, but lacks a specific focus and is probably too ambitious. The outcomes are not sufficiently specified, the target group should be extended to include policy makers, and the method needs to be more detailed.

As the project falls out of the scope of the Health Programme, it is not recommended for funding.




No

0

0.00





101,262.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym:



Model for improving children's healthy lifestyles

01/01/2009

24

MICHELLE


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Associazione Difesa Consumatori e Ambiente

ADICONSUM

Private


Italy


Asociación de usuarios de bancos, cajas y seguros

Association of Polish Consumers

Bulgarian National Consumers Association

Institut National de la Consommation

4

Acronym

ADICAE

SKP (APC)

BNCA

INC

City

Zaragoza

Warsaw

Sofia

PARIS

Country

Spain

Poland

Bulgaria

France


The project intends to set up a multi-stakeholder platform,that involves all the key actors having influence or interest in child education to healthy lifestyles,correct nutrition and physical activity,with the aim of designing a well structured and integrated approach to social communication on the issue,able to put together competencies,contacts and efforts from different sectors of the society,all co-operating and acting in synergy.

The general objective will be achieved through the collection and an in-depth analysis of the past experiences at all level in the field of the promotion of healthy diets and lifestyles in general, in particular addressed to children aged 6-10 conducted by the Multi-stakeholder Platform and the Focus groups’ activity addressed to target groups identified. A common pan-European model in terms of effective strategies, messages and tools with the highest and the most effective impact as a support to future initiatives will be create. Local multi-target and multi-action campaigns will be carried out in each partners’ country so as to raise awareness of decision makers, experts, stakeholders and most of all the mass media. A large dissemination plan with the help of a multilingual project’s website. Two years duration, partnership of consumer organizations, highly qualified technical support of nutrinionists’, psycologists and parents’ and teachers’ associations. Participating countries:

Italy, France, Spain, Poland and Bulgaria.

The project meets all the requirements of practical use of knowledge,sustainability,reproducibility and transferability of results.In fact,the homogeneity of results and their suitability in the different national contexts are carefully pursued through the setting up of clearly defined work methodology and the use of common guidelines and tools as support for the carrying out of the different project’s activities.

4





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

242 000

19 400

13 300

0

0

0

227 685

35 164

537 549

Incomes

322 528

0

215 021

0

0

537 549











Note

4

4

3






3

5

19

Note

2


2


3


2





2

11

Note

Comments

The project fits into the PHP and the WP2008, but there is only a potential contribution.

There is a potential relevance, but it is unclear whether this could be achieved, since the structure of the project is not sufficiently described.

As a social marketing tool and as a key to action and use by groups such as parents/teachers etc there is potential but the development of a common framework in all reality unlikely. The focus could be on the development of a public health advocacy tool for consumers to use to push for policy change. This would fit with the focus of the current groups on consumers and consumer rights. Consumers have different rights to citizens and the public health advocacy approaches are different.

The added value is judged to be low.

The consortium comes from the consumer movement; they seem to lack some knowledge of public health.

Mainly Eastern and Southern Europe and the choice of the countries is not justified.

Social, cultural and political context in the participating countries is taken into account.

Comments

Existing reviews on promoting healthy lifestyle for children not mentioned/referenced.

An analysis of key players should have been added.

This part is the weak point in the proposal

The objectives are defined, but not reflected in the follow-on description of the deliverables, methods and milestones. All this needs to be in a logical flow.

The methods are not matching the means.

The target groups are not clearly defined – stakeholders (which?) and /or schools children.

There could be an innovation, if a true CMM could be achieved. This however might not be achieved since public health partners / academic partners are missing.

There is no reference to the EU Platform on Diet, PA and Health and/or national, already existing multi-stakeholder platforms.

Deliverable 6 might be a duplication of existing tools.

Qualitative and quantitative methods have been described, but the aims of the evaluation are not clear.

Indicators lack precision ("amount of literature").

Various, traditional channels are mentioned, but it lacks clarity and innovation.

Comments


2

The timeframe seems short e.g. D2 in M4 seems unrealistic.

D6 is not relevant in relation to the aim of the project.

The risk that no public health professionals are involved in the project has not been addressed in the risk analysis.








Total:





No

0

0.00

2

2

2

5




Public health experts are lacking in the consortium.

An internal communication strategy has not been presented.

Public health partners are missing.

Good within the consortium, but no outreach to European consumer movement or to the public health sector no described.

Target group definition missing.

The budget is unbalanced. The main partner gets a large share.

There are too many trips planned for the 2 years project time.

Numbers of travel and subsistence allowances do not match.

Much of the "other costs" are related to D6, which is judged to not be conducive in reaching the aim of the project.

13

43

The project is not to be recommended for funding.

The consortium would benefit from including a (academic partner) from public health.

Also, the objectives need to be aligned with the methods and those with the means. The target group(s) need(s) to be clearly defined. The project description "needs to flow".

The assessment of part A (policy) by a SANCO official (xx points) was presented to the external evaluators.

see conclusions





101,264.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: PATHS TO HEALTH



ACCOMPANYING PATHS TO HEALTH FOR MINORS AND YOUNG PEOPLE

15/01/2009

24


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

CONSORZIO DI COOPERATIVE SOCIALI KAIROS

KAIROS

Private


Italy


Asociación de Estudios Sociales e Intervención Socioeducativa

COMUNE DI TORINO

FUNDATIA DE VOLUNTARI SOMASCHI

Siawns Teg Limited

Acronym

ESIE y GISDE

TURIN

FUNDATIA

SIAWNS

4

City

Sevilla

TURIN

BAIA MARE

Meifod Powys

Country

Spain

Italy

Romania

United Kingdom

4


"Paths to health" wants to be a proposal of wide collaborative action at a European level for the protection of young people health. The project is mainly focused on the prevention of drug and alcohol-related risks among young people, widely recognized as an increasing problem in member states, by promoting accompayning paths to safer and health-friendly behaviours and lifestyles. Main activities will be a research study on the phenomenon of addictions to substances producing artificial amazing, to explore causes and contexts of this search of "dangerous" and

"forbidden" by minors and young people and analyse damages and health-risks connected with use of new synthethic drugs and alcohol abuse, not only for addicted people, but also for the environment around them. Starting from this analysis, an education and awareness raising campaign for young people will be implemented through the organisation of seminars and laboratories in schools and other places of youth aggregation, involving target groups in the definition of innovative communication tools, transating positive health- protection messages in a modern language, more suitable and attractive for adolescents. The main aim is to stimulate positive attitudes towards health, proposing an active participation in a self-protection process. Innovative outputs and main project results will be diffused through a wide ude of information technologies, to have a great accessibility of products and propose modern communication channels. Project activities will be implemented with the support of a wide collaborative network of different stakeholders involved in health-care protection. The purpose is to stimulate the establishment of an integrated approach to the phenomenon, involving public-private partnership and fostering collaborations and synergies amonf different actions in the field.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

20 000

149 600

55 000

36 000

25 000

55 000

105 000

121 000

35 000

601 600

Incomes

360 000

20 000

221 600

0

0

601 600













Note

5

4

4

4

4

Comments

This project is consistent with the second programme of Community action (promoting health addiction prevention). While fitting into the WP 2008 priorities for alcohol prevention (i.e.

preventing harmful alcohol consumption among minors and young people and establishing good practices), it does not really fit into the focused priorities for drug prevention.

Transferability and sustainability are put into question as 4 countries are going to 'represent' the

EU situation with all its different cultures, social aspects etc. and that no detail is really given with regard to the planned wide diffusion of products after the project lifetime.

The project is planning to add value to the EU health policies especially by the identification of common methods in preventing drug and alcohol addiction among young people. However, the

'strong' EU added value notified is not confirmed by the pertinence of the geographical coverage.

It reflects more synergy with EU relevant policies regarding alcohol prevention than drugs prevention.

Associated partners include RO, UK, SP and IT. Collaborating partners include the same countries. The target groups planned are young people from these four countries only, however the dissemination strategy informed about a possible involvement of big number of persons, with no geographical limits; There is a lack of information.

The project envisages direct involvement of target groups (young people) in the communication strategy to ensure this reflects culture and views of target. It proposes the use of on line socialisation/exchange mechanisms to reach the target and to facilitate its direct participation and involvement. Additionally it proposes a better understanding of the social and cultural context of living of young people in the EU modern society but does no explain how the project could really take into account relevant contexts from the whole EU perspective.




21

Note

3






2

3

3

3

14

Comments

The project aims at intervening quite locally. However the problem analysis and evidence base refer to the situation at EU wide level. More specific information on local context would have been helpful to assess the existence of a need for this project in the areas proposed. Additionally the effectiveness of the measures proposed should have been discussed.

As a note: awareness raising does not necessarily produce behaviour change.

The aims and objectives are listed, however it is unclear how they link to the outputs and the outcomes. One of the issues identified would be the deadline for the results of the analysis (M20).

Indeed the duration of the project is 24 months and the tools to be created (that should be based on these results) are planned on M 20. Target groups are defined but quite broad in terms of age

12-18. The effects on health and use of alcohol are difficult to predict without assessing how effective the measures used will be.

It seems that the project does not build on existing research and methodology but reinvents it; there are serious concerns of duplication of efforts.

The project refers to a number of interventions involving different sectors. However it does not provide details nor expand the reference to its intention to foster collaborative networks on the territory.

The process of evaluation is confounded with the monitoring of the project. Additionally the indicators are poorly defined.

A dissemination strategy is proposed. Additionally the applicants propose to use blogs and social on line forums; this could prove as effective tools but should be well planned and monitored.

Other dissemination materials are unspecified i.e 'gadgets'.








Note

2





3

3

3

5

Comments

The timetable is not informative enough. Activities are planned but there seems not to be a connection between their outputs and outcomes. The distribution of tasks is uneven because the main partner is responsible of 4 out of 6 WPs. The risk analysis covers only the risks related to the participation of the youth. Some milestones are missing.

Despite the fact that the partners appear competent, the management structure that brings all together has not been provided. Decision making should have been further developed.

Albeit limited in partnership, the organisations involved in the partnership have experience in collaborating and seem qualified to implement the project activities.

A communication strategy appears to be in place; video conferences are scheduled regularly. The channels to be used are adequate, however the ways how to communicate with a 12 or a 18 year old might be different. The sub-groups which are not age-related are not considered neither.

Travel costs are too high; the applicant does not explain why 4 people have to travel from each group. The necessity of administrative experts for 25.000 EURO is questioned as the main partner seems to have previous experience dealing with projects. The need for technical equipment should be assessed.



Total:


16

51

The project contains activities aimed at investigating issues through accessing traditional settings

(schools) but also streets (Romania); it would have been interesting if these two different contexts had been better recognised and activities geared towards development of knowledge and responses targeting young people in these contexts.0




No

0

0.00





101,265.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: WIN



Window on Injuries - Comprehensive Injury Reporting for All EU Member States

01/01/2009

24


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Kuratorium für Verkehrssicherheit

KfV

Private


Austria


Consumer Safety Institute

European Association for Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion

Institut de veille sanitaire

Kansanterveyslaitos

SC PSYTEL

Skadeforebyggende forum (Norwegian Safety Forum)

Swansea University

Syddansk Universitet

Universitatea Babes-Bolyai

UNIVERSITY OF NAVARRA

Warszawski Uniwersytet Medyczny

11

Acronym

CSI

EuroSafe

InVS

KTL

PSYTEL

SF (NSF)

SU

SDU

UBB

UNAV

MUW

City

AMSTERDAM

Amsterdam

Saint Maurice

Helsinki

Paris

Oslo

Swansea

Copenhagen

Cluj-Napoca

Pamplona (NAVARRA)

Warsaw

Country

Netherlands

Netherlands

France

Finland

France

Norway

United Kingdom

Denmark

Romania

Spain

Poland

9


WIN aims to establish a comprehensive injury reporting in the EU through the integration of all relevant data sources available at EU and national level into one system (“Window on Injuries”) - improved injury data availability and comparability at EU level for improved national injury prevention.

This is in line with the Council Recommendations (CR 31.05.2007) on the prevention of injury and the first Health Promotion priority of Chap.

3.3.5.2 of the Work Plan 2008, both demanding “the development of a comprehensive information system on accidents and injuries” through

“harmonizing injury data collection systems”. Specifically, WIN proposes:

+ to implement an “EU Standard injury data set” and a comprehensive reporting format for all data sources to be integrated (“Window on

Injuries”)

+ to implement a pilot of the European “Window on Injuries” based on data from Member States converted into this standard data set

+ to provide harmonization tools to make additional national data sources accessible at EU level

+ to develop and disseminate national “Injury Score Cards” for 33 countries (27 EU-MS, 3 EEA and 3 accession countries)

WIN comprises experts for Cause of Death (ANAMORT), Hospital Discharge (APOLLO WP2) and Emergency Room data on external circumstances of injuries (IDB); as well as experienced partners from AT, DK, FI, NO, UK, PL and RO. It will propose a sustainable routine implementation to national and EC stakeholders in view of the following expected outcomes:

+ easily available, comprehensive and comparable injury information for all injury outcomes and injury prevention sectors (“Window on Injuries”)

+ comparable EU-wide monitoring of injury prevention priorities as defined in the CR and the ECHI short list (“Injury Score Cards”)

+ synergies in EU injury data provision through focussing isolated injury data projects

+ facilitation of multi-sector programmes, guided by the health sector, and building of capacity for tackling the injury issue





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

815 710

45 000

27 000

0

0

0

166 590

73 200

1 127 500

Incomes

676 500

0

451 000

0

0

1 127 500













Note

8

7

6

6

6

Comments

The proposal addresses directly the PH programme and priority 3.3.5.2. of the WP 2008

By providing a prototype of a unique database system, aimed at integrating several sources from different countries, the proposal contributes to existing knowledge in an important way. Moreover, the establishment of a comprehensive information system to monitor injures is of major strategic relevance and can, by creating adequate technical capacities, underpin the promotion of safer environments and contribute to maintenance of health.

A major value comes from integrating several EU relevant initiatives. EU added value is also related to what can be measured as value of the existing Dbases and in this issue, sufficient information is not provided for. Also, it needs to be pointed out that benefits will be sustainable if results are taken up not only by EUROSTAT, WHO and other relevant organisations in Europe, but also by information providers in MS. The latter is not evident.

The coverage in terms of numbers of the members of the participating networks as CPs is sufficient for the purposes of the project and a clear strategy exists for reaching out to all MS and accession countries. However, it is not clear that target population has been appropriately considered.

Because the project lies at a technical level, little thought is given to these issues; however, a major future challenge in the wider thematic area will be on interpretation of indicators, as many concepts to be dealt with are expected to be influenced by national contexts. Life styles are very different across EU27 and this factor needs more thorough consideration. Similarly the maintenance of records and the means of doing so vary widely across the different regions of EU.




33

Note

3


2

Comments

Some evidence on the public health of injuries and deaths is provided, but the type of background information needed here is on existing systems and their disparities. The problem at hand is one of harmonisation (a standardisation exercise) of data and reporting systems. A second challenge, on the basis of the above, is to make existing systems interoperable: there are serious doubts as to the robustness of the proposed methods to address such challenges.

Experience from the use of data in the injury prevention filed (the three Dbases mentioned) shows that, although these data have been available for a series of years (at least for the IDB), they have not lead to a sustainable flow of information as a result of lack of commitment of MS.

Therefore, the technical content of the proposal needs to be revised as follows:

WP1: The objective of establishing common data sets is realistic. The use of ICD 11 in an operational phase is unrealistic as it will take years to devolve to MS once available; Also, the focus should also be on understanding the sources of information with the following key objective: the creation of a harmonized data format that can be used at the EU MS level, so as to be sustainably collected by national statistical services and then transferred to ESTAT.

WP2. The proposed approach of recoding is unlikely to work in the real world, outside a few committed pilot sites. Semantic mining on the other hand is a very highly demanding technical intervention which is not substantiated by the proposal (activities/ budget). Therefore, it is proposed to rethink WP2 in its entirety by inter alia: (a) By exploring the challenge of data integration at national level around a common data standard and not integration at EU level as proposed (b) By ensuring the active involvement of expertise and skills in ICT and eHealth



3

4

It is new and useful to create uniformity in reporting injury data and the project makes use of previous initiatives with the aim to integrate knowledge into this project. However, in view of the comment on the previous section, a change of approach is necessary to ensure effective innovation so as to have an impact.

The evaluation strategy is realistic and refers to previous experience. Unfortunately not so many details are provided for, but the indicators list is long and measurable.






5




Note

The participation of several existing networks is an asset for this project. It is unclear how the primary information providers will be reached in MS, if data is to now be collected from many relevant sources.

Comments






4

4

4

4

8

Activities are clearly described. The approach to harmonisation does not learn from good practice examples in creating interoperability between diverse systems. The timetable is unrealistic. There are major risks associated with M14, M15 which the applicants do not seem to appreciate enough.

There is some confusion on management structure and decision making, between the role of

SANCO, the Task Force and the managers of the project: (a) The funding agency should of course audit the project results, but cannot be part of the project management; (b) The TF can be an observer and have an advisory role and also as key end users, but the steering wheel of the project should be with those that undertake contractual obligations to bring it though successfully

(i.e. project coordinator and team); such responsibility is not transferable.

The partnership has good experience in collecting information and reporting in a specific domain.

The exercise that the consortium is endeavouring in is one of an ICT challenge and such expertise as well as knowledge in the field of eHealth, are missing. An organisation experienced in addressing health data interoperability issues should be recruited in the consortium.

The project brings together several networks as CPs which are also seen as forming its communication channels. Direct access to the information providers is not foreseen.

The proposed budget could have been considered excessive in relation to the initial scope of work (i.e. if the collation work were to be limited at the three EU level Dbases, in the setting up of which the consortium partners have been main instigators). However, in view of the recommended changes, the overall budget is considered appropriate.



Total:


24

74

This is in many ways a strategic project for SANCO as it begins an exploration into multiplying the benefits of information already gathered through separate data sources (but integrated in dbases). The idea to use and collate data which is currently available through three specific data bases (built via previously SANCO co-funded projects), each one representing different sources of interrelated information, is in principle timely and appropriate. However, the challenges of managing information at such level have been underestimated (eg. Identifying same incident reporting in three different dbases).

Also, the project is concentrating at an EU level of integration of data, where these data are currently available. However, these data have been available for a series of years (at least for the

IDB) without leading to a sustainable flow of information, without EU co-funding. Therefore, there are doubts, as to whether the proposed collation will itself achieve this aim, whereas the challenge of sustainability lies at the level of feeding these dbases at EU MS level. This is of critical importance for the required data collection information to have a long term public health impact. For these reasons, the weaknesses identified by the panel need to be properly addressed through a change of approach focusing more on the collation of data at the level of MS, rather than at that of the three Dbases. A thorough revision of the proposal is therefore necessary.

In view of the general conclusion, the technical content of the proposal needs to be revisited as follows:

WP1: The objective of establishing common data sets is realistic. The use of ICD 11 in an operational phase is unrealistic as it will take years to devolve to MS once available; Also, the focus should also be on understanding the sources of information with the following key objective: the creation of a harmonized data format that can be used at the EU MS level, so as to be sustainably collected by national statistical services and then transferred to ESTAT.

WP2. The proposed approach of recoding is unlikely to work in the real world, outside a few committed pilot sites. Semantic mining on the other hand is a very highly demanding technical intervention which is not substantiated by the proposal (activities/ budget). Therefore, it is proposed to rethink WP2 in its entirety by inter alia: (a) By exploring the challenge of data integration at national level around a common data standard and not integration at EU level as proposed (b) By ensuring the active involvement of expertise and skills in ICT and eHealth.



No

0










101,269.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: HOMDISCARE



Self-care processes implemented in personal assistance practice, comparative and methodology. Physical disability user cases.

01/11/2008

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena

UPCT

Public


Spain


Alliance of organizations of Disabled People in Slovakia

Association of Patient´s Rights of Slovakia

Confederación Coordinadora Estatal de Minusválidos Físicos de

España - Castilla La Mancha

Consiglio Nazionalle delle Richerche - Instituto di Scienza e

Tecnologie dell´Informazione

Disabled People´s International Italia ONLUS

European Association of Service Providers for Person with

Disabilities

RGR Asesoría y Gestión de Sistemas S.L.

Universidad de Castilla la Mancha

8

Acronym

AOZPO SR

AOPP

COCEMFE-CLM

ISTI-CNR

DPI Italia ONLUS

EASPD

RGR

UCLM

City

Bratislava

Bratislava

Toledo

Pisa

Lamezia Terme (CZ)

Brussels

Valencia

Albacete

Country

Slovakia

Slovakia

Spain

Italy

Italy

Belgium

Spain

Spain

4


The general objective of the project is to promote equal of opportunities and to facilitate access to rights for people with disabilities.

HOMDISCARE drives the interrelationship between care personal assistance providers with disable self-care processes.

The strategic approach of this project is focused on the situation of the person, not on the health evaluation, it is mainly people involved at care functional level, that have an enormous relevance for the Global Health Care System but usually are not involved at innovation projects, those personal assistants need to have and manage the behavioral, social and environmental information of self-care practice. The project has got a very high relevance for both self-care practice and for promoting health. The project consortium represents more than 150 associations representing over 60.000 disable persons.

Project deals perfectly with the priority action 3.3.1 [...] Preparation of initiatives to increase healthy life years across the life cycle and tackle health inequalities. The project will be focused on the working age population using data from existing sources at national and EU level.

The method planned with users group is to have an expert group in each country that will support the activities, the partner will have a secretary that will keep updated the work even at the web page. This expert group also will suport dissemination actions inside the associations and at the final project conference, on the other hand the project will use specific methods for each workpackage.

The results of the proposal are linked with three main topics: Comparative study and analysis of the disable self-care needs in diferent European

Member States, secondly a methodology and tools that allows Care Assistance Institutions to design, develop and implement self-care processes for Disabilities, and thirdly a Conference to disseminate either the Disable self-care processes and the methodology developed and tools to support it.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

1 736 800

84 600

53 000

33 800

26 000

114 000

6 000

134 950

2 189 150

Incomes

1 308 150

0

881 000

0

0

2 189 150









Note

1





2

5

5

5

Comments

The project aims to analyse the quality of self care of disabled, exchange knowledge, set up a platform and develop a methodology to implement self care. Creating equal opportunities and access to services for people with disabilities fits in with the broader scope of the Health

Programme, and specifically with the objectives on increasing healthy life years across the life cycle and on tackling health inequalities. However, it does not address any specific priorities of the Work Plan. The WP does not specifically mention people with disabilities.

The project may contribute to better access to self care and to the promotion of health of the target group. The project has strategic relevance in that it does not only supply information but also provides methods to apply it in practice. However, the proposed strategy lacks precision and does not sufficiently explain which lessons were learnt from the preceding DAPHNE project and how the current project builds on these lessons

The project can have impact on the target groups but too few countries are involved to achieve synergy. The implementation of local legally addressed points is a national issue, but the comparison of information between countries can be of an added value by way of providing benchmarks. The fact that the regional level is considered is a plus. It is difficult to assess if the associated partners can have an impact on the care for disabled at MS level.

Only 4 countries are actively involved through associated partners, all of them from the EU15 except one (Slovakia), but the involvement of European associations extends the coverage to 26

Member States. It is difficult, however, to assess the degree to which these associations can commit the MS level. Only 60.000 pts are represented by associations. The coverage of the difference within the EU in terms of health systems is not clear.

An analysis of the context of the target groups is foreseen in each country but it is difficult to generalize compatibility to EU context as only 4 countries are represented among the associated partners. The social, cultural and political context could have been more explicitly addressed in 27 countries of EU via associations.




18

Note

3




4

3

4

Comments

What is provided as an evidence basis for the envisaged actions is a descriptive assessment of the problem and the situation, and a repeat of the targets and deliverables (a European disabled self-care assessment report). Published evidence of the needs of disabled persons and of the effectiveness of the proposed measures is missing.

The general aim to promote equal opportunities to people with disabilities and facilitate access to health services is too ambitious and unachievable. The specific objectives are more realistic and well stated but lack precision; they are more stated in terms of deliverables than outcomes.

The target group is well defined but the limited geographic coverage of the partnership reduces the possibility to generalize.

The methods seem suitable for the objectives but should be better specified, also in the description of the work packages.

The project envisages a comparative study, which by definition is consolidating rather than innovative, although the comparison of material from a larger range of countries could have added to the knowledge base. A previous EU project funded within the DAPHNE programme is mentioned, but that project is not described and the lessons learned fro this project not specified, so it is difficult to say how the current project would build on to it. Other initiatives in this field are not mentioned.

An evaluation strategy with process and output indicators has been elaborated, and detailed in work package 10. Process evaluation is clearly outlined and focused in terms of quality assurance and project management. Target criteria and corrective mechanisms for process implication are specified for the process evaluation indicators, but they will only be available for consortium members. The validity of the indicators needs to be checked (e.g. website hits are not reliable).

No outcome indicators have been formulated.



4




Dissemination activities are clearly established. Information about the project results and deliverables will be disseminated via traditional channels (publications, conference) in the participating countries and at EU level. While the guidelines resulting from the project will need to be implemented at national level, the transferability and sustainability of the project's results have not been elaborated. Relevant associations are involved in the project, but it is not made clear not clear how they can impact on national or EU policies.




18

Note Comments






4

4

3

3

6

The project activities are well planned, with a good outline of the tasks to be performed and a sufficiently detailed and realistic timetable, although the latter is difficult to assess given the ambitious aims of the project and the considerable workload of the envisaged tasks. The deliverables are clearly described and relevant, but their description does not provide a good enough base to justify the budgeted costs. The risk analysis is relevant and realistic.

The description of the coordination tasks in work package 8 and the quality monitoring of the project's implementation suggests a sufficient level of organisational capacity. The staff is competent as suggested by their CV's. The role and task division, communication lines and quality assurance are well described and established.

The consortium includes a good mix of academic and training institutions, care provider organisations, and patient organisations, but governmental organisations are not included. Not enough information is provided to assess synergy and complementarity of the network beyond the local level. More extended networking possibilities can be expected but should be defined more clearly.

Internal communication seems well organised, with a clear outline of roles and responsibilities, meetings, and other internal communication tools.

Target groups for external communications are well defined but the communication channels

(website, workshops etc.) are not tailored to the target groups and their specific information needs, which should be more explicitly assessed.

The overall cost of the project (+ 2.000.000 €) and the requested co-funding by the Commission

(1.308.000 €) is exaggerated. The number of staff requested for some organisations is very high

(+20 persons) and cannot be justified by the tasks envisaged. Costs for travel are also high due to an exaggerated number of travels. Subcontracting and equipment are also high without sufficient justification provided. The distribution of the costs between the partners in the consortium seems well balanced.



Total:

20

56






No

0

0.00




By aiming to create equal opportunities and access to services for people with disabilities, this project links to the objectives on increasing healthy life years and tackling health inequalities in the Health programme, but does not address any specific priorities of the Work Plan 2008, which does not specifically mention people with disabilities. The project has strategic relevance and can have a European added value by providing benchmarks for practice from the comparison of information between countries, but the proposed strategy lacks precision and does not sufficiently explain how it builds on experiences from previous projects. The project objectives are well stated, the deliverables are well defined and the methods seem appropriate, but the technical quality of the project can be significantly improved by strengthening the evidence base, providing more detail on the methodology, and expanding the evaluation to include outcome evaluation. A major shortcoming of the project is its limited geographical coverage, which despite the involvement of European associations limits the possibility to generalize across the 27 EU MS.

The overall cost of the project is exaggerated and cannot be justified by the tasks envisaged.

The project can only be considered for co-funding if the following conditions are met:

- More countries must be actively involved thorough associated partners

- The general aim must be reformulated in a les ambitious and realistic way, and the specific objectives should be stated in terms of expected outcomes rather than deliverables

- Published evidence must be provided of the needs of disabled persons and of the effectiveness of the proposed measures, with a clear precision of how the proposed activities build on to previous projects and on lessons learned from other initiatives.

- The methodology must be further specified.

- Outcome indicators must be formulated for the evaluation, and the validity of the process evaluation indicators needs to be checked.

- The budget needs to be drastically reduced to maximum 800.000 € co-funding.





101,272.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym:



Study, Monitoring, Advice & Research Task on DRUGS

01/01/2009

24

S.M.A.R.T. DRUGS


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

AZIENDA UNITA’ SANITARIA LOCALE DI FORLI’

A.U.S.L. FORLI’

Public


Italy


NIVEL, Netherlands institute for health services research

Regione Emilia Romagna


University of Hertfordshire Higher Education Corporation

Acronym

NIVEL

RER

TUD

UH

4

City

Utrecht

Bologna

Dresden

Hatfield

Country

Netherlands

Italy

Germany

United Kingdom

4


The project is focused on the creation of an information database on smart drugs. The main problem related to this kind of drugs is not to know their content and characteristic - clearly described on their packaging – but to better understand their deeper consequences. The project intends to spread detailed information on smart drugs both to operators and consumers. The project frame takes in consideration two different aspects: 1) constant updating of the database by monitoring – gathering and classification – of new products and entering the market 2)

“antenna” activities with consumers and dealers in order to identify new smart drugs 3) inform and raise deeper public knowledge on risks related to legal drugs consumption. Web site will allow both to reach information and, after having classify and analyze them, to spread them in different youth contexts and locations and also to interact directly with each end user. By way of the activities foreseen the project supports 2008

Health Programme objectives, specifically Priority 2 – Promote Health, contributing to the preventing of drug use and drug related harm

(Addiction prevention: 2.2.1). As for methodology the project presses the creation a transnational working team focused on the implementation of project actions and the achievement of project results. As for activities / outcomes S.M.A.R.T. DRUGS will first of all analyse scientific information on smart drugs features and effects. Then, basing on research results, a smart drug database will be created by implementing the database already set up by Emilia-Romagna Region. Database will be hosted in project website, whose consulting services aim at informing endusers on characteristics and risks of smart drugs by means of an constantly updated information tool and to make scientific information on smart drugs available on the web for operators.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

118 575

194 499

47 016

29 391

9 543

0

129 000

110 743

39 758

678 525

Incomes

407 113

118 575

152 837

0

0

678 525









Note

6





4

4

6

4

Comments

This 24 months Italian project aims at creating an information database on the licit drugs ('smart drugs') sold on the web or in the 'smart' shops by collecting data to understand the reasons to administer those drugs, the effects of those drugs as well as to disseminate relevant information.

This project is consistent with the aforementioned documents and particularly is interesting in relation to the WP 2008 priorities (3.3.4.3). Unfortunately it is focusing on licit substances that might have a psychoactive effect (to be analysed first) instead of illicit substances combined with licit ones ('polydrug use' as referred to in the EU Drug strategy).

The idea focus a database, which is seen as not specifically contributing to the strategic relevance. Additionally the question of languages is raised as an issue as it is expected to be

"multilingual' with only IT and EN while associated partners cover UK, DE and NL in addition to IT.

Moreover as (youth) users are a target group of the web product, it should be clarified how those two languages could reach deeply enough this target group. Unfortunately the referred web link drives to a page requesting username and password which could limit its use.

It does contribute to harm reduction in general from what it is understood but the impact on target groups is questioned. Issues of duplication of actions with other EU projects has not been considered and sustainability is not explained in detail (how they will become sustainable?).

Additionally transferability is also questioned as the proposed languages to be used are only EN and IT.

It would have added value to this proposal to consider illicit psychoactive substances such as cannabis. Also the reference to its participation to the DCD II project already co-funded last year should be clarified (mainly for dissemination role) so that no double funding will occur.

The associated partners (NL, DE, UK, IT) are referred as the most involved in the production, commerce but also consumtion of smart drughs, the annual report form the EMCDDA shows that the issue of consumption has an EU coverage, much more than only 4 countries. The coverage is relevant but a bit poor for the expected outcome product having indeed a great accessibility feature.

The chapter is not really addressed by the beneficiary referring mainly to the use of internet being the greatest tool for reaching the young generation. Due to the content of the proposal and the coverage expected, it is nevertheless a bit doubtful how the project could really take into account relevant social, cultural and political context, for example it is not clear how the planned basic guideline of the EU Ethical Code on Smart Drugs could then benefit from the whole EU geographical, cultural and social diversity.




24

Note

4


3

Comments

The problem analysis seems acceptable and the participating countries have already some experience in this field however a more complete picture would have been welcome.

Specific objectives SMART but whether and how they are going to contribute to the general objective is not clear. Additionally as stated above the question of languages is raised as an issue as it is expected to be "multilingual' with only IT and EN while associated partners cover UK, DE and NL in addition to IT. Moreover as (youth) users are a target group of the web product, it should be clarified how those two languages could reach deeply enough this target group.

Unfortunately the referred web link drives to a page requesting username and password which could limit its use.




3

3

4

Not very innovative as there are already projects dealing with the issue cooperation with other EU activities should be examined.

Methodology explained and seen as adequate but there is not a description of an external evaluation; the indicators have been specified (list of quantitative indicators and targets).

Website, coordination meetings and the international conference on M24 should provide good dissemination of results however constant updating will be necessary because of new products overriding; sustainability should be ensured.








17

Note



3

4




3

3

5

Comments

Based on the description, the actual implementation of the project could prove much more difficult than expected.

Management structure is assumed to be solid being the applicant a national authority but should be refined in terms of quality of staff as only on professional is named. Decision making process of the leading applicant should be clearly explained to the partners.

Number of partners seems insufficient and the individual responsibilities have not defined. It is stated that this will be done at the Steering Committee but overall a bit confusing.

A communication strategy is specify but the adecuacy of the channels used could be improved as well as how they will in practice reach the target groups.

Very high subcontracting costs that are not justify. The budget is not evenly distributed between the partners. The amount of 25.000 Euros for 'technical assistant' is not explained. There is a mistake on the equipment as they have not specify the actual number of items requested the cost for the equipment is seen as too high.



Total:


18

59

This 24 months Italian project aims at creating an information database on the licit drugs ('smart drugs') sold on the web or in the 'smart' shops by collecting data to understand the reasons to administer those drugs, the effects of those drugs as well as to disseminate relevant information.

This project is consistent with the aforementioned documents and particularly is interesting in relation to the WP 2008 priorities (3.3.4.3). Unfortunately it is focusing on licit substances that might have a psychoactive effect (to be analysed first) instead of illicit substances combined with licit ones ('polydrug use' as referred to in the EU Drug strategy).

It is considered that not enough countries are involved and that the finances should be seriously inspected as subcontracting cost are seen as too high. Additionally most partners are public health authorities which should not need scientific assistance'. Moreover there is a concern that this project will address legal and also illegal drugs and about the volatility of the project that will be quickly innovated and replaced. A database will always need maintenance.




No

0

0.00





101,273.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: PHYSICO



Physical comorbidity, poor health behavior and health promotion in psychiatric patients

01/07/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Università degli Studi di Verona

UNIVR

Public


Italy


Centro De Rehabilitacion Psicosocial Ntra. Sra. Del Pilar

Hospital of Psychiatry Câmpulung Moldovenesc

Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology

Medical University of Vienna

University of Nicosia

University of Ulm

Vilniaus Universitetas

Acronym

SALUD

IPiN

MUW

UNIC

UULM

VU

City

Zaragoza

Warsaw

Vienna

Nicosia

Ulm

Vilnius

7

Country

Spain

Poland

Austria

Cyprus

Germany

Lithuania


Objective of the Project is the finalisation, testing and dissemination of a toolkit to promote healthy lifestyles specifically related to dietary habits and physical exercise in psychiatric patients.

The toolkit is designed to transfer existing knowledge into reproducible and transferable routine practice of the personnel of psychiatric services in different EU state members.

The Proposal addresses more than one Work Plan 2008 priority actions to stress the collaboration between different disciplines of health, which risk to act separately and produce gaps in health care, especially in the case of psychiatric patients, a particularly vulnerable, low socio-economic group with poor access to prevention and treatment.

The collaboration of partners of different European nations in different stages of development provides a broad array of contexts to test the toolkit, to share and disseminate quality care and to reduce the gap in health care.

Psychiatric personnel is trained in the toolkit and monitored while administering it to patients. Assessment and analysis of feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of the toolkit are also performed.

The expected outcomes are: 1. to involve mental health staff and 200 patients in the promotion of health and wellbeing, and in assuming direct responsibility of physical, besides mental, health; 2. the effectiveness of the toolkit in promoting change towards healthier lifestyles. Accurate manualisation makes the toolkit usable by personnel without specific qualifications and translations in different languages make it available for dissemination in the EU region.

7





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

389 852

434 806

28 800

23 237

29 600

16 000

0

34 000

66 939

1 023 234

Incomes

613 941

389 852

19 442

0

0

1 023 235













Note

4

5

3

3

2

Comments

The project aims to develop, test and disseminate a toolkit to promote healthy lifestyles, specifically related to dietary habits and physical exercise, among psychiatric patients. It links with the priority in the work programme 2008 on the development of recommendations, guidelines and initiatives to strengthen capacities for health promotion focusing on disadvantaged populations while also referring to mental health and social inclusion, but does not directly address these priorities. In terms of the objectives and priorities of the work plan this proposal is rather borderline.

The topic of the proposal – health of psychiatric patients – concerns a relevant problem and the project could have an impact on health even if only part of the population would be reached. It addresses gaps in the current programmes to promote health, as this group is often neglected in health promotion interventions. Any health promotion intervention targeted towards this group also brings added value by increasing patient empowerment. The strategic value of the proposal is however limited due to the clinical orientation and the overlap with existing projects (HELPS and ITHACA). There is no reference to the Health Promoting Hospitals Network. The impact on target groups can also be limited by the diversity of the target groups (chronic and ambulant patients).

The toolkit resulting from this project has potential to improve health promotion practice for disadvantaged population in synergy with ongoing programmes, but added value at a European level will only be achieved if there is broader uptake across Member States, which is not certain.

The way to achieve international transferability is not well addressed in the proposal.

The project consortium includes partners from Italy, Germany, Romania, Austria, Spain, Poland,

Lithuania and Cyprus. There is a representation of the EU15 and EU12, and a reasonable coverage of the geographical parts of Europe is achieved, although Scandinavian countries are not included. However, geographical diversity may not be the most important for this topic.

Instead, local geographic locations combined with the types of institutions and services should be considered.

The proposal contains contradictory info regarding its adequacy with the social, cultural and political context: it is stated that partners at country level will adapt the toolkit to the country specific situation, but this will be done after the project; it does not seem logical to develop a toolkit that needs to be adapted afterwards. Compatibility with cultural issues should be integrated in the toolkit. Moreover, the toolkit could put mentally ill people in a position of dependence of prescribed measures which do not improve their mental health. Finally, here is no clear mentioning of informed consent while use will be made of video.




17

Note



2

2

2

Comments

The evidence base provided is very modest. It states the importance of mental health problems and the high prevalence of co-morbidity of physical ill health in patients suffering from psychiatric disorders, but this is not done in a systematic and synthetic way. No literature reviews are cited, and there is no discussion on the differential prevalence among psychiatric patients of specific health problems (e.g., diabetes). No state of the art is provided on activities similar to this one to document the effectiveness, feasibility and applicability of a toolkit to address the stated problems.

The aims and objectives of the project are well stated but not realistic. It is not clear if the expected outcome is a toolkit, an improvement of the patients' physical health or empowerment.

Target groups and end users are not distinguished; the aim is to increase the responsibilities of mental health patients for their own physical health, but carers or family members are not involved. The methods are presented in a very general way. It is not clear if a version of the toolkit already exists and only needs to be adapted, or if it needs to be developed. It is also not clear who will adapt/develop the toolkit and how this will be done. A pilot test in a small sample is foreseen but this not clearly explained. The use of video is foreseen in budget but this is not explained.

The topic of addressing the physical health of persons suffering from mental health problems is relevant and important, but no state of the art is given of current programmes to promote health in this population, and no gaps are identified which this project addresses. The proposed actions overlap with what exists and although other ongoing actions are mentioned no account is given of how this project builds on to them.




2

2




The proposed evaluation strategy is only process oriented, which may be related to the unclear specification of the objectives and target groups. Indicators are stated but not all of them are relevant in terms measuring the applicability and acceptability of the toolkit. Evaluation of the quality of the toolkit is not foreseen, and neither is an impact evaluation of the toolkit's application at the level of patient health status or its determinants, patient empowerment and/or quality of life.

No logical model for evaluation is presented.

Channels are listed for dissemination, including a project website, conferences, books, and per reviewed publications, but these are not further explained. Patients, carers and the Commission are mentioned as the target groups for the dissemination, but not the professionals who will need to implement the toolkit. There is no mentioning of the ways to ensure the transferability and sustainability of the toolkit.




10

Note Comments






2

3

4

2

4

Expected outcomes and deliverables are well stated and the activities to achieve them reasonably well described but incomplete: the recruitment of patients and the involvement of other carers than institutional people are not mentioned. The timetable is reasonably well specified but not all important milestones are listed (e.g. recruiting patients). Four months are foreseen for the training on the toolkit, which is too long. The distribution of the tasks is not specified. The risk analysis does not define adequate risks or contingencies.

The members of the consortium have been involved in other collaborative projects, which would suggest that they have sufficient experience and capacity. However, several elements of the project management structure remain unclear: decision making procedures, communication channels, local monitoring, data collection, data entry and analysis, data protection, and financial circuits are not explained. The staff comprises mental health professionals, dieticians and physiotherapists to pilot and implement the toolkit, but their complementary roles are not explained.

The project consortium is sufficiently balanced in terms of representation from most parts of the

EU, but other than geographical coverage little information is provided regarding the reasons for the composition of the partnership. Some of partners have been involved in previous and ongoing collaborative projects, but synergies and complementarities are not explicitly made clear.

No clear strategy has been presented for internal communication, which will mainly happen through meetings. The project website is mentioned as a channel for external communication, as well as conferences, books, and per reviewed publications. These channels seem however very much targeted towards a scientific audience and are not further detailed. No information is provided on how communication will be arranged with the target groups.

The overall budget is high for a project that will be carried on the ground. Staff salary costs are unbalanced between the partners in the project, and the reasons for hiring staff with particular functions and disciplinary background are not given. Equipment costs are high and the purpose for the use of particular equipment (videorecorders, projectors) in the project is not explained. The costs for focus groups are also not explained.



Total:


15

42

By aiming to develop, test and disseminate a toolkit to promote healthy lifestyles among psychiatric patients the project addresses an important, relevant and neglected topic which borders to the priorities in the work programme but does not directly address these priorities.

Despite its potential impact on health and its potential to increase patient empowerment the strategic value of the proposal is limited on account of its clinical orientation, overlap with other ongoing projects, and a technical elaboration that shows several weaknesses. The consortium seems to have the capacity to implement a project of this scope, but the structures and procedures to manage the project could be much better outlined. The proposal does no reach the thresholds for policy and strategic relevance and technical quality and is not recommended for funding.




No

0

0.00





101,274.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym:



Healthy Lifestyle Portal

01/10/2008

36

HLP


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Magyar Dietetikusok Országos Szövetsége

MDOSZ

Public


Hungary


Zbornica nutricionistov in dietetikov Slovenije

1

Acronym

ZNDS

City

Ljubljana

Country

Slovenia


Setting up a portal with extensive services focusing on healthy lifestyle. The target audience would be European users -families and children.

Short term purpose: operating the services and the public surfaces of the portal. In the first step initiating Slovenia to the project. Later, as far as possible, initiating Slovakia, Romania and Croatia to the common project.

Content: Showing models of healthy lifestyle for children and through them, for families, with the help of cheerful programs.

Headings: family, body, nutrition, sport, school, emotions, safety and adolescence.

Each heading means a sub-page, where actual information is stored in connection with the topic.

The portal, in point of the public surfaces, has a registration system.

Each heading has its own advisor, who responds to the questions of the users in the form of 2--3 occasions of refreshing in a week.

Each heading has its own forum, in which the users can discuss their own problems.

The portal has a public surface, where the registered families can share their useful experiences. As far as possible, it would be a European public surface, where micro-communities could be established not only on the score of lifestyle, but other types of multicultural connections could be realized as well: users could share their own works, art products with other visitors of the portal.

To achieve this as soon as possible, we plan to translate the portal’s whole content to German, English, French and Slovenian from the very beginning.

1





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

126 828

2 172

7 374

21 148

0

223 160

45 100

17 705

443 487

Incomes

266 091

0

177 396

0

0

443 487











Note

4

2

1

Many similar initiatives exist.

Comments

The proposal is related to the priorities of the PHP and the 2008WP.



1

2

The added value is limited, as the approach is mainly national.

If a slightly different approach had been taken which was ‘research’ or evaluation of the process of developing the website and how this occurred with the lessons to be drawn for dieticians in other countries then this might have made it more relevant. Also more partners could have been included as consultants or advisors.

The geographical coverage is limited to 2 countries.

Slovenia is identified as a partner but has no identified role or work in the workplan.

No evidence is presented that the social, cultural and political context has been addressed when planning the project. It is questioned whether the age group 3- 12 years is appropriate / may be too broad.




10

Note

2


2

Comments

It is accepted that health education is poorly managed in Central Europe, but already ongoing initiatives should have been referenced.

No analysis of impact and effectiveness of the approaches presented.

The proposed content of the web-site is mentioned, but there are no methods described how to develop this content.

The work package descriptions are not completed.

Limiting the topics to be covered in one portal may be a better approach.


2


1





2

9

Note

There is a risk of duplication with other already existing portals on healthy lifestyles.

There is no discussion of already existing web-sites on healthy lifestyles and how this new one would fit with the others.

The evaluation only looks at the web-site. The road-show / conferences are not included.

The indicators are not relevant.

The stakeholders have not been identified ("professionals" too vague).

There seems to be confusion between project activities and dissemination of the project results.

Comments


2

The list of deliverables and the timetable is simple.

All tasks are carried out by the main partner.








Total:





No

0

0.00

1

2

2

3




A management structure of the project has not been described.

Tasks are not shared between the partners.

Internal communication, decision making and monitoring have not been described.

The partnership is limited to 2 partners and seems to be dominated by the main partner.

It is unclear from the proposal who will be responsible for non-nutrition related contents of the web-site.

It is poorly developed. Distinction between internal and external communication needs to be made. The target group have not been defined.

The overall budget seems high.

Printed materials, training, consultancy, tendering, rental cost etc are not clearly related to the activities described in the project, thus it is unclear what they are for.

It is unclear why 2 project managers are needed.

There is no staff for the Slovenian partner budgeted.

10

29


The project is limited in European scope and added value. There is a risk of duplication with other existing web-sites providing information on healthy lifestyle. These existing web-sites have not been discussed in the proposal.

There is no real pan-European partnership in order to carry this project out.

It is unclear who could provide technical content to the portal on non-nutritional topics.

The budget is too high for the activities foreseen and not balanced between the partners, thus it does not reach the minimum points of 6.


see conclusions





101,275.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: ARTEMIDE



INFECTION DURING PREGNANCY: EMERGING AND RE-EMERGING PATHOLOGIES PROJECT

EXPERIMENTING

01/12/2008

24


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

ASSOCIAZIONE ITALIANA STUDIO MALFORMAZIONI ONLUS

ASM

Private


Italy


CENTRAL MANCHESTER +MANCHESTER CHILDREN'S

UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS TRUST

DEZATA NA EVROPA - CHILDREN OF EUROPE

Laboratorio salute sociale

THE O+G CLINIC

TOR VERGATA UNIVERSITY OF ROME

UNIVERSITA' DELGI STUDI DI MILANO

ZAVOD ZA ZDRAVSTVENO VARSTVO KOPER - REGIONAL

PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE OF KOPER

Acronym

CMMC

CHEU

LSS

O+G CLINIC

TVU ROME

UNIMI

ZZV KOPER

7

City

MANCHESTER

SOFIA

MILANO

MSIDA

ROMA

MILANO

KOPER

Country

United Kingdom

Bulgaria

Italy

Malta

Italy

Italy

Slovenia

5


The projects ARTEMIDE aims at:

- defining good practices on handling infection during pregnancy paying particular attention to the emerging and re-emerging infections most risky such as HIV and TBC.

- answer the problems of iniquity which today are present among pregnant women as to the risk of infection, especially with regard to immigrant women who represent the greatest population at risk of infection and are difficult to reach.

- promote research to identify innovative strategies monitoring prevention, screening and treatment.

- promote a prevention campaign model to be diffused to other realities.

The project foresees the build-up of a European network for the study of the phenomenon of infection during pregnancy and exchange of good practices put into effect to date in this field through the collaboration of clinical institutes and associations so as to guarantee an overall health and social vision of the phenomenon and the replies to be proposed. Methodology foresees a series of 4 international seminar meetings for the collection of information on the phenomenon, experiences actuated to date and the programming and promotion of a prevention campaign for women most at risk, like immigrant women, in the services of the various participating countries. In Italy, experimenting to be carried out in 5

Italian gynaecological centres is foreseen for monitoring of screening, prevention and treatment activities referring to the principal emerging and re-emerging infections pathologies.

Cities which have recently entered the European Union (Bulgaria, Malta and Slovenia) will take part in the project which addresses itself in particular to the situations most at risk, such as immigrant women with less ability to safeguard their health for social and cultural reasons.

The expected results will produce a model for monitoring and a prevention campaign to be diffused at a European level.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

19 000

144 500

30 000

44 334

0

0

15 400

40 000

20 140

313 374

Incomes

187 038

19 000

107 336

0

0

313 374













Note

6

4

4

4

5

Comments

The project lies within the scope of the priorities of the 2008 work programme, even though there is no specific priority related to women's health

The strategic relevance of the project is rather low; it might increase to a certain degree relevant knowledge in a field; however, its scope is such that this will not have impact in terms of public health

Target group of the project is very limited to certain cities in Italy; transferability/ sustainability issues are not tackled. Mention of migrant women as a specific target sub-group is not reflected in the proposal; no mention of existing activities in the field

The proposed geographical coverage is very limited for an EU-wide added value. Data much wider than those of the hospitals concerned are necessary for pertinent conclusions; Migration is mentioned, but it is not important for some of the partners: the choice of non-Italian partners not relevant in this issue

The project suffers from a top-down approach and lack of adequacy with social, cultural and political context by not involving the target population (pregnant women): the only setting proposed is clinical; all other factors are not mentioned and the issue of migration is more of an alibi





23

Note

3

3

Comments

Reference to literature, data is totally lacking: what is the project corresponding to or building on?

Lack of evidence base. System for monitoring pilot - interesting idea, but not substantiated.

Project focuses on pathology and how we treat, therefore the focus is and much less PH or prevention related.

Aims and objectives do not follow a logical framework; the order of activities is confusing and unclear. It is also not clear what the project wants to achieve and in which area: prevention, monitoring or treatment field?

Innovative nature is not spelled out. Also this is not a new-emerging problem and there are also very many project activities already taking place in the field which the proposal fails to acknowledge


3


3


3




Note

Evaluation strategy is very poor / the prevention campaign comes too late for its impact to be efficiently measured. Methodology is inadequate and indicators lacking

Dissemination strategy is generic/ weak. Prevention campaign could theoretically help disseminate results, at least more broadly that the meetings. Content of dissemination not specified – not sure that the project will be able to tailor messages to target groups.

Comments


3

Presentation of planning and organization inadequate; no proper risk analysis. The timing of the two prevention campaigns is faulted: the first intervenes too early (not sufficient preparation) and the second one too late for impact assessment




3

4



3



Total:





No

0

0.00

6

19

57




The management structure and internal communication descriptions are inadequate: it is not clear who is in the project SC. Some of the partners also seem to lack competence (i.e Bulgarian partner)

A positive point is the diversity of the partners involved and the resulting complementarities:

NGOs, different types of organizations; there is however, a lack of expertise in health promotion and it is not clear how the partnership will be able to evolve (possible lack of cohesion)

Weak: not clear what the strategy is about: diversity of target groups requires a coherent and structure communication approach

The budget is very low for what the project aims to achieve; furthermore, it all 9almost) goes to the main partner

Confusing objectives and unclear methodologies render this a weak project proposal. The proposed activities lack a European dimension and the project should be treated as a national level initiative





101,283.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: BPS



Bouge, une priorité pour ta santé.

01/06/2008

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Fédération nationale de la mutualité Française

FNMF

Private


France


Union Nationale du Sport Scolaire

1

Acronym

UNSS

City

Paris

Country

France

1


"Bouge, une priorité pour ta santé" aims at improving the health condition of the children (the target population beings the pupils of 11 and 14 years of age) and to promote the adaptation of an active and healthier life by promoting physical practice within the school environment as a start and to trigger a virtuous cycle in the close environment of those children (impact expected on family and friends). The scope of the project is national and European. The experiences learned and data gathered at national level will help us to establish a proper benchmark for

European partners who would be interested to transpose our project in their own country.

Our program is relevant to the 2008 work plan related to Nutrition, overweight and obesity related health issues (WP 2008, 3.3.3.4)

Lack of physical activities among young people is known to be a probable cause for health issues (overweight, obesity but also respiratory troubles or mental health issues). Our program will provide valuable results on the link between physical activities and health on a wide scale. It will also provide with a method and a set of tools (approved by experts on health and sport) for all actors willing to foster healthier behaviour as regards to physical activities.

The project intent to ally a state of the art pedagogic and scientific approach to a bottom-up approach based on the practice of physical and sport activities outside the mandatory hours usually devoted to those activities. In that respect, information and methods will not only be disseminated among the target population but will also be put in practice.

The project rely on a unique network of PE teachers within the UNSS structure which allows a direct access to the targeted population. The program will not only foster physical activities among the teenagers but develop an awareness on the link between PSA and their health condition. The collected data and report will set a benchmark for future projects in that field.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

1 088 008

34 800

37 670

79 142

2 254 928

288 400

344 300

165 500

4 292 748

Incomes

2 553 988

0

1 075 000

0

663 760

4 292 748
















1

3

13

Note

3


2




Note

4

3

2

1

1

2

Comments

The proposal is generally in line with the priorities of the PHP, in that addresses PA promotion in school children.

As the project is national, the strategic relevance is low.

The outcomes are not transferable / sustainable.

The data collected may be difficult to use for policy making and beyond this project.

The added value is limited, since it will be carried out in 1 country only.

No new approaches are being tested which could give some added value.

Impact on target group is judged to be small.

The long-term impact, beyond project time, is questioned.

The project is only carried out in France.

Social stratification based on income is discussed, but it is not clear how this will be further considered. Overall the activities seem to be adequate for France.

The European political context has not been considered.

Comments

The problem has been analysed, but no reasoning how the proposed action will improve children health.

Information on the effectiveness of the interventions is missing.

The age group various throughout the project 11-14, 11-13 – this needs to be consistent.

It is unclear whether a consent form from the parents will be sought before data about the children's health are collected.

Methods are not described in enough detail.

The innovation seems limited, also due to the national scope.

Existing and past actions at EU level have not been considered, thus duplication cannot be ruled out.

Relevant questionnaires / fitness assessment tools could be taken from the ALPHA project, currently running.

This is a weak point of the proposal.

The indicators described are not relevant in order to measure process, output and outcome of this project.

The dissemination strategy is without detail. Stakeholders are not defined.

The channels are not mentioned – how will the European public health community be reached?

There is no reference to sustainability and reproducibility of the project.

Communication and dissemination seem to be mixed.




9

Note Comments


2

The timetable is unrealistic: a project submitted to the EC for funding in late May cannot start in

June of the same year. A starting date in (late) autumn of the year of submission seems more realistic. Also, it is advisable to not set strict dates, but plan the months in a flexible way.

The risk analysis names important risks, but the coping mechanisms are not well specified.

The WP are poorly described.








Total:





No

0

0.00

2

2

2

2




The applicant organization, together with the UNSS, seems capable to carry out this project in

France.

The schools which are targeted could have been added as collaborating partners.

The partnership is limited to 2 partners – in comparison to that, the budget is very high.

No reference to EU networks is provided.

The task sharing between the partners is not clear.

The description of the internal and external communication is not sufficient, but some explications have been given under dissemination.

The project is very expensive in comparison to the outcomes expected.

The budget is tilted towards the main partner.

Workpackage 1 is too expensive (one event only).

Workpackage 4 is not clearly described, but has a highbudget.

Project staff is usually 1-5 per partner. Person days cannot e more than 220/year.

Revise number of trips.

The communication campaign is too expensive.

The pedagogic instruments have not been described in the project, so they cannot be accepted in the budget.

Subcontracting costs are high as well – important project tasks should not be subcontracted, but carried out by consortium partners.

"Goodies" and "insurance" and "catering" may not be eligible.

The overheads should not be more than 7%/partner.

The transport cost for children to the Paris event is questioned.

10

32

The project aims to increase physical activity in children, which is important. However, the project is not recommended for funding as a national project cannot be funded under the Call for

Proposal of the European Public Health programme.

The applicant may with to participate in an InfoDay the Public Health Executive Agency organizes once a Call for Proposals has been opened (check PHEA web-site for dates).


see conclusions





101,285.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: PSYCHO Life



Procedure and Safety of Youth & Communication of Health and Orientation of Life

01/11/2008

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Istituto Statale d'Arte "E. Giannelli"

ISA - Parabita

Public


Italy


Asl n. 4 L' Aquila

Associacao de Paralisia Cerebral de Coimbra

Centro Professionale di Formazione & Ricerca APULIA

Confao

Cooperativa Sociale "Solidarietà" a r.l.

Deutscher Paritätischer Wohlfahrtsverband

EUROPEAN CONSULTING BRUSSELS SPRL

IHI - Marco Paret

Institute of Family Relations

Provincia di Lecce

Regione Puglia - Assessorato alla Solidarietà

Regione Puglia - Assessorato Politiche della Salute

S C de Maria Oxlade

Total Target s.r.l.

Ufficio Scolastico Regionale per la Puglia

Unesco Club

Università de l'Aquila

Acronym

Asl n. 4 L'Aquila

APCC

C.P.F. & R. APULIA

City

L'Aquila

Coimbra

Parabita (LE)

Confao

Coop. Solidarietà

Roma

Parabita (LE)

DER PARITÄTISCHE Baden-Württe Stuttgart

ECBrussels BRUSSELS

IHI

SSI

Provincia di Lecce

Assessorato Solidarietà

Assessorato Sanità

SCO

Total Target

USR Puglia

Unesco

Univ. Aquila

Nice

KAUNAS

Lecce

BARI bari

London

Parabita

Bari

Haskovo

L'Aquila

17

Country

Italy

Portugal

Italy

Italy

Italy

Germany

Belgium

France

Lithuania

Italy

Italy

Italy

United Kingdom

Italy

Italy

Bulgaria

Italy

8






The project was realized as a result of an important work of analysis and research of labours carried out in educational contexts and research centres compared to the phenomenon of wastage. It aims to act on the situations facing the problem of psychiatric unease among young people, implementing ideas and innovative practices for their recovery and for a dialogue among different institutions, at European level, that acts as an open system, receptive and complex. In respect to the development of partnership and of project idea, it was shown the need to define a project that could take-charge a three-year pathway addressed to the weak part of population, young people, often victims of situations arising out of familiar environments and of incentives of the agencies of socialization.

Therefore, the project overall objective is to develop specific programs within schools to promote mental health, to prevent mental disease, in young age, to eliminate factors that contribute to delay the disease recognition, to favour a well-timed take-charge of young people with mental disorders, through early diagnosis and intervention, in order to reduce the risk of pathological results and chronic disorders. The main methodologies that will be implemented follow: the adoption of an integrated and systemic approach and the added value to the experiences and skills gained from the different partners.

Among the most significant approaches to achieve the objectives, there are:

- The research, as a model research participant, trying to overcome the dichotomy between the theoretical aspect, assigned to the researchers, and the practical aspect, assigned to teachers and health workers.

- The development of innovative, flexible and personalized models of intervention and taking charge of young people in situations of mental disorders.

- The choice of emphasize peer education methodologies. Young people involved in initiative will have the opportunity to learn how to sense

Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

306 000

661 699

40 500

14 490

0

0

0

63 128

69 383

1 155 200

Incomes

693 120

306 000

156 080

0

0

1 155 200
















Note

3

2

1

1

1

8

Note

1


1

Comments

The topic is interesting and links with work plan but the actual objectives activities are very unclear so it is not clear in what way the project will contribute.

Investigating health issues including bullying and proposing measures has strategic value, but objectives and methods are too unclear. No policy making area is touched upon.

It is not clear what this project can contribute to EU level policies, given the vague aims and objectives and the limited geographical coverage.

11 out of 17 partners are from Italy, as well as all 92 collaborating partners. There is no justification for the selection of these partners.

The adequacy of the project with social, cultural and political context is not explained. It is unclear how end users and target groups will be involved. The gender perspective is not included.

Comments

Evidence is given to clarify the problem, but it is not clear what the project is trying to address.

The question is not if mental health in youth is important, but if the proposed approach is relevant and effective and if the proposed measures are applicable. No references whatsoever are made to published data.

The aims and objectives in terms of expected outcomes are unclear and are not constant throughout the proposal. Deliverables are not well detailed. No details are provided on the methods. The target groups are only specified in terms of age groups. The benefits for target groups not given.


1


1


1




Note

Innovation is claimed but is not supported: no state of the art is given and it is not clear what the project tries to achieve and how this will be done, so it cannot be inferred if there is duplication with what already exists. There is already a substantial literature and experience on health promotion and bullying prevention in schools. A survey is not innovative as a method.

Evaluation is mentioned but only in very vague terms. Apart from a number of educational indicators no concrete measures or procedures are outlined. There is no indication of output or outcome evaluation, which anyway would be difficult due to the unspecific objectives.

The proposed strategy for dissemination provides only a diffusing methodology, and only focuses on dissemination at a national level, inn the sense that the project will be presented by press conferences and workshops in Italy. No transferability and sustainability is foreseen.

Comments


1

Activities, timelines nor milestones are well elaborated. The distribution of tasks and responsibilities is unclear. Work packages are identified but not elaborated: they contain lists of people but no tasks or activities are specified. The text written under risk analysis is irrelevant, and does not provide real risks or contingencies. 7000 working days are scheduled for dissemination, which is highly exaggerated.








Total:





No

0

0.00

2

0

1

1

5

18




Several management bodies including a project secretariat and an assembly will be established, but it is not clear who will do what and what the decision mechanisms are; there is a risk of overlap. The competency of the staff is not convincing: multi-disciplinary expertise is listed but it not clear what their roles and complementarity will be. A list of previous projects is given to attest to the main partner's project management capacity, but these appear to be very minor projects with small budgets and not in a leading role. The overall project budget is 3 times the annual turnover of the main partner.

This seems to be a very large partnership but 11 out of 17 associated partners and 92 collaborating partners are from Italy. There is no justification for the selection of these partners.

The consortium clearly des not have a EU character. Not all individual partners have particular expertise in this area and the reasons for their selection are not given. The group lacks the skills to conduct a project of this scope.

An internal communication strategy lacking, which is important given the size of network.

The external communication strategy is limited to a website. It can be assumed that collaborating partners will communicate about the project but this is not explained.

The overall budget is extremely overestimated compared to the scope and relevance of the project. There are several mistakes in budget. Staff costs are inconsistent. Local travel costs are included, which is not allowed. All staff costs are too high: e.g. 711 person pays for evaluation,

This project application is out of scope of the health programme and of the priorities of the work plan. It is predominantly a national project with some added partners from other Member States, but not a real network. The elaboration of the proposal is weak in terms of objectives, method, partnership and budget.

The project does not reach the threshold of 50 points and is not recommended for funding.





101,286.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: Nesting



Nesting: creating a healthy environment for babies

05/01/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Women in Europe for a Common Future

WECF

Public


Netherlands


Baltijas Vides Forums

Clean up Greece

EcoWorld-2007 Association

MTÜ Balti Keskkonnafoorum (Baltic Environmental Forum Estonia)

Nagycsaládosok Országos Egyesülete

Naturskyddsföreningen (Swedish Society for Nature Conservation)

SPOLECZNY INSTYTUT EKOLOGICZNY

VšI Baltijos aplinkos forumas (Baltic Environmental Forum Lithuania)

Wildcard Research and Communications

Women in Europe for a Common Future, France

Women in Europe for a Common Future Germany e.V.

11

Acronym

BEF LV

CUG

EcoWorld-2007

BEF EE

NOE

SSNC

SIE

BEF LT

WRC

WECF France

WECF DE

City

Riga

Athens

Sofia

Tallinn

Budapest

Göteborg

Warszawa

Vilnius

London

ANNEMASSE (Cedex)

München

Country

Latvia

Greece

Bulgaria

Estonia

Hungary

Sweden

Poland

Lithuania

United Kingdom

France

Germany

11


The Nesting project will promote infant and child health in safe indoor environments by building the capacity of parents and health professionals across 12 European countries to understand and minimise the risks of different indoor pollutants which affect children's health, and to find safer alternatives.

The principles behind the action are prevention, action at the European level and responsiveness to the needs of the target groups. The project will add value through its innovative nature and pan-European reach. Parents are targeted at grassroots level, health professionals are trained as multiplicators, and political decision-makers are informed through policy recommendations. Marginalised groups such as immigrants are also involved.

The indoor environment is important to public health, since children are especially vulnerable to indoor air pollutants, and are at risk from lifelong ill-effects. Babies and children should enjoy the highest levels of protection against toxic substances indoors (Right to healthy indoor air-WHO

2000, CEHAPE RPG III and IV) ). Expectant and recent parents are receptive to behaviour change messages, and are very likely to take action to reduce any risk to their child, as well as being more environmentally conscious.

The action is directly relevant to the priorities of the Second Programme of Community Action in the field of Public Health 2008-2013, under

Objective 2, in particular Annual Work Programme points 3.1, 3.3.; 3.3.1 and 3.3.2; and to Objective 3, in particular Annual Work Programme points 3.3.3.4, 3.3.4.1 and 3.3.5 and it also addresses paragraph 22 of the Health Programme.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

466 182

78 508

68 108

0

63 950

150 020

491 270

92 258

1 410 296

Incomes

846 170

0

564 126

0

0

1 410 296













Note

6

5

3

6

4

Comments

The Nesting project fits the objective 2 “promote health” of the second Programme and more precisely the capacity building ‘AWP 3.3.1) that focuses on children and address health inequalities. However although in line with the general principle of capacity building, actions on indoor air quality, with the exclusion to radon, are not open for proposals (3.3.5.1 foresees 2 administrative arrangement with JRC, 1 direct agreement with WHO (on training of professionals) and actions to minimise radon exposure (this is open for proposals by external stakeholders).

Prevention of children’s ill health is of strategic relevance for the EU and a strength of the project is perceived in the sense that it involves new actors and consumer groups.

Training of professional on environment and health (including indoor air quality) is already covered by other proposals (WHO direct agreement). Innovative is the involvement of parents.

This might be however limited to an increase of awareness of parents on the link between bad indoor air quality and health.

A note is made in the sense that the project seems to have an advocacy nature. The rationale for supporting the advocacy is weak from the scientific perspective.

WECF is a Europe-wide network of NGOs and it is very active in support and implementation of the European health policy however the added value of the proposal is limited to the awareness increasing of parents on the relationship between indoor air quality and health. No added value can be seen for the remaining aspects.

Fairly good geographical coverage. The Nesting project will work in 12 countries West (NL, DE,

UK), East (PL, BG, HU) South (FR, GR, ES) and North SE+LV, LT, ET). However the partnership is mostly limited to NGOs.

The project takes great care of the needs of parents and gender equality is acknowledged the project also and uses a bottom up approach with a baseline survey to assess needs.

There may be some concerns about identification, contact and follow up of marginalised groups, especially low income families and immigrants. Although being at high risk due to their poor conditions of living and therefore a relevant target population, the stability of these groups is very limited.




24

Note

2


2

Comments

The evidence based for the proposed activities is weak. Empowerment seems to be the main focus. Additionally it is unclear how the actions mentioned are going to be developed or just utilised for other purposes (i.e Dad's diary).

It takes into consideration the results of a pilot project which showed that parents are largely unaware of the health risks associated with air pollutants frequently present in decorating and cleaning products, furniture, toys and clothing.

The inclusion of parents from low income families and immigrants may represent an underestimated difficulty. Additionally a lot of 'uncoordinated' activities are outlined. It is difficult to see who is actually doing what and also for some work packages how contacts with health professionals that partly have similar tasks will be organised.

In addition providing guidance on safe products and renovation materials may be questionable as the issue is how safe is safe and on what rationale (scientific background) does these guidance rely.

What substances will be tested in the products ?


3

Not considered as having a major innovation and concerns are raised about possible duplication with national activities (i.e 'Que Choisir' or 'Okotest for the product testing'






3


4




14

Note

The evaluation strategy is depicted using quantitative and qualitative methods. However the content, cost and how representative are the internet questionnaires are to be discussed.

The reliability of the scientific expertise underlying the training ability and the assessment of safety and the expected outcome measurement; it would have been expected to measure in terms of behaviour change.

What is a semi external evaluation ?

Dissemination is at the core of this project. Multiple channels are used however the transferability of results is only implied and not specified.

Website might be of limited effect especially regarding those who need extra support.

Comments






2

3

2

2

4

Not clear timetable is given, only a copy of WP content. Deliverables and milestones only become clearer in the WPs; the risk analysis is incomplete in particular concerning the follow up for marginalised groups.

The leader is not mentioned in 6 out of the 10 work packages and the risk of poor follow up of the marginalised groups is not foreseen and discussed. Additionally the distribution of task and responsibilities are not specified.

Although very complex as 12 countries are involved, the management of the project largely adequately. However the responsibilities are unclear.

Conference call meetings every 2 months by country and theme may be too short an interval with limited added value

Good relationship and complementarity between partners. However there is overrepresentation of advocacy NGO's in the partnership.

Relationships with policy bodies at the European level need additional presentation and explanation.

More effort should have been put on the external communication which is too policy advocacy oriented.

One partner is dominating with half the budget, additionally several of the work packages have no clear responsible. The number of trips and related cost is disproportionate (137 trips for the main partners!) and overly inflated. The office material has also been inflated as well as the printing cost.

Given the work load of the main partner, the number of person/day seems low but with a high cost.

Is the cost of the analysis for (at least) 70 products soundly evaluated?

Who are the thematic experts?

The level of sub contracting is considered quite high (11%).



Total:


13

51

This project deals with exposure of children to indoor air pollutants which is an important health issue indeed and justify some high scores in this evaluation. However, given the sensitivity of this topic and the risk of misunderstanding by the target populations, great care must be taken to rely on a sound scientific background. The proposal does not present clear assurance that this is the case. In addition, the budget and the financial management, as they stand are not convincing and have significant shortcomings. Therefore, this project is not recommended for funding.




No

0

0.00





101,288.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: EDECEM



Establishment and distribution of a European curriculum for postgraduate education Environmental Medicine for physicians.

05/01/2009

24


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

European Academy for Environmental Medicine e.V.

EUROPAEM

Private


Germany


Association luxembourgesoise de medecine de l'environnement

British Society for Ecological Medicine

Bureau Medische Milieukunde

CLUB DE NEUROLOGIE DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

Dr. Gerd Oberfeld

Fundaciòn Alborada

Institute of Public Health of the Republic of Slovenia

Irish Doctors' Environmental Association

Karolinska Institute

Latvia Medical Association ms consult - INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH

Ordine Provinciale di Roma dei Medici-Chirurghi e degli Odontoiatri

State General Laboratory

University of Tartu

VALSTYBINIS APLINKOS SVEIKATOS CENTRAS (STATE

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CENTRE)

15

Acronym

Almen

BSEM

BMM

CNE

GO

Alborada

IVZ RS

IDEA

KI

LMA ms consult

RM OMCEO

SGL

UT

VASC

City

Beaufort

London

Ellecom

Sarreguemines

Salzburg

Brunete (Madrid)

Ljubljana

County Kildare

Stockholm

Riga

Ry

Roma

Nicosia

Tartu

Vilnius

Country

Luxembourg

United Kingdom

Netherlands

France

Austria

Spain

Slovenia

Ireland

Sweden

Latvia

Denmark

Italy

Cyprus

Estonia

Lithuania

15






Present project’s general objective is to establish and distribute a European curriculum for education in environmental medicine for physicians.

To arise awareness about the high amount of illnesses linked to the environment is an urgent need. By educating physicians based on this curriculum we directly follow the priority action to work in rare diseases with focus on continued action to improve knowledge and facilitate access to information on these diseases. Thus trained physician will be enabled to diminish individual harm in future as well as start primarily prevention earlier and comprehensively.

Project starts by checking already existing curricula and modifying them to a draft version for a pilot training. Thereby the curriculum will be evaluated and modulated. Finalised version is offered to all European medical authorities asking to introduce it into the national advanced professional education.

To follow the specific object of distribution and dissemination national conferences in each partner country are organised for implementing education based on the European curriculum. For physician’s benefit an award is strived as a national or European certification and European

Continuing Medical Education Credits from national authorities or European wide from UEMS.

In past education in environmental medicine was dominated by theoretical faculties missing clinical practical environmental medical subjects.

Lacking knowledge physician were not able to diagnose and treat patients suffering from illnesses linked to the environment sufficiently, not able to start prevention early. Project offers opportunity of a rapid European wide knowledge transfer. Gaining scientifically based knowledge will give feedback to the universities to intensify research. The acquired knowledge and experience in environmental medicine will have impact on national and European political prevention strategies and economical relief in Health Systems.

Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

135 947

590 670

67 432

81 859

2 700

14 000

0

147 533

72 801

1 112 942

Incomes

623 933

135 947

353 062

0

0

1 112 942













Note

4

4

4

3

2

Comments

The project is relevant to the Health Programme. The applicants refer the proposal to 3.3.1.

Improve knowledge and facilitate access to information on rare diseases. It would, however be more linked to 3.3.5.1. in the Work Plan where training in environmental health is addressed. This priority is intended for direct grant agreement with WHO.

To educate physicians in environmental medicine is relevant, but the present program addresses treatment of patients with environmentally-induced symptoms. The strategic value in this is questionable, at least in many European countries. The project is not going to contribute to existing knowledge; it aims to further distribute knowledge. There is some strategic value in offering the same course in many countries, but to gain acceptance this education should be carried out within the academic system.

There is a potential for added value on European level, but the proposal lack linkages to some key international and national institutions. The applicants mention the Bologna process but the proposal does not outline how this course should fit into the process.

The project intends to build on existing courses in Germany and Luxembourg. Due to different educational systems in the different countries it is not obvious how the course will fit in other countries. To be sustainable, close contacts with the national educational systems is necessary.

The project groups covers EU quit well. The work is however to a large degree based experiences in the country of the main partner. The role of the associated partners should be developed. Only 6 out of 16 partners are from academia, others are either private consultancies or laboratories.

There are models for training in medicine, health and public health in the different MS due to differences in the social, cultural and political context. Ministries of health are not always in charge for medical education. These aspects should have been better addressed and the project outlined to adopt the different contexts.




17

Note

2




3

2

Comments

The evidence base is poor. Some important problems are described, but this should have been done more thoroughly. Once an environmentally-induced disease develops it has to be treated according to the target organ. The main issue is to diagnose the possible link between the symptoms and the exposure which most of the time is multiple. Preventive work in environmental medicine, which in most instances is the relevant focus, is not sufficiently discussed.

The general aim is clear, though indeed general. Specific aims are clearer except aim 4. The methods miss collaboration with national accreditation agencies and representatives on education field. The level, length, status and role in the educational system of the proposed postgraduate course is unclear.

The innovative value is fairly low. Environmental medicine is included in many medical curricula across Europe (Denmark, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria etc.), although sometimes rather unsystematic and combines both public health and clinical medicine. Duplication may arise, in particular with the other ongoing action mentioned in the proposal. This would need further clarification and possibly coordination.



2

3

12

Evaluation of the implementation of the educational course and its acceptance by physicians is not addressed. The strategy needs elaboration to include these aspects. Evaluation should be done by an external organisation.

The dissemination strategy is fine as of the physicians as target group but misses completely those who can decide upon implementation of new curriculum. These bodies should be contacted at an early stage to gain acceptance for the course.








Note

2


2

Comments

Timetable and milestones are fine, but the expected outcome of some of the deliverables is rather unclear. The main partner takes a lot of responsibilities and tasks. To distribute the work and responsibilities more evenly between the partners would be beneficial. The information given is fairly limited.

The staff is competent and all of the partners well qualified. However, as organizations some of them are rather small (associated partner No. 1 seems to be a private person), and some of them might have difficulties in fulfilling their roles in the project.

The internal communication is reasonable. The decision making is linked to other project run by the main partner, which might be a weakness.


2



2



Total:


5

13

42

The partnership misses partners who could help to implement the course in the different educational systems. This challenges the sustainability of the planned course. Network structures and synergies between partners may need further development. Academia is rather limited represented.

Quite a lot of different activities are mentioned such as meetings, videoconferences, and workshops. As mentioned before, targeting the relevant authorities is missing.

This seems to be a very expensive project considering the objectives. The budget is unbalanced towards the main partner, who also travels extensively. Quite a large part of the budget is for travelling. Some daily costs seem high.

The project is not recommended for co-funding, even if the need for common European education in environmental medicine is recognised. The main drawback of the present project is the lack of strategy for implementing the planned course into the different educational systems in the MS.

There are also several issues about the scope and planning of the project which needs to be clarified. An appropriate evidence base, including preventive approaches, should have been provided. The budget is excessive.

0




No

0

0.00





101,289.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: PETS&PEOPLE



People-with-disabilities Environmental Treatment Services & Protocols for European Overcoming Practices of

Limits and Exclusions

01/01/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Centro Servizi Agraria Veterinaria

Ce.S.A.V.

Public


Italy

Azienda USL nr.2 Perugia

Comitato Italiano Paralimpico

Cooperativa il telaio

Fondazione Laboratorio per le Politiche Sociali

Ghismo onlus

Granaforma S.L.


Katholieke Hogeschool Kempen

Plant Research International

Scottish Agriculture College

Sligo srl

Trakia University

Università di Perugia Dipartimento di Scienze economico-estimative e degli Alimenti

University of Szeged

13

Acronym

AUSL2-UCSM PG-PSG-AS

CIP

Ippogrifo

LABOS

GHISMO

GRANAFORMA

City

Perugia

Perugia

Civitella D'Arna (PG)

Roma

Bettona

Granada

KHK

PRI

SAC

SLIGO

UNI-TRAKIA

Geel

Wageningen

Edimburgh

Perugia

Stara Zagora

DSEEA

UNI-SZEGED

Perugia

Hódmezovásárhely

Country

Italy

Italy

Italy

Italy

Italy

Spain

Belgium

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Italy

Bulgaria

Italy

Hungary

7


PETS&PEOPLE project, in the framework of "Promote Health" priority, “Mental Health” action, focuses on importance of"mental health promotion and mental disorder prevention".Therapy with animals is a new frontier for mental health promotion since childhood also stimulating different abilities in persons with mental difficulties or gaps under a social approach.The project provides an added value to the Commission's view, as set out in the Green Paper, to move "away from the provision of mental health services through large psychiatric institutions …towards community-based services".The research, based on experimenting a feasible and sustainable enlargement of relationship environment for people with mental problems or disorders, supports the European Policies for a better quality of life for patients, their families and other carers, in a wider social context, contributing to their integration and dignity.Animal Assisted Activities and Therapies are analysed as an innovative challenge for health programmes, tackling stigma and isolation,improving services and better way of life for patients with mental problems or disorders. Starting from the most relevant experiences, such as care farms, AAA&AAT knowledge, competences and services are studied, evaluated and collected in order to provide a complete framework of alternative cares and relevant impact on individual,family and social problems in comparison to traditional hospital treatments.In this context strategies, best practices and solutions are developed for a better health management in Europe addressed to local administrations, associations,social services,institutions, citizens. Social and economic comparison, based on multi-criteria analysis,individual and collective social capital evaluation, training and legal basis are integrated in the research.PETS&PEOPLE project aims at increasing a specific model for exchange and cooperation based on transferability of health best practices and systems in Europe.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

304 000

232 000

38 000

48 000

0

0

354 000

169 500

64 500

1 210 000

Incomes

726 000

304 000

180 000

0

0

1 210 000











Note

4

3

1

Comments

Project aims to develop and promote a strategy to enhance social inclusion of people with mental health problems using pet therapy. This is certainly an interesting approach but due to its focus on tertiary prevention and treatment rather than mental health promotion it only partially falls in the scope of the public health programme.

The contribution of this project to the existing knowledge or practice is not demonstrated. There is no strategic approach to ensure that it will be able to contribute.






2

1

11

Note

2


2

The scope is too narrow to have an EU added value. Developing and integrating this type of approach in services across the EU would have a strategic value, but that is not the purpose.

Transfer from Western to Eastern European partners is suggested but this is not an EU added value, only capacity building between institutions.

Several partners are involved, including some from the NMS, but 8 of the 13 partners are from

Italy, and no justification is given for the choice of the partners.

The adequacy of the project with social, cultural and political context is only addressed in a non-specific way. The information provided on this topic is irrelevant and the specifics of contextual relevance are not analysis.

Comments

The evidence base presented is general. The potential benefits for the target groups are not well argued and supported by evidence. There is a reference to the benefits of the approach, but no systematic reviews are presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach or on the variety of animal assisted therapies for different target groups.

The overall goal of the actions is not well presented, and the objectives are not clear ad not well linked to the aim. They seem to be concerned with raising awareness and building capacities but this is not mentioned. Outcomes, target groups, methods and interventions are not well specified.



1

The idea of pet therapy is innovative, but as no state of the art is presented it is not possible to infer innovative nature of the project and avoid duplication.


1

2

The proposed evaluation strategy is a very general description of evaluation procedures but applied to this project. Process or output /outcome evaluation is not provided. Cost benefit analysis is mentioned but not taken up in the work package.

Multiple channels are mentioned for dissemination, but little information is provided on how they will be used. There is a misunderstanding and confusing between internal communication and dissemination, in the sense that videoconferencing will be used for dissemination purposes. No concerted dissemination action is foreseen among the different target groups. Transferability and sustainability are not given.




8

Note Comments


2

Very little concrete information is provided in the work packages on what the envisaged actions are. The timetable, organisation of the work and risk analysis are superficial.








Total:





No

0

0.00

2

2

2

4




Responsibilities, internal communication, decision making processes and monitoring are unclear.

No international or national experience is listed which could attest to the capacity to manage a

European level project.

The consortium is reasonably large but not balanced, with 8 of the 13 partners being from Italy.

The choice of partners, their compatibility and synergy are not given. It is not clear what each partner will bring to the consortium or project.

Multiple channels are mentioned to communicate about the project but the methods are not explained. External communication to other EU public health constituents such as public health professional associations is not specified. The procedure to increase visibility of he project is unclear.

The overall budget is high considering that the aims, objectives and proposed actions are not clearly outlined. The budget is unbalanced in favour of the main partner. High numbers of working days and related staff costs are budgeted, and moreover substantial consultancy costs are budgeted for all partners without justification. Costs stated under other costs are no justified.

12

31

The overall project idea is interesting but only partially relevant for the priorities of the health programme and work plan, and the project description and elaboration has many serious weaknesses. The project does not reach the threshold of 50 points and is not recommended for funding.





101,306.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: StrongMentalNet



Strengthening informal networks to promote mental health

Guidelines for training & practice of health & social care professionals

01/02/2009

34


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Austrian Red Cross

ARC

Private


Austria


Estonian-Swedish Mental Helath and Suicidology Institute

Forschungsinstitut des Wiener Roten Kreuzes

Institute of Social & Preventive Medicine

Jagiellonian University Medical College

National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health

Romtens Foundation

University of Kent

Work Research Centre Ltd.

8

Acronym

ERSI

FRK

ISPM

JUMC

STAKES

ROM

UniKent

WRC

City

Tallinn

Vienna

Athens

Krakow

Helsinki

Bucharest

Canterbury

Dublin

Country

Estonia

Austria

Greece

Poland

Finland

Romania

United Kingdom

Ireland

8


General objective: 'Mental health of population is increased by improving professional practise and organisational commitment for establishing and working with informal networks for social inclusion of specific beneficiaries (young people aged 12 - 18 and older people aged 60+)'

Strategic relevance: With this project we address the problem of weak social networks and the risk of mental health disorders. Functional social networks are helpful for emotional and practical support and are important for people who suffer or are in danger of mental disorders and diseases.

Supporting health and social care professionals with guidelines on social network development and maintenance, means addressing a neglected, yet important field, of professional work.

With the development of such guidelines, we are in line with areas of funding as stated in the call and the annual working plan, priority area 3.3.

'promoting health with the focus on mental health'. We address the aims and objectives in the decision No 1350/2007/EC promoting human health through dissemination of health information and exchanging knowledge and good practise.

This will be achieved by developing a common working and research plan; expert involvement from the beginning via expert panels; guideline consensus process using a two wave delphi and through discussions and presentations of the guidelines in at national expert conferences where training specifications and implementation recommendations will be drawn.

Expected outcomes are that the produced guidelines will be used by a wide range of health and social care professionals in daily practise. The guidelines, which is the main output of the project, are an important milestone. In order to make the process and the guidelines available to a wider public, a book will be produced at the end of the project.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

832 046

30 800

31 774

2 200

0

97 400

44 700

72 720

1 111 640

Incomes

666 983

0

444 657

0

0

1 111 640













Note

6

4

3

5

3

Comments

The project focuses on improving mental health trough strengthening informal social networks in young people aged 12-18 and older people aged 60+, in cooperation with actors in the heath and social sector. It relates directly to priority 3.3.3.1 of the work plan 2008 (development of guidelines to integrate mental health promotion and mental disorder prevention into training and practice of health and social care professionals and to combat social exclusion), but with a narrow focus on specific vulnerable groups. Aiming to strengthen informal social networks by way of guidelines is ambitious and has a low chance to be adopted.

The overall objective to strengthen informal social networks for vulnerable groups as a way to promote mental health has strategic value, and covers an area that has often been highlighted as important for public health but thus far has not been the subject of much EU level work. However, the project endorses the somewhat naïve view that social networks can be created via reference guidelines. Very little reference is made to the extensive body of research on social capital. The project mentions the concept, but does not sufficiently build on to it.

As social isolation is an underserved subject in public health, the project could create significant added value if it would succeed to develop a methodology for health and social professionals to include members of vulnerable groups in social networks. However, guidelines for health professionals are unlikely to strengthen informal social networks among the target groups, which are not sufficiently described. The guidelines seem more concerned with the professionals to be trained than with the end users, and the transferability of the results is questionable. References are made to existing European networks and policies, but their roles are not elaborated.

The consortium includes partners from various parts of the EU and is reasonably well balanced, although more partners from Southern Europe could be added. It is unclear if there is enough coverage of the variety across Member Sates in terms of training systems for professionals.

The proposal seems compatible with the target groups and ethical issues appear to be addressed. However, social isolation as a concept will be perceived differently in different parts of the EU, and this is not accounted for. A one size fits all approach will not work. There is no involvement of representatives from the end users.




21

Note


2

3

Comments

The evidence concerning the importance of the problem of social isolation is adequately presented, although no references are given. In contrast, the large evidence base on social capital, social exclusion, risk factors for social exclusion and measures to overcome these is not stated, and no evidence is given for the effectiveness of guidelines as the proposed measure in this proposal. Associated factors of social isolation among elderly persons are mentioned, but are considered as causal factors, which is incorrect. The proposal also misses out on the context of an ageing Europe and does not provide any demographic evidence.

The overall aim of the project is clearly stated and relevant, but the objectives are stated in terms of deliverables, not as outcomes, and are not SMART formulated. Targets groups are not well defined and not involved in the proposed actions. The proposed method for the development of guidelines will be expert opinion via a Delphi method; given the available evidence this represents the lowest level of standard for developing guidelines, while a systematic review or even a meta-analysis of published intervention studies would be feasible. It is not clearly stated if the guidelines will be universal or target group specific. An implementation plan for the guidelines is not specified. No pilot testing phase is foreseen, only a discussion with stakeholders at a conference.


2

The guidelines on social inclusion that are to be developed in this project are presented as an innovation, but disregard the extensive body of work on social capital and social inclusion, as well as existing initiatives at Member states level and internationally. The methodology to arrive at the guidelines (Delphi method among experts) will not bring any innovation and only reflect the state of the art.




2

2




An evaluation strategy is clearly stated and indicators are specified, but these only include process measures, despite the contrary being stated. The method for process evaluation is not fully elaborated. No effect measures are given, which is understandable given that the objectives are not stated in terms of expected outcomes, yet it would have been possible to define impact and outcome measures such as uptake of the guidelines among services, the changes in accessibility of services, etc.

A dissemination strategy is proposed but it relies heavily on professional networks (conferences), the use of a website and e-forums, which is insufficient. To guarantee the effective uptake of the guidelines the dissemination should have been more emphasised and a more systematic stakeholder analysis should have been foreseen. The transferability and sustainability of the results have not been made clear.




11

Note Comments


3

The activities that are planned for the project are clearly outlined and in keeping with the objectives, but the latter are stated in terms of deliverables, not as expected changes. A timetable is specified, but the time foreseen for the whole exercise is too long, especially since many elements are already known. Especially the time between the two delphi rounds is unnecessarily long. No intermediate milestones are listed for the process to develop deliverables. A management structure is proposed outlining the responsibilities of the partners, but the distribution of tasks is quite narrow, with most tasks and responsibilities assigned to the main partner. The risk analysis refers to issues that should already have been sorted out at this stage

(e.g., a lack of cooperation of partners), and does not address specific risks of the study.





3

3

2

5

The main partner has a wide experience with EU projects and has a supportive manager. A management structure is identified, and routines for communication and monitoring are clearly outlined. A memorandum of understanding between the partners will be set up. However, many partners have no main contribution except for participation in the delphi exercise in the capacity of national contacts.

The project builds on an existing partnership of organisations with a track record in public health and health promotion, a large experience in previous EU grants, and a high level of synergy.

However, the work packages and tasks are not well distributed between the partners in the consortium. The consortium also does not have specific experience in the area of social inclusion or in systematic review guideline development. For the latter, consultation with professional associations such as ASPHER or with experienced institutions like NICE would be recommended.

Routines for internal communication and monitoring are clearly outlined in the management structure. External communication is limited to professional networks and health and social care professionals, and relies heavily on standard communication channels such as a website and conferences aimed at professional networks. To guarantee the effective uptake of the project results, policy makers, funders of health services, and end users should also be reached, and a systematic stakeholder analysis should have been foreseen to identify their information needs.

The visibility of EU co-funding of the project is not mentioned.

With 34 months for 2 delphi rounds and development of guidelines, the project duration is too long. Therefore the project is too expensive, although the budget is reasonably well balanced between the partners. The number of staff and the corresponding staff costs are high, as most partners will only be involved in the Delphi exercise, which does not require a high staff input. The number of trips and therefore travel ad subsistence costs are also high, considering that participation in a Delphi process by definition does not require face to face meetings.

Subcontracting costs should also be explained.



Total:

16

48






No

0

0.00




By aiming to develop guidelines to improve mental health trough strengthening informal social networks in young people and older people, this proposal addresses an area which despite its importance for public health has not yet been the subject of much EU level work, and which is specifically mentioned in the work plan. However, the idea to create social networks via reference guidelines is ambitious and has a low chance to succeed, especially as the end users are not involved in the project. While the project activities are well outlined and will be carried out by an established partnership of organisations with a track record in public health action and a large experience in previous EU grants, the project does not sufficiently build on the extensive body of work on social capital and social inclusion. Furthermore, the proposed method for the development of guidelines via a Delphi method represents a standard that is not compatible with the current state of play, as a systematic review or even a meta-analysis of published intervention studies would be feasible. The evaluation strategy does not sufficiently address outcomes, and the dissemination strategy is mostly limited to professional networks and relies on standard communication channels, which does not sufficiently guarantee the uptake of the result. For its scope and aim, the project will take up too much time and is therefore too expensive. Mainly as a result of the low scores on technical quality and budget, the proposal does not reach the threshold of 50 points and is not recommended for funding.





101,320.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: SPORT YOUR LIFE



ACTION PLAN AGAINST CHILDREN OBESITY IN EUROPE AND FOR THE PROMOTION OF SPORTS

01/10/2008

24


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

FEDERACIÓN ESPAÑOLA DE BALONCESTO

FEB

Private


Spain

Comune di Bologna


Danish Gymnastik & Sports Associations

Kendro Merimnas Oikoyennias kai Pediou

Manchester City Council

Municipality of Puerto Lumbreras

Municipality of Veria

PARAGON EUROPE Ltd.

Verein zur Förderung des Technologietransfers an der Hochschule

Bremerhaven e. V.

8

Acronym

COBO

DGI

KMOP

MCC

VERIA

PARAGON EUROPE Ltd.

ttz Bremerhaven

City

BOLOGNA

Hadsten

Athens

Manchester

VERIA

Mosta

Bremerhaven

Country

Italy

Denmark

Greece

United Kingdom

Spain

Greece

Malta

Germany

7


- General objective:

Our project will contribute to the general objective fixed by the Programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008), in particular: implementation and exchange of good practice on comprehensive initiatives to address healthy living in young people incorporating life skills training, parental involvement and whole school/whole community actions and the promotion of physical activity.

- Strategic relevance & contribution to the programme:

The basic assumption underpinning the SPORT YOUR LIFE project is that the dissemination of knowledge and experience are key contributing factors to address healthy living in young people, and the society in general.

- Methods and means:

Awareness raising campaign, exchange on knowledge and experience between professionals, dissemination of the health policy objective and good practices, networking, interactive web site.

- Expected outcome:

To foment the promotion of healthy lifestyles and promote the practice of sport, in particular Basketball, as an alternative of healthy living condition.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

60 600

254 850

31 200

11 918

0

81 095

8 000

15 765

18 150

481 578

Incomes

258 629

60 600

173 489

0

0

492 718
















Note

5

3

3

4

4

19

Note

3

Comments

The project is generally in line with the PHP and the priorities of the WP2008 as it aims at promoting PA among youth.

The contribution to existing knowledge is not clear, but the awareness raising campaign can link and add to existing activities.

Sustainability issues are not addressed.

The activities are compatible with EU policies in this field.

However, the impact on the target group is not clear and long-term effects not discussed.

There are 7 countries involved from various parts of Europe. Adding a partner from Eastern

Europe would be good.

Not clear how these issues will be addressed across countries or within groups in the countries, so gender, age, ethnicity etc.


3

Comments

The problem of obesity is analysed, however there was no necessity to do that – providing the evidence base for PA promotion would have been more adequate, as this is the focus of the project.

References should have been added to substantiate the reasoning.

Also, there seems to be a mix of activity description and evidence base, which needs to be separated.

The project needs to "flow" – it needs to be consistent from the overall objective, to the specific objective, which has to match the deliverables, the methods to the evaluation and the dissemination.

Basketball trainers could be added as a target group.

The purpose of the survey remains unclear.

Basketball should be the focus of the project – do not try to put too much into one project. PA promotion through basketball to youth, especially if from low socio-economic background would be a good objective.


3


3





3

15

Note

The project needs to build on the potential of basketball and its role in promoting PA in the urban environment. This would make a strong, innovative project.

The evaluation strategy includes clear indicators, even though thresholds should have been provided (reach at least (give a number here) beneficiaries etc).

Timing for evaluation has been specified.

The dissemination seems adequate to reach the target group, but the dissemination of the project results should be described as well.

Comments









Total:





No

0

0.00

2

3

3

3

6

17

51




The planning is a bit vague – more details are needed, especially since the goal to reach 10 000 schools, which seems very ambitious.

There seems to be no operational connection between the tasks and the activities.

The consortium seems to have the capacity to carry out this project.

Decision making procedures should be defined.

Consider to add partners from academia/communication.

Little evidence of the quality of the partnership and past experiences between the partners.

The linked functions of the partners are not made clear.

The communication strategy seems to be carried-out by the main partner. More information is needed.

The overall budget seems adequate for the project and is balanced between the partners.

The project is not recommended for funding, but it has a high potential.

It is suggested that the project focuses on basketball promotion – this could be linked to PA promotion and urban planning or general community actions.

Promoting basketball per se, as part of PA promotion for youth is important and does not have to be "forced" to fit the obesity prevention agenda.

Link the project to sporting clubs at local level – as these existing social infrastructures could provide sustainability beyond project time.

Deliverable 2 may not add much to current knowledge, especially if not carried out by relevant experts.

The proposal would benefit from thorough planning, clear description for the tasks and a good distribution of these among the partners.

The applicant may wish to consider participating in an InfoDay organized by PHEA when the annual Call for Proposal is opened.


see conclusions





101,357.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: MHEI



Strategies for the employment integration of persons with mental health disorders

01/01/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

PROVINCIA DI ROMA

PROVINCIA DI ROMA - DIP. LAV

Public


Italy

Fundaciòn INTRAS


OAKE-Europe

PSYCHOANALITIC INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH

TRACK

4

Acronym

INTRAS Foundation

OAKE-Europe

IPRS

REAKT

City

Valladolid

Manchester

ROME

GOUDA

Country

Spain

United Kingdom

Italy

Netherlands

4


MHEI seeks to contribute to the removal of barriers to the integration of individuals with mental health disorders (mMHD) in the workplace. In doing so MHEI will (1) promote mental health, by tapping into and supporting the individual's strengths, and (2) prevent physical malaise, by reducing the risk of cyclical relapse of the illness. MHEI works to increase knowledge, better target future research, improve the quality of service delivery, and increase service effectiveness. Using a combination of research and training activities that actively involve key stakeholders, the project will improve the capacities of employment counsellors, social-health workers, employers, NGOs, EU experts, and other stakeholders, directly contributing to HP 2008. The project consists of two key aspects: research and training. Research includes national reports for each partner country followed by questionnaires with stakeholders, in-depth interviews and focus groups. The information gathered will be made available online via the construction of a database and website that will provide open access to the practices/programmes in the database. The training component involves professionals and employers in each country and focus on capacity building with a core group that will serve as multipliers in their own contexts.

MHEI will result in the creation of an open-access programme/practice database for use by professionals and stakeholders throughout Europe, a practice and policy guidelines manual, a collaborative working model, and national and transnational stakeholder networkers that will allow for increased awareness and knowledge and vertical collaboration and learning.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

95 000

591 290

40 800

62 797

0

0

50 000

17 250

60 000

917 137

Incomes

549 000

95 000

0

0

0

644 000









Note

4





4

3

2

2

Comments

The project is concerned with the social inclusion of persons with mental health problems and aims to help them integrate in the workplace. As such it relates to priority 3.3.3.1 of the 2008

Work Programme, which calls for the identification of best practices for combating social exclusion of people with mental health, although employment of persons with mental health problems is not a specific priority in the programme. However, the proposal does not indicate in which way it will contribute to the strategic objectives of the Programme, and does not clarify how it adds on to what already exists in terms of social inclusion, reducing inequalities and building capacities related to mental health.

The development of evidence based guidelines for health professionals with regard to employment advice for persons with mental health problems could be relevant for public health practice. However, the application does not give convincing arguments to support its added value to the existing practice. No information is provided on the current state of affairs in the employment of persons suffering from mental health disorders at national level, neither on the potential contribution of the project to the fulfilment of the EU policies in this field. In addition, the application does not make clear reference to the transferability of the project results or to efforts that to be deployed by the partners to make them transferable to a wider number of organisations in the EU.

The link between mental health and employment is relevant but the proposal concentrates on activities at the level of the participating Member States, and does not propose solutions at a

European level. Employment of persons with mental health problems is not of particular relevance to European policies and should be financed by national resources, although a pilot project to exchange good practices across MS could yield interesting information. Unfortunately, the project only refers to classical welfare models of the EU15 and does not consider other models. It could also further refer to the impact of social security benefits on the inclusion of people with mental health problems. The long term effects of the guidelines by themselves will be limited and need to be backed up by controls, regulations or (at least) feedback to professionals.

The geographical coverage is limited compared to the stated objectives of the project to contribute to the removal of barriers for integration of people with mental health problems in the workplace. Only five organisations from four countries are involved, all of which are Western EU countries, and New Member States are not included. Differences in social security systems within the EU are not sufficiently covered. No justification is given regarding the selection of the partners or participating countries, and the role and activities of the associate partner organisations regarding the promotion of health policies in their own countries are not clearly stated.

No clear description or summary needs analysis is provided as regards the situation and the needs of the target group in the participating countries. The target group is generally described as

"mentally ill people" but their needs are not well specified and their particularities in terms of culture and language diversity are not taken into consideration, apart from a few generic affirmations. The target group may no cover all relevant vulnerable groups (e.g., ethnic minorities, migrants, single mothers, …). No clear reference is made to, policy context in terms of the trends, opportunities and/or shortcomings of the relevant policies and practice in the participating countries.




15

Note

3


3

Comments

The issue is well described and gaps are well identified, but the description of current measures is too brief and lacks meaningful detail. The description of the problem is limited to three classical

EU welfare models. The evidence does not provide a sound basis to infer that what the project intends to do applicable, effective and sustainable.

The overall aim of the project, to develop guidelines to bring persons with mental health problems back to work, is clear. The objectives are focused and well organised but are not in full alignment with the aim and not SMART formulated (specific, measurable, acceptable, realistic and time-bound). The description of deliverables and activities is reasonably analytical but the outcomes are not realistic. The target group is only generally described as "mentally ill people", which is not sufficiently detailed and may not cover all relevant vulnerable groups.

The outline of the methodology is not sufficiently detailed and mostly is a list of intentions, rather than an indication and elaboration of the methods to achieve the stated objectives. No rationale is given for the choice of the methods in terms of their likely effectiveness or their suitability for the target groups.





2

4

4




Innovative aspects not convincingly portrayed. Relevant parts of the appl form not referring to justified & evidence-based arguments, as advisable. Main innovation is that mental health is linked to employment & social inclusion but not clear if similar reviews have already been undertaken by other groups, and how this project adds to them. Envisaged actions may overlap with nat. activities without adding to them. Appl refer to the need for policy approaches to mental health promotion, without clearly explaining how the proj is expected to bring answers to the current lack of policies and/or strategic planning. Facilitating the translation of knowledge into practice through guidelines and frameworks for action will be key issue, but not clear if project will realistically address this.

The proposed evaluation strategy is well developed and described but mainly entails a standard approach to evaluation. The methodology of process evaluation is adequate to monitor the implementation quality. It would however have been advisable to put more emphasis on output and impact evaluation, also paying attention to the added value in comparison with other measures aiming at bringing similar assistance to the direct target groups.

A very detailed, multi-channel dissemination strategy is proposed, which involves standard elements of dissemination. However, dissemination is mostly focusing on intermediaries and not on the end-users. The methodology to ensure that the end-users will have access to the results and to enhance the transferability of the project to end-users who have limited access to information is not addressed. Likewise, the valorisation potential of the project and the sustainability of the results are not addressed. A training pack for health workers is mentioned but not further explained.




16

Note Comments






3

3

2

3

5

The description of the project activities is detailed and explicit with clear indication of the tasks, timetable, and deliverables. The work is clearly divided into the various work packages, although the distribution of tasks between the partners could be more elaborated. Two of the work packages (2 and 4) are also overemphasised in terms of man-days. The timeline is ok but does not specify enough milestones in the process of achieving the stated deliverables. The proposed risk analysis is very brief, and does not bring enough elements correct the stated risks during the project implementation.

The proposed management structure is simple but largely adequate, with an advisory board and regular trans-national meetings. Six-monthly cyclical audits are envisaged, as well as a financial management plan. The management however relies heavily on the input of the two Italian partners, without any real input by he other organisations. Internal communication lines could be more explicitly mentioned. The reasons for subcontracting the development of the IT tool in addition to already high man-days and staff cost should be better explained.

The consortium is small in size and does not have a sufficient coverage in terms of EU geography or differences in social security systems within the EU. No justification is given regarding the selection of the partners. The track record of the partners in terms of EU project management and in the core content tasks of evidence synthesis or best practice appraisal is not convincingly demonstrated. In terms of transferability of the outputs, the capacity of the partners for transfer of know-how or exploitation of the results at European level is not mentioned. The lack of specific skills and competences of the partners in the consortium does not provide sufficient assurance that the project will deliver and that the results will be of the required quality to be exploited at

European level.

Internal communication will rely on virtual (telephone conferences and web-based meetings and actual meetings. External communication is addressed in the dissemination plan, which is detailed and involves multi-channel communication about the project results via standard channels, but focuses mostly on intermediaries and not on the end-users. No clear demonstration is made that the project results will be communicated at a wider European level.

The overall budget corresponds to the envisaged activities but is disproportionately high in relation to the expected benefits. The budget is not well distributed among the partners, with over

50% of the EC contribution going to the two Italian partners.

Some of the items in the detailed budget need adjustment. The budget for staff costs is overestimated, with too many working days for the two Italian organisations and very high executive salaries for administrative staff (management). Travel and subsistence costs are also high and not well justified. The reasons for subcontracting the development of the IT tool in addition to already high man-days and staff cost should be better explained.

Total criteria block C: 16






Total:


47

Although employment of mentally ill persons is not a specific priority in the health programme, the elaboration evidence based guidelines for health professionals to help assist persons with mental health problems to integrate in the workplace links to the priority to identify best practices for combating social exclusion of people with mental health in the 2008 Work Plan. The strategic relevance and EU added value of the proposal are however limited due to the fact that it concentrates on activities at the level of the Member States, and does not propose solutions at a

European level. Furthermore, it does not give convincing arguments to support its added value to the existing practice or to the fulfilment of the EU policies in this field. While the project is sufficiently well elaborated in terms of aims, objectives, deliverables and planning of the actions, it needs more specification of the evidence base, target group, and methodology to achieve and evaluate the stated objectives. The proposed management structure is simple but largely adequate, but the consortium is rather small in size and does not have a sufficient coverage in terms of EU geography or differences in social security systems within the EU. The absence of specific experience and competences of the partners in the consortium for the core content tasks of evidence synthesis, best practice appraisal and exploitation of the results does not provide sufficient assurance that the project will deliver and that the results will be of the required quality to be exploited at European level. The overall budget corresponds to the envisaged activities but is disproportionately high in relation to the expected benefits, not well distributed among the partners, and insufficiently justified for a number of items in the budget.

The proposal does not reach the threshold of 50 points for overall appreciation and is therefore no recommended for funding.




No

0

0.00





101,358.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym:



IN FOOD VERITAS

15/09/2008

36

InFoVer


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

PROVINCIA DI MACERATA

PROVMC

Public


Italy


Associazione “PSY - Project”

COMUNE DI TOLENTINO - TOLENTINO MUNICIPALITY

G¿ ¿e¿¿¿¿¿ S¿¿¿¿ ¿eµes¿¿ C¿ Technical School of Lemesos

Haapsalu Vocational Education Centre

Istituto Professionale di Stato per i Servizi Alberghieri della

Ristorazione e Turistici "G. Varnelli"

Pirkanmaa Educational Consortium

“Virgil Madgearu” Economic College

7

Acronym

PsyPro

COMTOL

TSL

HVEC

IPSSART

Pirko

CEVM

City

Tolentino (MC)

Tolentino

Lemesos

Uuemõisa

Cingoli

Tampere

Ploiesti

Country

Italy

Italy

Cyprus

Estonia

Italy

Finland

Romania


The general aim of the project "InFoodVeritas" is to promote positive action to disseminate correct eating habits and prevent eating disorders

(obesity, anorexia and bulimia) , according to a psycho-nutritional integrated approach.This project plans an experimental research and some formative and interventional methodologies according to an integrated psycho-nutritional innovative approach so as to identify the good usages that want to bring an added value to the existing knowledge in the field of Health.To the present day, the European alimentary educational programmes are almost exclusively directed to children under 14 years of age.This project will provide a great number of data and publications with detailed descriptions about the researches and the formative interventions carried out, about the results obtained, about the wished changes and about the effective impact on the adolescent population. The objective is to provide new knowledge and methodologies to improve the educative programmes for adolescents of 14-15 years of age by enlarging the complexity and the efficiency throughout the integration of the nutritional and organic aspects with the psychological aspects; this being fundamental to act upon the risk factors that concern both incorrect eating habits and lifestyles and real alimentary behaviour disorders. According to the action 3.3 of the WP and to the HP2008-2013 action, this project intends to activate some actions to promote Health and improve lifestyles.

5





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

124 970

52 250

110 500

134 000

7 000

50 000

26 000

25 500

33 280

563 500

Incomes

338 100

124 970

100 430

0

0

563 500










Note

5




3

3

4

3

Comments

The project falls under the priorities on the PHP and the WP2008, as it looks at obesity prevention in adolescents. The active contribution to the WP is not clear.

The strategic value is limited.

There is some mention of the wider ecological dimensions to food choice but no mention of how this project will contribute to this field. In terms of the contribution to the knowledge of public health there are a number of problems with the proposal as laid out:

¿The assumption that across Europe that there is no work on this age group, actually a lot has been done already

¿The assumption that eating disorders are the result of psycho nutritional imbalances, in fact many argue the opposite relationship. Good food habits and knowledge do not always lead to healthy choices.

¿The imposition of a didactic model and no engagement with the target group (except to identify those at risk) on their needs.

¿Why schools of catering, there is no evidence that they have a history of contributing to healthy options?

¿Why decide on a peer education approach at this stage before the initial analysis and consultation with key groups?

¿Lack of clarity in means and methods. School nurses are identified as a key group early on, and then disappear from the proposal.

The data set to be provided may be interesting at EU level.

The project misses to have a multi-disciplinary approach.

As the target group (students of vocational training related to food and nutrition) is very specific, transferability may not be easy.

The consortium includes partners from 5 countries covering Eastern, Southern and Northern

Europe, which seems adequate.

No links to cultural and social agendas in the participating countries demonstrated.

A focus on the psychological aspect of food choice is interesting but here the focus is on identifying those with a tendency to food problems/disorders and there is a lot of top down decision making on the process and not involving users (children, parents and teachers) in the process.




18

Note

3



2

2

Comments

The problem is analysed, but the measures to be taken are not discussed, barriers not mentioned.

Ongoing projects in this field are not referenced.

The project assumes a one way influence of psycho nutritional approaches and an almost linear approach to behaviour change, which is not the case.

There is a lack of consistency and clarity in the proposal.

While school nurses are mentioned in the beginning, they are not mentioned later on.

The age group to be targeted changes from 14-15 to 15-16 years of age.

The specific objectives are overlapping each other.

Methods how to reach all the specific objectives have not been described.

It runs the danger of stigmatising or victim blaming groups/individuals by identifying them as at risk and targeting them for interventions.

Using a psycho-nutritional approach changes nothing about the conditions in which people live.

The innovation the project could bring is not clear.

No awareness of other, similar activities at European level shown, thus duplication may occur.

The focus is downstream in public health nutrition terms and while this can be appropriate the focus cannot be solely on the adolescent and their reflections on the themes of food, etc.






3





4

14

Note

Questionnaires are mentioned, but it is not clear whether new tools will be developed or existing ones will be used.

The indicators are not clear. One indicator per specific objective should have been provided, which was not done.

There is a lack of detail on the methods and the means to be employed.

The dissemination strategy includes standard means (web-page). The audience was defined, but the key messages and the timing are missing.

Comments


2




2

3

3




Total:


6

16

48

The main partner seems to have experience in project management, which is a plus, as is the steering committee.

The timing is not clear.

The risk analysis could have been more holistic.

The management structure seems appropriate.

However, the roles of the 2nd and the 5th associated partner have not been identified.

The project consortium has a good mixture of compentencies.

Internal communication has been described.

It is unclear how the communication with the peer-educators will be carried out – via teachers or directly?

The overall budget seems adequate for the project.

The number of missions is high.

The budget per partner seems not balanced (no plus or minus to be made).

While the project is generally inline with the priorities of the WP2008 of the PHP, the project is not recommended for funding.

There is little linking of psychological approaches to more structural ones such as the school environment or policies.

Overall there are weaknesses in this application with a lack of clarity concerning means and methods. There is a lack of consistency with different age groups being mentioned in different parts of the document.

The project covers a wide range of activities. The research part does not finish before the intervention starts, hence there is a risk that the findings of the research part will not be taken into account.

The deliverables are neither presented in a logic nor in a chronological sequence.


see conclusions




No

0

0.00





101,359.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: IINTEGRA-MENT



Integrated approach to improve social inclusion of people with mental problems

15/01/2009

32


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Regione Abruzzo

RA

Public


Italy


AGENCE NATIONALE DE L’ACCUEIL DES ETRANGERS ET DES

MIGRATIONS

Birmingham City University

Human Health Design, Institut für die Optimierung von

Gesundheitssystemen

Medical University of Varna

Therapeutische Frauenberatung e.V.

UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DELL’AQUILA

Viešoji istaiga “MTVC”

7

Acronym

ANAEM

BCU

HHD

MUV

TFB

UNIVAQ

MTVC

City

Paris

Birmingham

Wien

Varna

Göttingen

L'Aquila

Vilnius

Country

France

United Kingdom

Austria

Bulgaria

Germany

Italy

Lithuania

7


The project contributes to objectives and priorities of the “Public Health Programme” 2008 (WP priority 3.3.3.1).The main objectives are to: tackle stigma and discrimination, prevent mental health problems, ensure access to good primary care, organize good community services, create a competent work force and arise awareness of the importance of mental well being.

As underlined in the GP and the WHO Helsinki Conference, the organisation of mental health care is responsibility of each country and varies a lot across EU but there is need to identify common basic principles and objectives for the development of mental health policies in the Member

States. The project will provide the following fundamental issues with high EU added value:

- development of a dissemination strategy contributing to demonstrate the centrality of mental health

- identification of tools and methods to improve mental health services and design an integrated strategy that work in different geo-socio-cultural settings

- development of EU networks of stakeholders and professionals

The main methods and means used are

- comparative analysis of partners’ countries care systems and identification of good practices

- development of a guideline designing a EU strategy for combating stigma and of targeted training for professionals

- research for the identification of interrelations between mental ill health determinants and resilience on 2 specific target groups (women and immigrants)

- experimentation of a concrete example of a cost effective model of integrated system of care, easily transferable and sustainable

The expected outcomes are that more:

- people access to mental services in EU, overcoming stigma

- policy makers and stakeholders are aware of updated scientific findings

- attention will be paid to the rehabilitation as integrant part of care

The equal opportunity and gender perspective in which the project activities are planned will also affect and involve other EU policies





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

481 740

257 840

35 800

29 400

2 800

27 000

96 640

83 000

62 350

1 076 570

Incomes

594 830

481 740

0

0

0

1 076 570













Note

6

2

2

3

3

Comments

The project proposal addresses mental health and social exclusion, which links up directly with priority 3.3.3.1 in the work plan 2008. However, the project is rather unfocused and aims to tackle stigma and discrimination as well as prevent mental health problems, ensure access to good primary care, organize community services, and create awareness among the health workforce.

Overall social inclusion of people with mental health problems gets little emphasis in this proposal, which is primarily concerned with health care.

The project touches on vulnerable populations, which has strategic value. Although the topic and objectives are strategic, the proposed methods are not appropriate to reach the objectives, which are too ambitious and unfocused. It is mentioned that good examples exist but they are not given, so it is not possible to assess the addition the project will bring to the current practice.

The project seems to start from zero level, while there are already a lot of activities ongoing to address mental health and social exclusion. These are not adequately reviewed and built upon.

Developing tools to tackle stigma and discrimination of people with mental health problems could have an EU added value, but the methods and target groups are not well explained, and multiplier effects are not clearly stated, so it is not certain that the tools will be used. Moreover, the proposal has limited value to public mental health as it mainly addresses health services. The targets of the

Lisbon Strategy on equal opportunities are referred to but this link is not explained.

The project consortium comprises 8 partners from the EU15 and EU15, and represents a good mix of academic institutions, NGOs representing the target groups, and local and regional governmental organisations. However, the size of the network and its coverage are not good enough to make results transferable to the EU level. There is not enough detail on the differences between the Member States represented in the project in terms of social exclusion and the organisation of mental health services.

The proposal states explicitly that ethnicity and cultural background will be taken into consideration, but fails to provide details and specific examples. It starts from a biased premise on the balance between individual freedom and protection of society instead of taking an objective perspective by stating that "the design is focused on the person and not on the need of society to feel secure", and uses language that could be perceived as not paying attention to the sensitivity of the issue by identifying "people with weaker capacities" as the target group.




16

Note

2



1

1

Comments

The need for social inclusion of people with mental health problems is recognized, but not supported by concrete evidence. The arguments stated to underpin the need for the proposed interventions and their potential to address the issue are very superficial and fail to summarize the existing evidence on this topic. No reference is made to either national, international or EU level research on de-institutionalisation of mental health patients.

The aims of this proposal are highly relevant and clearly stated, but ambitious and the specific objectives are too diverse, not SMART formulated and not specifically linked to the overall aim.

There is also a discrepancy between objectives and actions, in the sense that the actions foreseen in work package 4 are not linked to the objectives. Outcomes and deliverables are stated but the processes to achieve them are not elaborated. The proposed methods lack scientific rigor and fail to answer the questions: if the evidence says that there is a need to enhance social inclusion among mental health patients, it is not clear why the project intends to compare health services. In addition, the methodology for the comparative study is not elaborated, and the intervention study only consists of qualitative interviews. Inclusion criteria for the study are not specified, and no protocols are given for the qualitative analysis of personal histories.

The aim of the project is relevant, but as an overview of current practice to address stigmatisation of mental health patients is not given and gaps are not identifies, it is not clear in which sense the approach is innovative and will bring an added value to current practice. Integrated care models in the EU have been developed for decades, so the risk o duplication is high. The samples will be too small to make the results useful and innovative.




1

2




The proposed evaluation strategy is limited to process measures, and relies mainly on feedback questionnaires without any control for participant bias. Indicators are listed but are process oriented and it is not stated how they will be validated.

The use of multiple channels for dissemination is foreseen, but these are mainly standard passive dissemination channels. No stakeholder analysis is foreseen to check the adequacy of these channels. It is not explained how transferability and sustainability of the project outcomes will be ensured. Dissemination is left to national stakeholders but this is not prepared.




7

Note Comments






1

1

1

1

5

Activities are listed but not sufficiently elaborated. The work is well divided into work packages, but the interdependencies between these work packages are not clear. The exact nature and distribution of the tasks are not specified. Deliverables are listed but not specified and probably not realistic. A timeline is given but again not realistic, given the unfocused scope of the project.

Some activities that are foreseen to be further elaborated in he beginning of the project should already have been outlined in proposal. The risk analysis states irrelevant risks and inadequate contingencies.

The management structure is clearly described but is very complex. It is not very clear who will make decisions on what. Also on the application of the methodology the responsibilities appear to be divided. The internal communication is limited to e-mail exchanges and the organisation of three meetings.

The elaboration of the proposal suggests that the consortium does not have the necessary skills to successfully carry out project both in terms of the content (social inclusion) and the methodology (no elaboration of methodology for the comparative study and intervention study).

There is no clear network structure, and no information is provided on the compatibilities and synergies within the partnership or on previous collaboration between the partners in the consortium.

Internal and external communication are not sufficiently detailed. Internal communication will be limited to e-mail exchanges and meetings. External communication will involve use of multiple channels, but these are mainly standard passive dissemination channels. It is stated that results will be communicated to policy makers, but no further explanation is given. There is no mentioning of how visibility of EU co-funding will be ensured.

The overall budget is disproportionate in comparison to the scope and objectives of the project and to the actions foreseen. The detailed budget needs explaining: there are high subcontracting costs, especially as staff costs are also high. The staff costs for the administrative staff of some partners is too high. Overall, staff costs needs to be based on realistic estimations.



Total:


9

32

The proposal addresses an important area which is explicitly mentioned in the work plan, but is rather unfocused in terms of aims and objectives and not well elaborated technically. While it envisages to develop tools to tackle stigma and discrimination of people with mental health problems, existing initiatives and research on de-institutionalisation of mental health patients are not adequately reviewed and built upon, the methods and target groups are not well explained and not appropriate to reach the objectives, and multiplier effects are not clearly stated. The size of the network and its coverage are not good enough to make results transferable to the EU level.

The evaluation and dissemination strategy as well as the structure and processes for the management of the project are not sufficiently elaborated and the budget is disproportionate in comparison to the scope and objectives of the project and the actions foreseen. The project does not reach the threshold of 50 points and is not recommended for funding.




No

0

0.00





101,360.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym:



Addictions News - Network for Adolescents

01/10/2008

36

ANNA


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Azienda Sanitaria Locale Napoli 5

ASL NA 5

Public


Italy


Associação para o Desenvolvimento de Figueira

Association for the Social Support of Youth

Canterbury Christ Church University

Coordinamento Nazionale Comunità di Accoglienza

Fundatia Tiabari

Medical University of Varna

6

Acronym

ADF

ARSIS

CCCU

CNCA

FT

MUV

City

Figueira - Penafiel

Thessaloniki

Canterbury, Kent

Rome

Rosiori (Oradea)

Varna

Country

Portugal

Greece

United Kingdom

Italy

Romania

Bulgaria

6


The general objective of the project is to contribute to the reduction of the use and abuse of chemical substances, within the European feminine population, substances that are consumed in recreational contexts, often with modality of multi-abuse, (with function of integrator) and as support in the management of the daily uneasiness, both psychological or social.

The adolescents represent the target group. The field of action is the prevention

The achievement of the objective mentioned above foresees that the partnership will realize an European planning path characterised by the following focal points: analysis for the understanding of the phenomenon, prevention good practices review, exchange and elaboration, the active and parallel involvement of not institutional actors such as the feminine organizations of parents etc… and above all the parallel involvement of the adolescents, during all the project development path.

This action is symbolically named “The apple of Snow White”

The added value of the project is to face the female use and abuse of chemical substances adopting a multidimensional perspective, specific, about the gender dimension, which face the biologic, psychological and social vulnerability behind the use of chemical substances, going over the limit of general messages, often monothematic, which are not recognized as meaningful and, for this reason, often ignored.

The involvement of the non-institutional organizations will encourage the sensitization and the dissemination of the project objectives, it will enrich the project with social and cultural contents, it will promote social influence and change processes.

The partnership role in the development of the project path will be characterized by a peer-involvement, where the cultural and legislative differences, will become a strength aspect, since the differences will promote the acquaintance and will contribute to the integration of common path for the European citizens.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

293 580

43 680

47 799

4 000

0

4 000

17 700

18 683

429 442

Incomes

249 000

0

180 442

0

0

429 442











Note

6

6

6

Comments

This 36 months Italian project aims at contributing to limit the use and abuse of 'chemical' substances by women in EU, especially in recreational contexts and in combination with other substances. It is in line with the aforementioned documents provided that it refers to psychoactive substances and not to all chemical substances. A specification as to the type of drugs targeted should be requested.

Strategic relevance in the fact that it considers the subgroups (gender and youth) which normally are not taken into consideration. Women's organisations, youth and parents are planned to be strategically involved in the work (integration and dissemination) so this project should contribute to better citizens' health through an effective way of dissemination to reach target groups. It seems to take into account previous work already ongoing at UNODC and the EMCDDA levels but it is rather considered as a research project with little transferability.

The project complies with the EU drug policy provided that it will always include illicit drugs in the concept of 'polidrug use'. The EU added value relies on the elaboration of good practices shared inside an EU cultural context with a multidimensional approach, the inclusion of mental health aspects and the involvement of cultural organisations.

Target groups are clear but no real detail is given regarding the transferability and sustainability.

6 countries participating, geographical coverage not wide, the collaborating partners are from IT and PT only.

Cultural and ethical considerations have been considered, however it is unclear how EU target groups in their social and cultural context could really be deeply taken into account. Political considerations should be further developed.






5

6

29

Note


4

4

Comments

The problem analisys is only partial as no data is presented. A conceptual framework is presented but lacks clear data. Considering the applicant, they should be able to provide the effectiveness and applicability of measures.

Clear methodology but different geografical factors could give unexpected problems. Better description of the aims and objectives would have been welcome. The description of activities on the workpackages is clear but the bulk of the application should be better structured and follow a logical framework analysis.


4


4





5

21

Note

It most certainly overlaps with existing programmes fighting drug abuse, but the focus on gender and teenagers can provide an innovative outcome. Other actions in the field should be considered in order to avoid duplication of efforts.

Methodology seems adequate, an internal evaluation is presented and well described, and external evaluation is mentioned but could be better specified. The proposed indicators could be expanded in order to include progress and impact indicators.

Simplified and vague, they should better describe the channels and the target groups. Special attention should be paid on how in practice they will reach policy makers.

Comments


3

Overall organisation quite realistic, milestones described, but 36 moths seems a very long period but provably needed. A better specification of the tasks for the different partners would have been welcome. Risk analysis could be better developed to make an effort to ensure that risk associated with partners involved is taken into account. After a 3 month period the guide book should be published (?): timetable not realistic!








Total:





No

0

0.00

2

3

3

6




Unclear in terms of work division as regards the main partner (coordination of the project: who will be responsible and which task will he have, and which other individuals are involved); also the coordinating partners should make an effort to explain to the other ones the complex procedure of financial circuits within an Italian national authority. An explanation is lacking in relation to the cost pertaining to public officials as to why not a single one is mentioned.

Partners seem committed but seem not to be equipped to deliver their findings. Not clear as to the role of the Portuguese partners as from the description they seem to be working with the elderly.

An explanation should be provided.

Target groups well defined but the visibility of the EU must be improved. The logo presented should be re-worked as research shows that negative images scare the target groups. To attract youth to the website and to increase interest the logo should contain a positive message and picture.

Appreciated and realistic contribution from all the interested partners. However it is unclear in a number of certain items like travel (missions once a month?). The financial circuits should be clearly explained to the partner organisations as many difficulties could be foreseen from the fact that the main beneficiary is a national authority. A clarification on the employment of the persons involved in relation with the main beneficiary should be seeked, as it is not clear how a national authority does not have any staff on the item 'public officials'

17

67

This 36 months Italian project aims at contributing to limit the use and abuse of 'chemical' substances by women in EU, especially in recreational contexts and in combination with other substances. In line with the aforementioned documents provided that it refers to psychoactive substances and not all chemical substances. An specification as to the type of drugs targeted should be requested. The budget it is unclear in a number of certain items like the travels (travel once a month?). The financial circuits should be clearly explained to the partner organisations as many difficulties could be foreseen from the fact that the main beneficiary is a national authority. A clarification on the employment of the persons involved in relation with the main beneficiary should be asked for as it is not clear how a national authority does not have any staff on the item

'public officials'






Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: Pro-Mental - HealthY-Europe



IICT Friendly Tools for developing Mental Health Promotion and reducing the stigma and exclusion

05/01/2009

36

101,361.00


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

UNIVERSITATEA TRANSILVANIA BRASOV

UTBv

Public


Romania


Dipartimento di Scienze Neurologiche e Psichiatriche

Escuela Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud. Universidad de

Almería

EUROPEAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

Høgskolen i Nord-Trøndelag


Health

Jyvaskyla University of Applied Sciences

Università degli Studi di Perugia

University of Patras

UNIVERSITY of SZEGED

9

Acronym

DSNP

UAL

EMA

HiNT

Prolepsis

JUAS

UNIPG

UPATRAS

SZTE

City

BARI

Almería

BRUSSELS

Steinkjer

Kastri, Athens

Jyväskylä

Perugia

Patras

SZEGED

Country

Italy

Spain

Belgium

Norway

Greece

Finland

Italy

Greece

Hungary

7


The purpose of the project is to identify strategies that are being used by communities and professionals to influence healthy public policy related to mental disorders and to propose novel paths able to face the challenges of modern life and meet the goals of sustainable development

The project aims to design a new path for approaching mental chronic disorders by developing a homogenous integrated and inter-sectorial health frame consisting of:a) a dynamic and flexible strategy, b) an appropriate implementation plan and instruments, and c) a joint collaboration model, addressing especially to reduce stigma and exclusion of affected people; consequently, the project is supposed to perform opportunities in reducing health protection access inequalities

The innovative nature of project is focused on involving the whole community in mental health promotion, in order to change the human behavior about the stigma and exclusion of persons with mental health disorders

This project is based on the powerful and flexible network of medical, nursing and computer science faculties and organizations from Romania,

Hungary, Italy, Greece, Spain, Norway, Finland. It is also based on the support and the cooperation with professional organization, Public Health

Centers, NGO. The project is establish on the core of partners with different cultural, socioeconomic and religious background

All the activities of the project are planned to provide available paths for information and knowledge mastering. The core of the activities consists of exchange/collaboration/information: this is true for the relationships among partners, between partners and the project’s leader and for developing the project’s instruments. Outreach work will be used for an EU information dissemination.

The dissemination strategy will insure the sustainability, through long lasting

The project will bring together mental health care professionals, social workers, informatics and communication experts, and students.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

168 780

37 440

44 620

28 500

2 807

0

26 553

21 300

330 000

Incomes

198 000

0

132 000

0

0

330 000













Note

5

4

4

6

3

Comments

The project addresses action 3.3.3.1 on mental health and tackling stigma in the work plan 2008 by aiming to develop and implement a functional integrated framework for mental health and reduce stigmatisation. However, it is very ambitious and has too many and to vaguely stated aims to be feasible, and in fact seeks to develop a mental health strategy rather than addressing the issues highlighted in the EU health strategy. Despite the stated aims, the proposed actions are not only focused on stigma reduction. In addition, it does not sufficiently distinguish between different target groups (patients, teachers, students) and does not specify how they will be reached.

The subject of the proposal has a high strategic relevance, and the involvement of the community could add to the practice of health services for the mentally ill, but the aims are overly ambitious and vague and the description of the envisaged activities is too general for the project to make a significant contribution. It is likely to duplicate strategic work of the Commission and overlap with previous project activities such as IMPHA, which was more focused.

The added value of the project for the EU is not highlighted in the proposal. There is a potential for the suggested measures to multiply effects and have long term benefits, but the objectives and envisaged outcomes are not stated clearly enough. As it is not clear which groups the project is targeting, the impact and EU added value cannot easily be measured.

The project does not involve many countries but the ones that are, are representative of the geographical regions in the EU and of differences in the economic and social context. Turkey is mentioned as a partner in the network but does not figure in the proposal, also not as collaborating partner. Transferability at EU level may be reduced due to the low involvement of larger Member States.

The proposal states that cultural, social and financial barriers to mental health service will be taken into account, but does not say how this will be done. It is acknowledged that studies in this field are needed, but no further specification is provided. Ethical aspects and human rights are mentioned but not elaborated.




22

Note

3


3

Comments

The importance of mental health problems is adequately described, but the state of play in stigma reduction is not well portrayed, and gaps in current practices are not identified to provide a justification for the proposal. The applicant recognises that there is a need for both a bottom-up community approach to increase access to mental health knowledge and to create opportunities and a top-down approach to improve the management of health services, but this is not supported by evidence to support the claims to effectiveness of the proposed measures.

The aims of the proposal are very ambitious and vague, and relate to policy formulation as well as the creation of a database, education, and curriculum development. This is not realistic for a project. Specific targets are mentioned but are neither coherent nor SMART. Deliverables are well specified and the ways to develop them are outlined, but the target groups are very broadly defined and include end users (patients) as well as intermediaries (teachers and health professionals), and the larger population, without differentiating the ways in which they will be reached. The method is not well elaborated and not fully compatible with the stated objectives, as it is not necessary to provide a high level of knowledge about mental health problems to reduce stigma.



2

2

The proposal is not very clear in describing what it intends to achieve, which makes it very difficult to assess the level of innovation of the actions. Although the intention to involve various stakeholders has value, based on what is described it seems like the project will duplicate part of the work that has already been done in other ones, particularly IMPHA.

An evaluation strategy is presented but not well elaborated: it is more a list of things to be done for evaluation than an outline of the evaluation method proper. Indicators for evaluation are listed, but they are not validated and some of them are not relevant; indicators are exclusively process related (number of booklets produced, training sessions, …), and not quality or outcome related.



4




A dissemination strategy is outlined but needs to be specified. A CD-rom, booklets, courses and a website are identified as the main dissemination channels but their use is not further explained.

The key message to be transmitted is not identified, and the target population is too broadly defined to allow any tailoring of the messages: mental health patients, health professionals, teachers and the population at large each need to be targeted through different channels and with different messages, but is not acknowledged in the proposal. The sustainability of the project results will be ensured by disseminating the products free of charge. This is a positive point although it does not guarantee that the materials will effectively be used.




14

Note Comments






3

2

3

3

6

The deliverables are well specified and the actions to develop them are concretely stated, but there is no coherence between the actions in different parts of the proposal. A clear division of the tasks is not given. No explanation is provided of how the need analysis will be updated and what will happen with newly detected and identified needs. A risk analysis is presented but only in a schematic way; the main contingency stated is good management, which is not sufficient.

Most partners' staff has experience in nursing and psychology. While the main partner reports an extensive previous experience in conducting EU projects, the competency of the other partners' staff in the area of project management is not sufficiently documented, although several of them will be in charge of a work package. A management structure is not provided, so it remains unclear who will coordinate, manage, or monitors the projects' implementation. The risk analysis states that young researchers may leave the project; this suggests that the project may rest on young researchers' capacities, which is not good practice.

The partners in the consortium belong to different types of organisations including universities,

NGOs, professional associations and governmental organisations. This suggests complementarity within the network, but the criteria for selecting organisations to participate in the project are not given. There is a good balance of responsibilities within the consortium, in the sense that the work packages will be led by different organisations. While some of the partners have experience with previous projects, it is not specified if there has been any previous collaboration within the partnership.

Internal communication lines are not specifically. External communication will be organised via booklets, a CD-ROM and a website but their use is not further explained. The key message to be transmitted is not identified, and the target population is too broadly defined to allow any tailoring of the messages: mental health patients, health professionals, teachers and the population at large each need to be targeted through different channels and with different messages, but is not acknowledged in the proposal.

The overall budget is very low, and does not appear realistic in comparison with the ambitious goals of the project. The budget is well distributed among the partners, and financial circuits are clearly described. The budget suggests good housekeeping standards for spending public money.

Travel costs are overestimated as only 2 meetings are mentioned in the work package description. Equipment and consumable costs are claimed without any specification or justification.



Total:


17

53

This is a reasonably well presented proposal for a project aiming to develop and implement an integrated framework for mental health and stigma reduction, submitted by a well balanced consortium of partners with complementary skills and organisational status, yet with limited experience in collaboration. The subject of the proposal is of a high strategic relevance and links up with the priorities of the work plan 2008, but the aims and objectives of the project are overly ambitious, vague and not very coherent, and the description of the envisaged activities is too general for the project to have a high chance to deliver. Moreover, the project is likely to duplicate strategic work of the Commission and overlap with previous, more focused projects. The target groups are very broadly defined and include end do not sufficiently differentiate between end users (patients), intermediaries (teachers and health professionals), and the population at large, and the methodology is not sufficiently elaborated nor fully compatible with the stated objectives.

The evaluation and dissemination strategy and the management plan are not sufficiently elaborated.

The project does not reach the threshold for technical quality and is not recommended for funding.

Recommended for funding: No




0

0.00





HI project proposals not retained for co-funding




101,058.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: EUROMEDDEVSTAT

3. GENERATE AND DISSEMINATE HEALTH INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE (HI-2008)

3.2 Development of mechanisms for analysis and dissemination

EUROpean MEDical DEVice STATistics

02/03/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Medical University Innsbruck

MUI

Public


Austria


Institut für Epidemiologie

Regione Emilia-Romagna Direzione Generale Sanità e Politiche

Sociali

Romanian Arthoplasty Register, Registrul National de

Endoprotesare

Slovakian Arthroplasty Register

STAKES - National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health

5

Acronym

IET

RER

RNE

SAR

STAKES

City

Innsbruck

Bologna

Bucuresti

Martin

Helsinki

Country

Austria

Italy

Romania

Slovakia

Finland

5


It is the general objective of this project to develop indicators for outcome measurement and market monitoring on an EU scale with particular consideration of market mechanisms in different EU countries, cost of THA intervention, revision rates, and long-term follow-up costs.


Arthroplasty is one of the most successful operation procedures with respect to gain in the quality of life; case numbers and costs in public health are considerable and will continue to rise in view of the increasingly ageing of the population. Optimum treatment of patients at the lowest possible cost should be a primary goal. The present project shall create the methodology and the indicators in order to make the fulfilment of this requirement measurable. Moreover, the data shall be used to prepare proposals for the support of this goal through appropiate procedures, and to estimate future effects during the licensing of implants.

Methods and Means:

Market mechanisms, THA cost, and the impact of individual cost units on long-term follow-up costs shall be examined.

Based on variables and their suggestibility indicators shall be developed and validated with the assistance of real national arthroplasty registers.

Expected outcome:

Indicators including the methodology for application, as well as a proposal for adjusted procedures in the licensing of medical devices of Risk

Class III using the example of arthroplasty.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

1 137 490

0

38 400

14 739

5 000

0

100 000

10 000

91 359

1 396 988

Incomes

740 000

1 137 490

- 510 502

0

30 000

1 396 988











Note

6

5

6



4

6

Comments

Theoretically it is in line with the priorities (development of health indicators in an ageing population which is a trend increasing the risk of degenerative diseases). The project seems connected to the PHP priorities but we need more information to give a clear answer. It fits but it is too specific, too narrow.

The topic seems to be too clinical.

The project is not too convincing. On a theoretic basis, we can think and know that there is knowledge supporting this project but it seems that the authors assume that everybody knows it and that they don't need to give arguments. They give no information on the data they have, for example.

The added value is very general; there is no explanation on this topic. Standardisation of indicators could allow comparison between countries and the results could be used for further policy development such as certification but this concept needs to be developed. There is also confusion with another project submitted by the same applicant.

Certification and licensing is a positive point but overall there is a lack of details.

The selection of partners is not clear. They promise that the final product will be used by everybody but without giving any information on this final product.

They claim to be representative for the entire EU but they don't give any element to demonstrate that point.

It is difficult in this case to catch the social and cultural aspects of this project.

It is linked with ageing of population, and with cost containment. The appropriateness of "paying” for arthroplasty could be an important issue in some EU countries, but the coverage of those countries is not guaranteed.

The project is too clinical, too professionals oriented and not enough Public Health oriented.




27

Note

4

Comments

The evaluators know that there is evidence but this evidence is not presented in the application form. No figures, no data, nothing on the applicability.

Nevertheless it is certainly interesting to have indicators. As the comparability of indicators is not guaranteed, it is a good idea to improve this aspect.




5

4

2

This is probably the best part of the application. The description is quite precise; the use of HLY to base the analysis is a positive point. The general objective is not so clear but on the other hand, the specific objectives are well described and clear.

The target group is too narrow, the geographical coverage could be improved to broaden the objective and not to stay too clinical.

There are actions existing on this topic in Europe, few elements are given in the application. So it is difficult to conclude on the innovative aspect of this project.

In any case, there is a clear overlap with the other project submitted (EUROMEDIVTRACK) The comparability of data is very important but it would have been wise to include in only one project the aspects covered by the other project. It is very difficult to understand why they have submitted two projects which are so similar.

There are no tools to evaluate. It is mentioned that an external and an internal evaluation will be done, but they don't give any details and the sentence "if the objective is attained…" is rather provocative. Moreover since they have very clear objectives it would not have been so difficult to develop a good evaluation strategy.



2




The strategy is OK for network building but not for dissemination of the results. There is no definition of the target populations. They show good intention but they don’t present any practical ways to do the job. Moreover, the fact that there are 2 projects very close and overlapping was really confusing for assessing the whole project. For instance it is stated that "the target groups can easily be defined" but it would have been useful to find at least a list of the most important target groups here.




17

Note Comments






3

4

2

2

6

The team is good and certainly able to do the task. But there are very few details on the timetable.

The deliverables are well defined. The logical succession of the work packages is not apparent in the application. For instance it is not normal that some WP are starting together since it is clearly stated in the application form that one work package is waiting for the results of another one before starting its activities.

The staff is definitely competent. Internal communication is described superficially but they know each other and that is surely a positive point.

However team members seem to know themselves so well they did not find it necessary to describe their procedures and organisation with all the required details.

There is discrepancy between the number of the staff allocated to the project by some partners and the work to be done in the several WP where these partners are intervening (for example an organisation participating to all work packages has only one person working on the project)... The budget is not well balanced among partners at least with regard to the staff.

Could be good (participants know each other), but there is no evidence in the proposal at all.

The introduction of a double application (EUROMEDDEVSTAT and EUROMEDIVTRACK) is not a good way to raise more money or to increase the possibilities to be selected. On the contrary this is certainly confusing and hampers the trust in the project.

The budget is unbalanced among the different partners.

The financial management and circuits are not really clear. The applicants have to clarify the figures of the balance sheet (liabilities and assets are not equal) and the accounts: there are differences in the account figures of the 2 projects and the variation of the annual benefit from one year to another needs explanation.



Total:


17

61

In view of the double submission and the lack of details on several important managerial and technical part of the project, even if the policy relevance is acceptable, it is suggested to the applicants to resubmit next year merging both proposals in only one proposal including both aspects of registry and tracking devices.

Two evaluations of the policy relevance done by DG Sanco C2 and C5 were presented to the evaluators. A third evaluation form was sent by DG Sanco C7 by fax but came in too late to be presented to the panel.

see conclusions

The Evaluation Committee endorses the recommendation of the peer review panel not to fund the project




No

0

0.00





101,060.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: SCIPso


3.1 Development of a sustainable health monitoring system

- Survey, Care and Information on Psoriasis for Patients, Health Institutions and Public

01/01/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

ADIPSO (Associazione per la Difesa degli Psoriasici)

ADIPSO

Private


Italy


Bulgarian Psoriasis Foundation

John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin

Kalipso

Latvian Psoriasis Organisation

Lithuanian Psoriasis Society

National University of Athens

Polish Psoriasis Association

Psoriasis Association Malta

Rigastradins University

SPAE CZ (Psoriatic and Atopic Eczema Association Czech

Republic)

The Psoriasis Association

Università di Roma 'Tor Vergata'

University of Berlin La Charité

University of Florence

University of L'Aquila

University of Malta

University of Modena & Reggio Emilia

University of Prague

University of Sofia

Vilnius University Santariskiu Hospital

Acronym

BPF

KUL

Kalipso

LV PO

LT PS med.uoa

PPA

PAM

LV.Riga

SPAE CZ

UK PA med.uniroma2

Charité.DE

unifi

univaq

MT UN unimore

CUNI CZ

MU SOFIA

LT AD

20

City

Sofia

Lublin

Athens

Jurmala

Kaunas

Athens

Lublin

Attaro

Riga

Vsetin

Northampton

Rome

Berlin

Florence

L'Aquila

Floriana

Modena

Prague

Sofia

Vilnius

Country

Bulgaria

Poland

Greece

Latvia

Lithuania

Greece

Poland

Malta

Latvia

Czech Republic

United Kingdom

Italy

Germany

Italy

Italy

Malta

Italy

Czech Republic

Bulgaria

Lithuania

10






This project addresses in a systematic, holistic and equitable way the needs of psoriasis patients, facilitating access to information and assistance from patients’ organizations and promoting integrated care. It sets an EU network on psoriasis with participation of patients’ associations and health professionals from different disciplines, which extends to a number of new EU Member States and will provide information and assistance also taking into account cultural differences among EU Countries and contributing to reduce health inequalities. A survey on socio-economic burden and patient’s support and a survey based on health examination will collect information for the health authorities, which can be used to set up more cost-effective approaches to health care, with attention to the feasibility of integrated multisciplinary care and of patient’s family support in coordination with public health services. Guidelines and indicators will be developed by

Working Groups comprised of representatives of the project academic partners and other knowledgeable experts, with a view to ensuring compatibility with EU health information activities and international initiatives. Another Working Group, made of the partner patients associations, will carry out the survey on the socio-economic impact on the patients and their families with the assistance, where possible, of local patients’ associations. Specific actions will be devoted to promote sustainability and transferability of the integrated care.

Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

95 622

558 380

86 400

96 262

0

0

330 000

219 250

96 875

1 482 789

Incomes

889 676

95 622

488 223

0

9 268

1 482 789










Note

4

5







4

4

5

22

Note

3


4

Comments

This is a single issue proposal which, although in line with the Community Action Programme in the field of public health, is only marginally relevant to the specific priorities of the 2008 work plan.

The proposal aims to address in an interdisciplinary manner current best practice of psoriasis diagnosis, treatment and care including psycho-social and economic factors. It also takes as a basis the patient's perspective, which is also positive. However, the chosen approach (patient examination survey) is not optimal: it would have been more useful to concentrate on an analysis at a health system level, by focusing on the strengths – weaknesses at a national level and comparing approaches and current practices

The project is certainly useful for those affected by the disease; however, it concerns an issue somewhat isolated from current, broader healthcare policy concerns

The geographical coverage is very wide: new MS are well represented, but there is an issue with the over-representation of Italy

It is not clear from the project description how psoriasis or the concept put forward of "integrated care" are perceived in the participating countries

Comments

Evidence is stated, but the statement is weak: unclear how the survey will be used to impact and enhance "integrated care" (one of key objectives of the project).

Fairly well specified: specific objectives are well developed.

Negative point: not clear how the data will be analyzed and used. Also, the survey should be implemented across more countries, with more focus on analysis of the data collected, if it is to be useful



4

The proposed action is a priori innovative, as there are no other known initiatives/ networks in the specific area


3

4

Evaluation strategy needs improvement: indicators are provided and, even though they are mainly process indicators, there are some on the impact of the project, which is good. However, information is lacking on the evaluation process and who will undertake it: internal or external evaluation.

Positive: activities already cited and preliminary list of stakeholders provided for; the final conference.

Negative: No dissemination strategy; the proposal doesn't conceptualize partners' positions, nor does it detail how the project will link to other EU level partners, professionals, pharma industry etc.




18

Note Comments


3

The description of the different work packages leaves some questions unanswered on the following: the development of the questionnaire, the guidelines for integrated care and the survey on socio-economic aspects. It is difficult to determine what exactly will be done and by whom

(tasks and responsibilities) in the group.

Risk analysis not really covered








Total:





No

0

0.00

3

3

3

5




The patient organizations already exist and are well established, which means that there is a high probability of involvement of patient communities. The organizational capacity for delivering the

"scientific" work, i.e. the survey implementation and analysis, as well as in establishing the concept of integrated care is less evident

A positive point is that all participating countries are represented both by healthcare professionals

(relevant clinical departments), as well as the national patient associations. However, the partnership is unbalanced between the three key partners (IT, DE and UK) and the rest which have a passive role. More responsibilities (and budget) should be given to other participating associated partners

It seems too ambitious and difficult to deliver; many activities listed, but lack of an overall communication strategy, even though a communication expert will be subcontracted.

The budget is poorly designed and explained, both globally as well as at the level of detailed expenditure items: very large parts of it go into sub-contracting (website development/ communication expert, patient visits) without due justification, while most of the partners are

"passively" grouped around three strong partners.

17

57

This is an interesting proposal in line with PHP priorities, based on a good idea of developing a psoriasis patient led organization, covering a wide range of countries and intent on doing innovative work. There are however several weaknesses on the technical level in implementing the project which need to be addressed in view of a possible re-submittalThe Evaluation

Committee endorses the recommendation not to co-fund this project





101,061.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: AETOS



Advanced Educational Training of Ophthalmologic Surgeons

01/01/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

University of Crete

UOC

Public


Greece


Center Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux

Humanitas Mirasole SPA

Instituto de Microcirugia Ocular

Paracelsus Private Medical University

University of Antwerp

Acronym

CHU

ICH

IMO

PPMU

UZA

City

Bordeaux

Milan

Barcelona

Salzburg

Edegem

5

Country

France

Italy

Spain

Austria

Belgium

5


The rapid development in the field of anterior segment and refractive surgery, and the continuous education and treatment inequalities signify the unification of continuous educational levels of medical doctors imperative for the better comprehension of basic science, the up to date treatment of patients, and the novel confrontation of medical problems.

AETOS will enable ophthalmologists and participating centers, both private and public, to record, audit, facilitate and disseminate best and newly developed treatments related to anterior segment and refractive surgery of the eye across Europe and the world, therefore benefitting medical professionals and the 3 million patients who undergo such procedures in Europe annually.

The structural framework unification and contextual complementary will be based on 3-days mini fellowships with intense lectures, observation of surgery and hands-on training. As the current project may be considered the first step towards integrating and promoting best treatments across Europe, a few centers were with a vast experience in the field of anterior and refractive surgery, a significant educational experience and activity, and complementarity with respect to the contextual aspects of the field

The project will harmonize continuous education, tackle the profession’s inequalities and will disseminate its outcomes with a special emphasis to those countries lacking a foundation to promote best treatments. The outcomes will have an important consequence on the clinical standards and the equalization of health care issues in the field of ophthalmology, but most importantly on the prosperity and healthy aging of the population as related to visual impairment, while they may also promote similar actions in other fields.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

132 610

272 050

18 600

13 935

0

166 000

0

170 000

54 122

827 317

Incomes

496 216

132 610

198 491

0

0

827 317














Note

4

4

3

4

5




20

Note

2





3

3

2

3

Comments

There is not a very clear analysis of the health problem. There is no evidence of the main health problems related to the refractive and anterior segment of the eye surgery. As well there is no evidence about the incidence, prevalence and type of complications of the eye and refractive cataract surgery, at least on the level of participating countries. There is not mention to published literature that could justify the proposal. The overall data analysis from all ophthalmic surgeons could be of very poor quality.

Well specified in what the applicant wants to do, but the effects and outcomes are less clear.

Related to methods it is not specified how best practices / treatments could be identified, after sessions of three days of knowledge and practices.

This proposal is not representing a very innovative approach. Short fellowships in other clinics than those where practitioners are working are not representing a very innovative approach, but no data about the ophthalmology practice in the anterior segment of eye and refractive surgery are available. It is not clear how this proposal relates to European experience/training in eye surgery and there is no discussion of national training structures

Some evaluation is described but it is not clearly specify whether it is quantitative or qualitative.

No aparent external evaluation. No specific indicators are mentioned. The method of the assessment is rather an internal one and it is not very well defined: just the development of the report is presented.

A real plan of dissemination, that includes a stakeholders analysis is lacking. The means are poorly specified. No mention of access to ophthalmologist registers.

There is not even an intention to achieve high coverage within EU. As well it is not stated how sustainability will be ensured.

The webpage should be adapted to people with eyesight disabilities.

13

Comments

The project could contribute to the second strand of the programme, to promote health and within this at the priority area to generate and disseminate health information. It could be related to best practices on mayor diseases and with e-health. However there are doubts that this proposal meets the public health programme, when the main activity is clinical ophthalmic surgery training.

The proposal may add value and has the potential to generate relevant knowledge that could have a positive impact. However the strategic relevance of the proposal as stated in the application is not clear. There is not evidence that the project contributes to EU policy as formulated, because it doesn't propose an entire new practice.

There is not a statement to demonstrate that the project contribute to solving a public health problem at the European level, and that the impact would be greater that the sum of impacts of national activities. However the proposal addresses issues related to regulation of clinical practices across the MS's, but not public health practices. It could have been interesting that the project liaise with the relevance EC, Council of Europe, WHO and OECD projects.

It is not clear if ophthalmologists planned to benefit are also from other centres than participating ones, or it is an exchange only between these centres. It could be recommended more precise explanations, a wider geographical coverage and the inclusion of those with less experience and training. The network would rather more appropriate in order to create a network of excellence.

Further action should be asked for ensuring MS not actively involved in the project will also benefit, to a substantial degree, from the learning process or be consider as a pilot study.

The impact and the compatibility with the culture of the target group are here revealed. However not including in the network less specialised centres and ophthalmologists, could decrease the effectiveness of the interventions and consequently the benefits for the patients.

The proposal says it will look at different teaching methods, but it does not address reasons for poor performance in countries.








Note

3



3

2


2




Total:


5

15

48

Comments

Overall good planning and organization. They have included feasible milestones and deliverables.

However it is unclear how the key persons will be identified. The dependence on the main partner is very high.

The project is based on educational packages and not on a public health point of view.

Analysis of risks is not clear and does not give alternatives to identified risks.

The competence of the staff and the organisational capacity seem to be sufficient, but the internal communication, the decision making and the supervision are not described.

The extensiveness in terms of EU coverage is very limited. Probably there is enough synergy within the consortium, but the complementary nature of the partner's capacities is not clear, since all participant centres seem to be very similar. Also the proposal is not balanced, as most of the activities are done by the main partner.

There is not an explicitly planned communication strategy in place. As well, the target groups, adequacy of the channels and visibility of EU confiding should have been specified. The external communication should be further developed, mainly related to policy. A formal stakeholder's analysis is not done.

The project is not expensive and the budget total balance is acceptable. The distribution of the budget within the partners is not balanced, since most of the budget will be for the main partner.

The financial circuits and responsibilities are mentioned, but there is no reporting or control.

The project will try to harmonize continuous education, tackling the profession's inequalities, about anterior segment and refractive surgery.

The proposal is a new one in the area of the public health, bringing into attention a rather other area of expertise, namely one of the health care quality related. However the strategic relevance of the proposal, as stated in the application, is not clear. There is no evidence that the project contributes to EU policy, as formulated, because it doesn't propose an entire new practice.

The project will have a very reduce impact in the European Public Health and have limited expectations. It is not evidence based and the justification of the project could not be revealed.

Also the approach of the fellowship is not an innovative one.

It could have been interesting that the project liaise with the relevance EC, Council of Europe,

WHO and OECD projects.

The project is based on educational packages and not on a public health point of view.

Analysis of risks is not clear and does not give alternatives to identified risks.

The distribution of the budget within the partners is not balanced, since most of the expenditure is claimed for the main partner.




No

0

0.00





101,062.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: MOBSEPUB


3.3 Exchange knowledge and best practice

Mobile Facility for Sex Education and the Prevention of Unsafe Behaviour

01/12/2008

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Center for Sex og Sundhed

CSS

Private


Denmark


Riksförbundet För Sexuell Upplysning

1

Acronym

RFSU

City

Malmö

Country

Sweden

1


Objectives: To develop highly mobile unit of education/information/preventation workers and corresponding information/advice network to address deficiencies in sexual health, quality of sex education on offer in learning institutions in DK and SE, and competences in the harm reduction of alcohol, tobacco and drugs (henceforth ‘substances’). To address and research health inequalities within the EU and raise awareness of them.

Strategy: The project contributes to the public health programme by working to improve public health, increasing access to information, furthering e-health and e-learning, preventing disease, improving health of children and young people and promoting a healthy lifestyle, increasing number of HLY, and addressing the additional concerns in terms of health inequalities within the EU that its recent enlargement has brought.

Methods: Highly qualified and experience information/education staff to teach and provide advice to 13-25-year-olds as well as their parent/teacher group in sexuality, substance harm reduction and healthy lifestyles. The two partners CSS and RFSU between them have 41 years of experience in preventative work, sexual health education and the promotion of healthy lifestyles. The mobile education unit is the key element, and the teaching methodology is based on open-mindedness, trust and frank dialogue with the target groups. The unit will be supported by two websites and a WAP/SMS-service in order to make information and advice as available and relevant as possible. The websites and the good relations between CSS and RFSU facilitate an effective, direct and to-the-point communication strategy.

Outcome: Project is expected to improve the sexual health and substance harm reduction competences of the young target group, to improve quality of sex+health education on offer in learning institutions in partner countries, and prove an efficient tool which may feasibly become a pan-European feature in future sex and health education.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

164 750

1 073 256

21 630

32 000

120 766

177 793

87 132

52 989

121 121

1 851 437

Incomes

1 110 862

164 750

575 825

0

0

1 851 437









Note

2

Comments

This project proposes to establish a highly mobile unit of education, information and prevention workers and a corresponding network. This unit is to provide young people and their parents and teachers with education on sexuality, harm reduction and healthy lifestyles. There is some relation with the second strand of the health programme although the estimated scope of the programme appears unclear.



3

This project brings limited elements of new knowledge to the field since such programmes have already been established in other regions.

3






2

5

15

Note


3

3

Although collaborating partners from other countries are identified it is unclear where this programme would to be carried out. The apparently limited scope would result in limited EU added value. No actions to ensure sustainability or transferability, which is regrettable because this is a project which MS could incorporate into their sexual health education programmes.

Two Scandinavian countries (SE, DK) are involved in this project, whereas collaborating partners are from other 8 MS. Intended coverage is unclear and transferability is questionable.

The lack of clarity regarding coverage of the programme makes adequacy difficult to assess. The intervention was designed to be compatible with the cultural values of the countries involved.

Comments

The analysis of the sexual behaviour of teenagers in the countries was considered adequate, but lack of information on the frequency of drug addiction, alcohol consumption, etc. There is no provision of measures of effectiveness or applicability of the intervention proposed.

The definition of the target group could be better developed, the objectives were not SMART and this will make it difficult to measure their achievements. The use of guest educators was considered inadequate as it implies high cost with limited impact as it is restricted to English speaking pupils. It should have been better to train local trainers (teachers) who will be responsible for applying of the activities inside of the local context using national languages. It was not considered clear when the intervention would be able to address all the topics, and how they will be dealt with (drug harm reduction, alcohol consumption, etc). The project seems too ambitious.


3


5





5

19

Note

The intervention was not considered innovative. No efforts were made to describe the possible synergies or overlaps with currently funded initiatives.

The evaluation is well designed, with a good set of indicators, including the financial audit. No external evaluation is mentioned.

The dissemination of the project results is well described, however it does not ensure the transferability to other MS, as it is targeted to the beneficiaries in the countries involved.

Comments


2

The planning did not mention milestones, most of the tasks are concentrated in one partner. It seems that the order of the workpackages was not clear, first development of the platform and then collection of data. The timetable was considered superficial. The risk analysis was considered poor. The involvement of the collaborating partners seems unclear.








Total:





No

0

0.00

4

2

4

5




The basic management structure is good, but there are too many tasks to be shared between only 2 partners.

Limited, only two partners who know each other, however no clear relation with the collaborating partners.

Interesting way of addressing the target population, good external communication.

Considered overestimated, doubts about the financial capacity of the organisation, the EC co-funding requested is higher than the turn over of the last years exercises.

The use of guest educators was considered inadequate as it implies high cost with limited impact as it is restricted to English speaking pupils. The purchase and maintenance of a vehicle is considered not acceptable following the financial regulation, because there is the questions of ownership and the only cost accepted as eligible would be the depreciation cost of the use during the three years of the project.

17

51

There is the need to involve more partners and the issues related to the transferability and adoption of the intervention by the associated and collaborating partners need to be further developed to increase the EU added value. The cost estimation should be revised, taking into consideration the need to reduce the staff cost, the impossibility to purchase a vehicle, etc.

There is a need to involve more partners and the issues related to the transferability and adoption of the intervention by the associated and collaborating partners need to be further developed to increase the EU added value. The budget was considered overestimated, there were doubts about the financial capacity of the organisation, the EC co-funding requested is higher than the turn over of the last years exercises.

The use of guest educators was considered inadequate as it implies high cost with limited impact as it is restricted to English speaking pupils. The purchase and maintenance of a vehicle is considered not acceptable following the financial regulation, because there is the issue of ownership and the only cost accepted as eligible would be the depreciation cost of the use of the equipment during the three years of the project.

The Evaluation Committee endorses the recommendation not to co-fund this project





101,076.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: ICCHIVTB



Improved Communication and Capacity for HIV/TB Collaborative Efforts

01/01/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Stichting AIDS Foundation East-West

AFEW

Private


Netherlands


Eurasian Harm Reduction Network

KNCV Tuberculosis Foundation

2

Acronym

EHRN

KNCV

City

Vilnius

The Hague

Country

Lithuania

Netherlands

2


General Objective: To further mitigate the impact of HIV/TB co-infections among vulnerable societal groups, such as injecting drug users, by better adapting internationally defined standards and best practices to fit specific regional needs.

Strategic Relevance & Contribution to the Programme: The project will further the priority of the EU to develop HIV/AIDS projects that improve prevention efforts and promote the dissemination of good practices. The project will seek to build upon lessons learned and existing international guidelines to create a more harmonized approach across the EU for collaborative HIV/TB efforts. By ensuring that all member states have stepped-up their efforts to curb the spread of the epidemic all citizens will benefit from improved health security.

Methods and Means: In order to combat the spread of the HIV/TB epidemic at all levels, this project will involve working alongside national stakeholders to identify, analyze, and solve bottlenecks and inefficiencies in existing collaborative efforts between HIV and TB services whilst simultaneously building local technical capacity. By first conducting a thorough assessment in the initial target countries and then using a wide range of stakeholders and with their unique areas of expertise, a sustainable pilot model will be jointly developed and implemented. And in order to ensure the future success of the model, capacity building trainings will be developed alongside the model to build upon regional knowledge and skills.

Expected Outcomes: This project will produce an adaptable model of collaboration that can be used throughout the EU and neighboring countries to streamline and improve upon HIV/TB collaborative efforts.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

421 500

21 600

42 120

0

14 000

177 000

211 700

62 130

950 050

Incomes

570 030

0

380 020

0

0

950 050












Note

6

5

4

4

Comments

The exchange of good practices and capacity building activities are in line with the Health

Programme and work plan 2008, but the proposed action will fit better the priority 3.3.3.3

addressing the HIV/AIDS prevention.

The project touches on the important angle of HIV and TB co-infections, which needs more focus in public health considerations. The proposal focused on Eastern Europe, wants to improve the exchange of good practices and to support capacity building in the development and implementation of Public health policies.

The project can contribute to the improvement of existing knowledge on good practices and thus improve prevention of one of three major public health problems (HIV/TBC and drug addiction).

The expected deliverables are somewhat disappointing and unfocused. The proposal seems more suitable to be supported by an operating grant. Many aspects related to the objectives, e.g.

to explore the situation in Eastern Europe, organisation of workshops, or training and toolkits, are considered too generic.

Limited, the intervention proposed was considered non replicable, seems more like a transfer of experience from a Western to Eastern countries (bilateral collaboration) and there is no action to ensure transferability to other MS. The choice of the three associated entities (HIV/TB groups and

IDU users) limited the size of the target population. The basic idea could represent an added value at EU level, but now there are needs of action at the service provision level rather than on the development, adaptation and dissemination of (existing) guidelines. The proposal is considered too generic, and does not represent a way forward.

The geographical coverage is limited, and non-eligible countries Moldova and Ukraine are involved, which can be considered only as collaborating partners. The target countries have a need for capacity building, but the involvement of other EU countries could increase the relevance of the intervention It is suggested to invite new associated partners from the Baltic States, and to involve health authorities at national level to ensure the presence of the policy making role.

Considered generic, but the ethical considerations should be further developed as the project addresses very sensitive topics.





4

23

Note

4

Comments

Described only in general terms, even though there is sufficient scientific evidence of the need to improve training about HIV/TB in the Eastern EU countries. No evidence of the size of the different groups: HIV/TB and drug addiction. These are three different groups of patients with different needs for prevention and control. Evidence for the effectiveness of the intervention proposed was not provided.





2

3

4

4

The general objectives are to develop capacities and best practices, based on a pilot study and the development of a training tool. The method was not considered adequately described, nor providing sufficient details. The objective of the survey was well presented. There is no clear description how the actions will influence policy.

There are several initiatives to assess the current situation of TB and HIV by the Global fund,

WHO, targeting the vertical programmes and the need to develop a common approach. There is the risk of overlap with the other funded projects active on HIV/IDUs in the same region (ENCAP,

NDPHSP Project database).

The evaluation plan is described, but the indicators are not adequate; there were no specific targets for the trainings and the pilot evaluation could have been more detailed.

The dissemination strategy could have been more developed, including other media than the dissemination of the reports. The transferability of project results should be addressed. Doubts about the sustainability of the initiative were raised. What would happen when the external funding will end?









Note

2





2

2

3

5

Comments

The planning of the actions was considered not appropriate as the timetable is not well defined, no milestones have been set and the risk analysis was considered poor. The deliverables listed in

2.4 do not correspond to the ones stated under the wps. The interaction between the pilot and the training development tool is not clearly described.

The internal organisation capacity was considered adequate, the management of the project should benefit from the creation of a steering committee, AFEW is concentrating all the responsibilities.

The contribution from the staff of the other partners should be strengthened, and they can share the responsibility to become wp leaders.

Limited, no clear communication strategy

The overall budget was not considered appropriate, with high staff cost and doubts about the presentation of the subcontracting under AFEW. The financial control is not detailed, the AFEW is too predominant in the project, and a better balance should be found to make use of the associated partner's expertise and ensuring the sharing of responsibilities.



Total:


14

54

The proposal was considered not feasible, especially because the public, governmental organisations are not involved. There are major improvements that are essential, before the action can be supported, especially on the description of the action and on the management structure. The project relevance was decreased by the involvement of the non-eligible countries

Moldova and Ukraine, which can be considered only as collaborating partners. The target countries have a need for capacity building, but the involvement of other EU countries could increase the relevance of the intervention. It is suggested to invite new associated partners from the Baltic States and the involvement of the health authorities at national level to ensure the presence of policy decision making. The proposal was considered not feasible, especially because public and governmental organisations are not involved. There are major improvements that are essential, before the action can be supported, especially on the description of the action and on the management structure. The overall budget was not considered appropriate, with high staff cost and doubts about the presentation of the subcontracting under AFEW. The financial control is not detailed, the AFEW is too predominant in the project, and a better balance should be found to make better use of the associated partner's expertise and ensuring the sharing of responsibilities.





No

0

0.00





101,089.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: PREUROMED



Protective Factors for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Focusing on the Medtype diet at European

Level

01/01/2009

3


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Instituto Municipal de Asistencia Sanitaria

IMAS-IMIM

Public


Spain


Copenhagen University Hospital

Društvo nastavnika opce/obiteljske medicine (Association of teachers in general practice/family medicine)

Institute of Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolic Diseases “Prof. Dr.

N.C. Paulescu”

Institute of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology and MediGate, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

5

Acronym

CUH

MSS

NCP

CHEU

CUB

City

Copenhagen

Zagreb

Bucharest

Hamburg

Campobasso

Country

Denmark

Croatia

Romania

Germany

Italy

5


The present proposal: Protective Factors for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Focusing on the Mediterranean type diet at

European Level. The PREUROMED Study, is aimed first to create a European surveillance network on life-style and environment protective factors for primary and secondary end points for cardiovascular disease in high risk individuals and at general population. Three on-going

European cohorts, the Spanish PREDIMED (N=7000), the Italian Molli-Sani (n=18000) and the Croatian CRSIC-fm (n =1700) will be involved.

The proposal is also aimed to test gene-nutrient interactions, and to assess the effect of a Mediterranean type (Medtype) diet on primary and secondary end-points for cardiovascular disease across European areas. Besides the on-going Spanish PREDIMED intervention trial, similar trials with Medtype diets, tailored for each participating country, in Eastern (Rumania, n=100), Central (Germany, n=100), and Northern

(Denmark, n=100) European areas will be performed. Pooling intra-country data in inter-country analyses will permit to extrapolate the knowledge to recommendations at European level. An additional added value of the PREUROMED proposal is to provide a protective tool,

Medtype diets, tailored for each participating country. This will permit the transferability of this portafolio eating plan to non-Mediterranean

European countries as a tool for cardiovascular risk prevention. The Project applies for Priority actions for the second and third strands to

Promote Health: Point 3.3 “Activities under this section are designed to prevent major diseases and reduce health inequalities across the EU by tackling key health determinants such as nutrition……, and promote healthy ageing”, and Point 3.4.1.3: “Surveillance networks and best practices on major and chronic diseases”, respectively.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

161 440

1 295 476

21 000

19 200

80 000

199 869

64 600

12 900

129 810

1 984 295

Incomes

1 190 577

161 440

632 278

0

0

1 984 295









Note

6



6

3






4

3

22

Note

3


3

The project could add value to the public health knowledge about prevention of cardiovascular diseases and to extrapolate the lessons to recommendations at European level. However one member of the panel believes that this is not really a Public Health project.

Preuromed is the continuation at European level of PREDIMED project that is still on course. This project has long term outcomes/effects that are not yet proven. It would be recommended to wait until the results were definitive, before starting an European project.

The transferability, replicability and sustainability are not assured at European level. There is synergies with other cardiovascular studies in Europe that were not mentioned, as

MONICA,CINDI projects

One member of the panel insists that it is not a public health project, but a project for the DG research.

The geographic coverage is 6 countries. It is considered not wide, but could be adequate and pertinent. It is suggested to include more Mediterranean countries

The social, cultural and political situations of the countries involved are not taking in count.

The target groups and the sustainability are not clear. Some questions remain not answered, as the acceptability by target groups, especially in long term

Comments

The evidence supporting the positive impact in public health is missing. The information provided is not really basis in Public health practice. The problem analysis is addressed, but not taking in count that the problem is more complex. As well the evidence for impact, effectiveness and applicability are lacking

The description of the objectives and the methodology are clear, but the activities of the work packages are not completely related to the objectives mentioned. The comparability and applicability at EU level is not addressed.

The methodology indicates that it is a research clinical study, more than a Public Health project.

It is not mention the young people as a target group.




4

2

3

Comments

PREUROMED study is aimed to create a European surveillance network on life style and environmental protective factors for primary and secondary end points for cardiovascular diseases.As well it aims to test gene-nutrient interactions. The project seems to be under the

Public Health scope, on health Promotion and related to the priorities.

However one member of the panel believes that this is not really a Public Health project, but a clinic-genetics research study based on existing cohorts.

The project could be innovative, but not enough evidence is provided to assess the avoidance of duplication. The project builds on PREDIMED study, about existing cohorts. Therefore it is too early to have definitive results and there is not reference to MONICA or CINDI projects.

It should be present to national research councils.

No external evaluation is foreseen. The internal evaluation has unclear criteria of evaluation.

Some indicators of process are mentioned, but not of outcomes quality. As well qualitative or quantitative assessment of the impact is missing, which would have been relevant.

The plan of dissemination is not well developed and there is no identification of sustainability. It is mentioned the website, newsletter, press office, but other methods are not clear. The stakeholder's analysis is not addressed.

Dissemination means to reach a general public are missing. As well, since dissemination is one of the project's core activities, it is important to include evaluation of the dissemination strategy









Note

2





2

3

2

3

Comments

Description of the work packages is clear. However the work packages don't match well to the objectives given. The partnership is not balanced, since most of the tasks will be done by the main partner.

Some deliverables are milestones.

The timetable is clear, but the risk analysis is too weak. There is not mention of the possible way problems in the execution of the project might be solved.

The management structure and the competence of the staff seem to be adequate. However some staff competencies may be inadequate for a PH work. It is not clear why laboratory staff is participating in a Public Health project.

The internal communication and the process of decision making lack details.

There is no information provided about the monitoring and supervision.

Good track records of work in partnership. The partners have been working together and seem to be competent and complementary in their fields. However the relationship is not balanced, since most of the activities are in main partner hands.

The internal communication is not well described. The external communication is limited. Several channels to address the stakeholders are mentioned. However the target groups are not clear.

Applicants could explore the issue of how to make the results available to the general public.

The EU co fund is not detailed.

Overall budget is overestimated. Generally is well balanced, despite the main partner predominance that should be corrected. The staff cost was considered overestimated, and the reviewers question the need for laboratory staff. As well it is not clear why most of the staff is not public officials.

Expenditure on reagents, laboratory staff, etc demonstrates that this is a biomedical study and not a public health one.



Total:


12

49

PREUROMED study is aimed to create a European surveillance network on life style and environmental protective factors for primary and secondary end points for cardiovascular diseases. As well it aims to test gene-nutrient interactions.

The project does not really fit the purpose of the Public health Programme. It has no conception of support for public health practice at national or local level.

As well, some reservations remain regarding acceptability on a large scale, beyond a trial, of such a major diet change. Unless this is completely proven, a heavy investment in such a behaviour shift is not warranted.

Panel recommends applicants to finish their previous project and build a new proposal based on the final results and outcomes of the previous project. As well the reviewers suggest for the applicants to search support in a more oriented clinical research programme.





No

0

0.00





101,091.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: DEMOSI



Development of health facilities monitoring system for injuries with focus on brain trauma

01/01/2009

18


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Internationale Gesellschaft zur Erforschung von Hirntraumata (International Neurotrauma Research Organization)

IGEH (INRO)

Public


Austria


Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital

Trnava University

UKH "Lorenz Boehler", Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsanstalt

University Hospital Center Zagreb

University of Pecs, Centre of Medicine and Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine

5

Acronym

PSCUH

TU

UKHLB

UHCZ

UPecs

City

Riga

Trnava

Wien

Zagreb

Pecs

Country

Latvia

Slovakia

Austria

Croatia

Hungary

5


General Objective of the project is to contribute to secondary prevention of injuries and thus to lowering morbidity and mortality caused by injury in general, with a special focus on brain trauma, on the European level.

Strategic relevance&contribution to the programme

Injuries are a major cause of mortality and morbidity in Europe, however, valid data on injury occurrence are still missing due to differences in admission and registration policies and classification of injuries. These differences result in artificial international variation in clinical injury incidence. The proposed project will develop standardized data collection methodology that will enable more accurate calculation of injury incidence, establishment of system for quality assessment of injury care, whilst simultaneously initiating a process of harmonization and yielding improvements in consistency of care. The project will be of benefit to the organization of clinical research, at national and European levels, through proposing a strategy for future research.

Methods and means

The project will research and describe hospital-based injury data collection systems in at least 5 European countries through the collection and evaluation of samples of hospitalized injury data and information on the system. Standardized methodology for injury indicator monitoring will be drafted and its feasibility will be assessed by project partners in their country. After the evaluation of the feasibility reports, an awareness campaign to promote the drafted policy will be implemented in participating countries. In the final phase of the project, an estimation of Burden of Disease of injury in general and brain trauma in particular will be addressed, together with a proposal of a strategy for future research.

Expected outcome of the project is the standardized methodology for hospital injury indicator monitoring, estimation of Burden of Disease of injury and a proposal of a strategy for future research.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

40 500

102 600

32 000

13 230

0

2 000

2 000

7 500

12 500

212 330

Incomes

81 830

40 500

90 000

0

0

212 330
















3

4

22

Note


Note

6

5

4

3

3

Comments

The project's topic fits with the Public Health Programme: both the general area (injuries) as well as the proposed outcome (a draft burden of injury report) are in line with the 2008 work plan 2008 priorities; however the specific focus on brain trauma is less relevant.

The project's outcome (a draft estimate of the burden of disease for injury and brain trauma and a proposition for the development of indicators for a refined BoD measurement) are not in line with current activities in the area of injury prevention and current data collection and would not contribute to these

EU added value is medium: there has been a long track record of work undertaken in data collection on injuries, their causes and the burden of injuries; however, although the applicant mentions this experience, he fails to show how the current project will relate to it. Also, there is a discrepancy between overall objective (standardization of data and monitoring system) with the proposed main outcome: it is not clear how draft estimate of the burden of disease for injury and brain trauma will lead to a monitoring system based on standardized indicators

The proposed geographical coverage is limited for an EU-wide added value: there could be more countries involved. Also collaborating partners could have had a more important/ visible role

Importance of differences in healthcare settings (practices, culture, context) are not sufficiently taken into account – especially with respect to the objective of developing standardized tools and the well known difficulties in extracting data from hospital registers

Comments

A full understanding of the evidence base is not provided: a simple rationale for action in the field of injury monitoring is not sufficient. "State of the art" of collecting injury information and previous

EU efforts in the area are not considered. Technical feasibility (data capture and analysis) is not demonstrated. Issues related to the quality of data and the tackling of variability between the different hospital-clinical systems involved are not mentioned

The applicants aim to produce: "a standardized data collection methodology that will enable more accurate calculation of injury incidence, establishment of system for quality assessment of injury care, whilst simultaneously initiating a process of harmonization and yielding improvements in consistency of care". By proposing a non-realistic timeline which doesn't guarantee a quality product, they underestimate the complexity of the technical issues at stake in this process.


2


2


3




Note

It is not demonstrated from the proposal description how it builds on existing projects in this area.

Issues related to transferability and use of the project's outcome are not tackled

The description of the evaluation strategy is weak: it is simply evidence of performance for project management (process oriented) but doesn't focus on the outcomes

Target groups are very limited, pertaining only to the academic community: key stakeholders are all missing - national safety organizations, public health authorities, insurance, and policy makers

- even though the result is of interest to all of them.

Comments









Total:


2

3

3

2

6




The project is insufficiently planned/ organized: the short timeframe means that difficulties inherent to the proposed activities (see above on hospital data set collection and analysis monitoring systems) are underestimated, for the project to be successful.

Presentation of planning and organization is, on statement, adequate.

Partners have also already worked previously as a group – in developing treatment guidelines; however, the present project requires from them additional skills and competences which they do not seem to have (clinical focus of previous activities is very different technically from the proposed line of work).

As per above, the partnership structure reflects similar characteristics: all institutions are in the same field, clinical units who know each other well and have worked together. However, more skills would be needed for this to be a successful project and no related evidence of competence is provided

Communication – dissemination are not differentiated. Target groups that were already mentioned above are not adequately addressed

The budget is too low to be consistent with achieving a quality product: even though the projected draft burden of injury report is moderately demanding, the overall objectives ("a standardized data collection methodology that will enable more accurate calculation of injury incidence, establishment of system for quality assessment of injury care, whilst simultaneously initiating a process of harmonization and yielding improvements in consistency of care") are too ambitious for the proposed budget.

16

51

The proposal presents complex tasks which seem to be out of reach of the partnership; an project proposal on validation and dissemination of the treatment guidelines (previous line of work of the partners) would be more in line with the skills and expertise of the clinical departments/ units involved than a foray in an area not sufficiently close to their core competencies





No

0

0.00





101,093.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: IN-EUPHIX



Intelligence Network for the European Public Health Information, Knowledge and Data Management System

01/01/2009

24


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

National Institute for Public Health and the Environment

RIVM

Public


Netherlands


European Arthroplasty Register, EFORT-EAR

HealthMonitor Research and Consulting Non-profit Public Benefit

Ltd.

Lithuanian Health Information Centre

National Public Health Institute

NATIONAL SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH

Norwegian Institute of Public Health

NRW Institute of Health and Work

Observatoire régional de la santé – Languedoc-Roussillon

Robert Koch-Institute (Federal Institute within the portfolio of the

German Federal Ministry of Health)

The National Board of Health and Welfare valsts agentura “Sabiedribas veselibas agentura” (State Agency

“Public Health Agency”)

11

Acronym

EAR

HealthMonitor

LHIC

KTL

NSPH

NIPH

LIGA.NRW

ORS-LR

RKI

NBHW

SVA (PHA)

City

Innsbruck

Budapest

VILNIUS

Helsinki

ATHENS

Oslo

Bielefeld

Montpellier cedex 5

Berlin

Stockholm

Riga

Country

Austria

Hungary

Lithuania

Finland

Greece

Norway

Germany

France

Germany

Sweden

Latvia

10


The IN-EUPHIX project aims to deliver a large body of policy relevant, scientifically sound, content on an internet accessible, electronic health monitoring system that will serve the EU and its Member States. The project will deliver a large number of health topic reports. These will be produced in a process, jointly executed by the project partners, that involves mapping, developing and managing an intelligence network of committed experts and organizations to produce the health topic reports. The collective fields of interest of this intelligence network and the contents of the health topic reports should both match the compehensive content area that is covered by the ECHI-indicator list. The peer reviewed content, including references and links, will be published on the previously developed EUPHIX pilot web application, according to existing publishing protocols.

The outcomes of the project will serve an audience within the EU and its Member States that includes policy makers at all regional levels, public health professionals, the media, journalists and the educated general public. It will provide them with good quality, comparable and policy relevant health information and data. In this way the project will strongly support the general goal of the programme of community action in the field of health, especially in the health information area. The health topic reports and other information, e.g. on the outcomes of other EU projects, will be linked from the EUPHIX system to the Health EU Portal website.

In this way the IN-EUPHIX project will take a second step towards the creation of a sustainable health monitoring system for the EU.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

32 792

456 310

27 200

19 635

0

5 000

0

23 500

39 502

603 939

Incomes

362 363

32 792

208 784

0

0

603 939









Note

5




4

4

4

Comments

The proposal is in line with the PHP and annual Work plan by willing to establish a health monitoring system. Nevertheless more detailed information should have been added on the nature of the project. For example there is no information on how the exchange of ideas will happen.

Morover as this project is based on an existing project, the complementarities should have been better addressed in order to avoid duplication.

Even if the strategic importance of health monitoring and reporting is obvious, the contribution of the project to this objective is less clear. A lot has still to be worked out and more explanations given.

The link with the Euphix project has to be better described and also how the results will be taken into account. For example, would they have to demonstrate how policies will be developed on the basis of the project, and how these policies will be put in action at EU, national and regional level.

The collaborative way the project intends to work, the exchange of ideas and data may add value to the EU health policy. But on one hand, the added value with regard to EUPHIX is not clear.

What has been learned by EUPHIX and does this new application mean that EUPHIX was not sustainable? On the other hand the sources of information (data access) that will be taken into account are not clear either . There is a lack of description of the details. For example just mentionning "development of common mechanisms" is not enough.

Putting together different pieces of information means to expand the target. The definition of experts is not clear either even if it is a great idea that needs more thinking.

Broad coverage (12 MS) but they should have involved more southern and western countries

(Spain, Malta...).

But how could they be sure that everybody will participate? Data will be collected from all countries "if possible": it is quite upsetting to read that. They could have made the point, lack of description. We have to trust them on a "bona fide" basis when they claim to cover all MS.

Moreover there is little information on sub national dimension.


3

This point is not developed enough: what does that mean to have different cultural contexts when monitoring and reporting on health system, particularly if the different policy lessons have to be analysed to check if they are suitable in different regions.

What about specific groups, minorities: not mentioned.

The idea is once more extremely interesting but the details are not provided in the application form.




20

Note

2


4

Comments

There is nothing at all: evidence has not been produced properly, there is no problem analysis, even if the evidence does exist with no doubt.

The aims and targets were described but 50 reports could be too ambitious: it will not be an easy task.

The outcomes and deliverables are appropriate; however it seems too ambitious in the given timetable and there is no clear description of what will be done with the reports, how they will involve the policy decision makers.

Concerning the target population, there is also here a lack of Southern and Western Europe involvement.



4




Even if the project seems to give some added value to the existing monitoring system, it is not really an innovation. It could have been innovative to describe the way information circulates among all PH professionals and experts but this has not been described in the proposal. There is no analysis of EUPHIX results and moreover the problem of sustainability is not addressed as mentioned above. There is not enough information and evidence given that the project will effectively work.

They could use web based tools: not mentioned. They could have described how to address specific health groups and use the information for other topics.


3

Indicators could have been better described, they are not really coherent.

An external evaluation mentioned but not described

No process and output indicators, only input; What about the EUPHIX experience?


4

Again this is a problem for a project mostly based on dissemination. A webpage is not dissemination. The targets were described more or less properly but not the tools.

There is an overall lack of information in the application form. Again, the lessons learned from

EUPHIX (dissemination) are not presented.

What about Community building tools?

The link with EU portal is a positive point.

The webpage is a tool, it is not dissemination in itself.




17

Note


3




2

3

3

Comments

The basic idea is very good but the details are missing such as for example the distribution of tasks among partners. The description of the risks is not comprehensive. For example the biggest risk is to have so many partners and it was not addressed. There is no description of the partnership management. There are too few Work packages.

The management is very important in that kind of project.

On the other hand, the experience acquired via EUPHIX project is a positive point.

No description of the management structure, even if there is noy doubt on the quality of the staff.

The partners are allright, with a lot of experience but the complementarities could have been better described, with the differences and similarities compared to EUPHIX. The main partner has a to dominant role in the project.

The planning is not bad, the target groups are well defined but could have been described more extensively, and details are missing on the channels they will use. An important part of the project is the webpage but the way it will be actively used for communication is not clear.




Total:


7

18

55

The budget is allright but unbalanced among partners and should be reduced. The co-funding should be reduced from 60% to 50%.

The idea behind the project is very good and interesting but there is lack of information and details in the Application form. This problem has to be carefully addressed during the negotiation phase.

Before funding this project we need an analysis of the results of the EUPHIX project stating clearly the differences between this project and EUPHIX project and some guarantee has to be provided on the sustainability of the project. The geographical bias has to be addressed via an extension towards Southern and Western countries. The potential overlapping with other mechanisms such as Joint action have to be carefully checked before funding this project.

THe Evaluation committee sees this project as duplicative withone workpackage of the Joint

Action ECHIM and believes these activities should be integrated there See conclusions





No

0

0.00








101,094.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: RarePaedNet



European Network for Paediatric Rare Diseases

01/09/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Consorzio per Valutazioni Biologiche e Farmaco

CVBF

Private


Italy


Alessandra Lisi International Centre on Birth Defects

Erasmus Universitair Medisch Centrum Rotterdam

European Organisation for Rare Diseases

Instituto de Salud Carlos III


Società servizi telematici

Università di Padova

Acronym

ICBD

Erasmus MC

EURORDIS

ISCIII

KI

PEDIANET

UNIPD

7

City

Rome

Rotterdam

Paris

Madrid

Stockholm

Padova

Padova

Country

Italy

Netherlands

France

Spain

Sweden

Italy

Italy

5


The general goal of the project is to collect information and to give suggestions to improve the living conditions of children affected by rare diseases, with particular reference to diseases with precocious onset and multi-systems involvement, thus leading to a very serious clinical picture, a great complexity of care and a heavy burden for families.

RarePaedNet is aimed at realising a patient based information network providing knowledge in paediatric rare diseases and proposing a successful model to implement and maintain disease registries at the EU level, thus contributing to the Work Plan 08.

The project intends to create a data collecting model to gather information directly from patients and families, and to elaborate and distribute it on a large scale. To achieve its objectives the project foresees the realisation of 20 patient based registries collecting clinical and social information. Priority for development will be assigned to very rare diseases, lack of EU registries or other patient based initiatives, unavailability of treatments. Links with EU initiatives, where existing, will be established to avoid duplications.

Patient involvement will be favoured by the creation of 10 Online Patient Communities, instruments favouring social interaction and acting as catalysers of knowledge otherwise scattered, not articulated, and therefore not fully exploited. Guidance documents and reports as well as informative leaflets for patients will be produced and disseminated through the project website and traditional communication channels.

The knowledge generated by the project, namely disease epidemiology, burden and management, social and health unmet needs, will contribute to make health policies and services effective and to increase their quality and efficiency throughout EU. RarePadeNet will also provide social and ethical benefits contributing to ultimately reduce social inequality for children affected by rare diseases.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

359 889

879 725

46 600

22 428

0

6 500

268 322

71 226

115 804

1 770 494

Incomes

1 062 296

359 889

348 309

0

0

1 770 494













Note

7

5

5

6

5

Comments

The submitted proposal falls within the 2008 Work Plan in General Objective 3.3.6 (Action on rare diseases) and more specifically, under the specific priority action “Development and maintenance of rare diseases registers and information networks in certain areas”.

The proposed model, although aiming to contribute to existing knowledge on a series of paediatric

RD is limited as it suffers from several conceptual “flaws”: (a) the choice of diseases seems arbitrary; (b) the experience of the main applicant, limited to the clinical field (pharmacology and clinical trials), covers only the clinical management part of the network activities, but lacks experience in the multifaceted work proposed here; (c) the bottom up approach lacks conviction;

(d) issues related to overlap with EURORDIS are not limited by the fact of the latter’s participation as AP; (e) there are doubts as to whether the proposal can deliver registers and, therefore, as to if it realistically actually addresses an issue from a Public health perspective. All of the above reduce prospective contribution and added value of the project proposal

See above comments: the shortcomings mentioned above, have negative impact on the possible added value of the proposed activities

The partners involved, coming from well reputed centres, provide a good coverage: the panel recognizes the fact that in the RD area the geographical coverage should be analysed in accordance of the availability of knowledge for a certain diseases or groups of diseases which is generally scarce at EU level; however, the lack of new MS participation is a negative point.

The proposed bottom up approach, through the linkage of patient communities, although in line with the specific context pertaining the RD area (higher levels of patient involvement, through active organizations), is negatively counterbalanced by the clinically centred profile of the participating partners (except EURORDIS)




28

Note

4


3

Comments

The application provides evidence to justify action in the area proposed, however, this evidence is not sufficiently supported by the proposed project methodology and content. The key weakness identified lies less in selected methodological/ technical shortcomings, but has to do with to caveats related to the set key objective, i.e. the realisation of 20 patient based registries collecting clinical and social information (see below on content section)

The proposal is unrealistic, as the expected key objective need to be substantiated by expert knowledge and this is not the case: setting up 20 registers is a very specific and technically demanding task (if done in a scientific sound manner) and requires skills and knowledge which appear to go well beyond the technical capacity of the applicants. It is very unclear, for example, how the “bottom up approach” will fit (and be supported by) a technically adequate registry component.



2

There are doubts on possible overlaps with existing work: beyond certain statements, it is not clear from the proposal description how the project will relate with the ongoing work by

EURORDIS and other existing networks (ORPHANET).



3

3

15

The project provides an adequate evaluation strategy, with some clarifications still necessary on external evaluation component; indicators are provided and will be further developed in the framework of the specific WP (WP 10)

An important part of the project is inherently about dissemination and the online patient communities are an important component of the proposed work: this should lead the partners to be more detailed in their descriptions, especially with regards to data protection issues.








Note

3







Total:


3

3

3

6

18

61

Comments

Core elements of planning are adequate: timetable realistic, risk analysis well specified, while other issues are not sufficiently detailed: distribution of tasks and role of partners; link between collecting data and creating registries unclear; element of sub-contracting too important in view of sustainability of the proposed network.

Leaders of the partnership have a good clinical experience background, but lack the skills/ expertise for such a multifaceted project: link with patient organization activities, linkage between bottom up approach and scientific rigor, complexities of setting up RD registers and working with epidemiological data, issues related to data collection in general, risks related to web based communication, etc.

The weaknesses in organizational capacity mentioned in previous section also have repercussions in the quality of the partnerships. Additionally, new MS are absent, as are countries from northern Europe (Scandinavia) which also have the best track record in registry work.

Finally, except from the participation of EURORDIS in the proposal, the project doesn’t build on existing networks/ activities

Communication strategy is not clear enough: it would need to be “spelled out” more clearly.

No special comments on the budget, except for the sub-contracting issue, i.e. important sub-contracting budget which raises the question of the sustainability of the proposed registers.

The proposal has the merit to clearly address a priority area within the wider field of the Rare

Disease related activities. However, as per the comments in the different sections, it has serious technical weaknesses, which do not give the assurance that it can meet its stated aims. It is understandable that one has to start from somewhere in addressing the issue of lack of information and/or disparities in accessing information in RD and there is certainly a high sensitivity for those RD affecting children. The basis of the proposed partnership (clinicians with a good level of experience in clinical trials), although adequate for the clinical content of the proposed activities is not sufficiently complemented by those skills and the required knowledge base to achieve the other objectives of the proposal – which are the ones providing additional knowledge and at the end of the day, added value. Finally, the idea of linking online patient communities and providing a bottom-up approach, although attractive, needs to be much better detailed.THe Evaluation Committee endorses the view not to fund this project based on the lack of elaboration of the project basic ideas and the question on the groups capacity to work on public health aspects




No

0

0.00





101,096.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: ProFaNEWeb



Prevention of Falls Network Europe Website

01/12/2008

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

University of Manchester

UNIMAN

Public


United Kingdom


European Association for Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion

Glasgow Caledonian University

Help the Aged

Robert Bosch Gesellschaft fuer medizinische Forschung mbH

University Medical Center Groningen University of Groningen

5

Acronym

EuroSafe

GCU

HtA

RBMF

UMCG

City

Amsterdam

Glasgow

London

Stuttgart

Groningen

Country

Netherlands

United Kingdom

United Kingdom

Germany

Netherlands

3


General Objectives

Falls amongst older people are a public health challenge. ProFaNE has been a successful EC-FP5 Thematic Network. This project creates a new website "ProFaNE Public Health" to extend falls prevention in needy areas of EU27 by translating pages & navigation. We update resources, create “how to do it” public health toolkits & synthesise evidence. We create a secure data repository to permit data sharing.

Aggregate data will be presented as an international falls observatory.

Strategic Relevance

ProFaNEWeb will contribute to health of citizens by reducing falls morbidity & mortality. We will impact quality of life of older Europeans by reducing fear of falling. Resources will be free to users regardless of their location. We prioritise access to those working in the poorer parts of

EU27, recent accession & candidate states. Efficacious interventions are "low tech" & cheap. Thus we reduce inequality. Providing access to knowledge online is a cost effective approach to implementation of public health policies. We innovate by involving older people.

Contribution to HP

As well as improving health of citizens, we build capacity. We address priorities 3.3 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.1.1 3.4.1.2 3.4.1.3 chronic diseases of ageing

3.4.3 ProFaNEWeb provides continuity to combat falls. It implements population shift risk reduction strategy in a priority area of elderly safety.

Methods & means

The target population of is older people in the community. Interventions with higher risk populations are well developed. Population shift strategy is less developed, but compelling. We need to maximise uptake & adherence. We build on previous work to permit implementation especially in new EU27. We use web-based multimedia techniques & interactivity to facilitate transfer of knowledge & skills. The new site uses latest technologies to enhance existing capability.

Outcomes

ProFaNEWeb: Toolkits: Updates: Data repository; Falls observatory: Public Health Network: Final Report





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

592 272

38 353

47 161

6 726

2 018

0

3 000

48 264

737 794

Incomes

442 676

0

295 118

0

0

737 794













Note

5

3

4

4

5

Comments

The project is covered by the Health Programme. On a general level, it relates to priority area 3.3

(promoting healthy aging), 3.3.5 (improving the quality of physical environment and reduce accidents and injuries) and 3.4.3 (exchanging knowledge and best practises).

The applicants address a very important area for reducing morbidity in elderly. It will help to disseminate existing knowledge on best practises to health care professionals concerning an important and probably increasing problem. But will the information disseminated in the project have an impact? It is also unclear which impact the factual effects of increased physical activity have on the risk for falls (as pointed out by the applicant).

The costs of injuries are dramatic but it is not clear if the project can improve the situation. There have also been other, similar projects in this field. The target population (elderly) will be reached indirectly by health professionals. The crucial aspect is to reach the health and policy makers (and getting these to transfer the knowledge into activities). If successful - and effective - in this the project may be important to improve public health.

The geographical coverage is rather poor - only 3 (West European) partners. The role of the 28 collaborative partners is not described. The website itself is not a guarantee for reaching an

Europeanwide population.

Social and cultural aspects have been taken into account. However, implementing best practises may vary between countries. Furthermore, access to the Internet may still vary between countries

(especially among old people who are also a target group). This should have been further elaborated.




21

Note

3


3

Comments

Falls and injuries among old people is of great concern, resulting in mortality, morbidity, hospital admission etc. as well as a reduction in life quality. However, the evidence base does not clearly demonstrate how the methods to be used in the project will help to reach the aims and objectives.

Results from the ProFANE project should have been presented more clearly.

The specifications of the content of the project mainly concern the website (generally well described), including translation of texts (which could have merited some additional specification).

Other actions are more briefly described. These actions may even be of higher interest than the website, but are difficult to evaluate or appreciate due to the sketchy descriptions. Again, the outcome of the project is not obvious.



4

3

Although this website might fulfil a need, the method itself is not very innovative. The partners are to some extent continuing the unique work they have already started. Translations of texts is a good idea, but a thorough evaluation of previous results would be needed to fully justify such action.

The applicants have realised the difficulties in evaluation and admit it. They have methods for repeated auditing and are brave enough to aim at a 10 % reduction in falls. Measuring impact on number of falls is clearly complex to measure. They also evaluate the number of users of the website. It would be recommended to try to identify some indicators 'in between' these fairly extreme endpoints, such as use of the recomendations by health professionals.

It is important to take feedback from the health practitioners into account in the evaluation strategy.

The dissemination strategy is the core of this proposal and it is well addressed.





5

18

Note Comments









Total:





No

0

0.00

4

4

3

2

6

19

58




The organisation around the website is well described, but how other activities will be managed is less clear. This may reflect a less comprehensive planning of these parts. The risk analysis is not well developed as yet, but there is a plan as how to deal with this to prepare for unexpected events in the project. Working hours not paid by the project will be put in, which should be acknowledged. The timetable is adequate and milestones given.

The organisation of the main partner is adequate for the task, but the roles of the partners seems fairly passive. Agreements have been signed with the collaborating partners, but their role is not clearly explained.

The main partnes has perhaps too large a role in the project, leading four out of five work packages. The division of tasks among the associated partners seem to be fairly distributed and their level of competence similar. The project would probably benefit from inclusion of additional partners or giving the collaborative partners an active role.

Communication relies heavily on the website - which is both the goal and the communication strategy of the project. Little information is given regarding communication within the project.

Availability of the website to the target group should have been discussed.

The budget is unbalanced towards the main partner, who also will travel extensively. The project seems overbudgeted for its achievements, especially regarding staff costs for the main partner.

Financial management is not described.

Although the project addresses an important public health problem it is not recommended for cofunding for the following reasons:

* The project focuses on providing information to heath proffessionals via a website. The efficiency of the recommendations given should have been described more clearly. With this information lacking, the benefits for the target group remains unclear.

* Experiences and results from the ProFaNE would have merited more attention as a basis for the present project.

* The availability of the website for health professionals in different countries, and by elderly, should have been addressed. Also the selection of languages to translate information to could have been discussed.

* The organisational structure and collaboration between the different countries would need to be developed to add European value.

* The project seems somewhat overbudgeted. THe Evaluation Committee endorses the recommendation not to co-fund this project





101,105.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: GIULIA



Virtual outpatient department integrated, for the oncologic patient management

01/10/2008

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Azienda Ospedaliera di Rilievo Nazionale “V. Monaldi”

A.O.R.N. Monaldi

Public


Italy


P.I WESTERN EUROPE S.R.L.

Software Team S.r.l. - Tecnologie Informatiche Avanzate

Acronym

PIWE

SWT

2

City

Naples

Sesto San Giovanni

Country

Italy

Italy

1


The present project goal is to plan and realize a system for the diagnostic and therapeutic management in the chronic diseases section, which need a non-stop care that is not often circumstantial to the residential place of patients.

The prototype creation of the “Virtual outpatient Department Integrated” (VDI) would respond to the specialists and/or general medicine needs, in order to communicate and to consult clinical data and pictures of patients affected by such pathology, sharing care profiles and diagnostic-therapeutic ways to follow.

Despite of general increase of quality and medium life expectancy, the number of avoidable deaths in Cardiology, Cardio-surgery and Oncology is still today very high.

In the oncological pathologies it is widely proved the need to keep different professions connected in order to obtain the right diagnostictherapeutic indications.

The project will tend to pursue continuous goals for “health care”, of sharing and interactive management among process actors of the Health

Care information and of interactive collaboration between operators and patients.

The project’s results consist in:

- an operative model of management of the diagnostic-therapeutic ways for chronic pathologies, in particular the oncological ones

- a complex telecommunication for the management of the routes and distribution of services, also realized by specific points developed in the project aims.

- a portal out-patients' department integrated and services with SMART-COM

- Application of specific software (vertical): (i) PHOENIX for Electronic Patient Folder; (ii) Health Plan Care.

The main expected outcomes are:

1. Improvement of the diagnostic setting

2. Precocity and diagnostic rapidity

3. Differential diagnostic optimization of the different benign and/or malignant pathologies

4. Definition and management of the diagnostic/therapeutic way of stadiation, therapy and follow-up

5. International system Integration





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

2 207 082

21 600

15 624

492 840

5 200

800 000

0

240 000

3 782 346

Incomes

2 193 760

0

1 588 586

0

0

3 782 346














Note

3

1

1

1

1




7

Note

2


1




2

2

2

Comments

The proposal provides a weak description of the problem analysis. The effectiveness of the measures proposed is not discussed and evidence in support of the project purpose is lacking.

The aims, objectives, methods, effects as well as outcomes are not well described and justified.

The proposal does not feature a proper description of the tasks envisaged and the methodology used.

Difficult to provide an opinion since the description of the activities is difficult to understand. It is pointed out that part of the problem may relate to the fact that English is not the first language of the author.

It seems to be no duplication, no complementarities with other projects. The complementary nature of the current proposal, if it exists, should have been explicitly indicated, but not other projects have been mentioned. It sounds innovative but the absence of a better description makes impossible to asses. There is little in the literature to build on, as it is presented in this proposal.

Also the target groups of the actions remain unclear.

Some aspects of process evaluation are tackled. However it does not feature a proper description on how to go about the evaluation. There is not a systematic appraisal of the project process, or its effects. The external evaluation is not mentioned and there are not indicators related to the specific objectives. No quality analysis is foreseen to get insight into the quality of the deliverables

No details are provided on the dissemination strategy, except for the mention of some seminars and a "mass marketing" (it is not clear what this means).There is not mention to webpage.

Stakeholders analysis is missing and the sustainability is not foreseen.

As the nature of the intervention, per se, remains unclear, it is not easy to understand how the dissemination will be managed.

9

Comments

The project aims to provide a prototype of chronic disease management system. It could improve communication and data management among specialists involved in care.

As it links with e-health and health determinants, it is marginally related to the Public Health

Program. However create a “virtual outpatients department” is not really into the priorities for the

HP and its annual Work Plan.

The management of chronic diseases is a function of growing importance and proposals that claim to improve the function of the participating help care units could be useful. However there is not clear mechanisms by which this could contribute to existing knowledge, as described in the proposal and its potential has not been demonstrated sufficiently.

The sharing of best practices in the area of chronic diseases would have an added value to

Europe. However in this proposal is difficult to identify the final added value to what already exists. It doesn’t adequately convey the means to impact on target groups and have an effective intervention. Also the replicablity and transferability are very unlikely. The compatibility with EU relevant policies and the liaise with to relevant EC,WHO and OECD projects are not addressed.

The geographic coverage is very limited. The project only includes one partner in Italy and two collaborating countries. With this small partnership, they are not taking in count the EU diversity and it will make difficult to achieve the objectives, scope and targets of the project

The project could have interest if it would apply and translate design and best practices into healthcare, with an EU perspective. However it is centered in the deployment of a commercial application. Also the geographical scope of the project isolates it from the social, cultural and political contexts that are not taking in count.

The relevant of the proposal to national systems and the relations with other organizations in

Europe is not addressed. The discussion of ethical aspects is poor and the target groups have not been well identified








Note

1





1

1

2

2

Comments

The organisational structure is not well addressed: the proposal does not contain a clear description of the partner's responsibilities. Some milestones have been described. Activities, deliverables, and tasks are not well described and specified. It seems to be "techno-speak " without public health content.

The risk analysis is missing

The management structure is not clear, there is no discussion of decision making and the organisation capacity is not clearly stated. The poor structure of the proposal makes difficult to asses it.

There is no mention to internal communication, monitoring or supervision

The quality of the partnership seems to be weak, since all the partners are from Italy and there is no visibility of the other countries. There is not a good description of the roles and responsibilities of the partners. Synergy or complementarity is not clear.

The capacity to manage an international project is not sufficiently substantiated

The communication strategy is limited to communication via traditional ways (Meetings, internet) and a press involvement.

No analysis is made of the target groups for external communication or the appropriateness of communication channels.

Visibility of EU co-funding is not mentioned

The overall budget is overestimated and imbalanced.

A substantial amount is foreseen for subcontracting without justification. The amount assigned to trips and subsistence is too high, taking in count that most of the participants are from the same country.

There is no description of reporting procedures or any other control.



Total:


7

23

The proposal aims at providing a prototype chronic disease system. The description of the proposal is rather vague and confused. There is no clear evidence and reference to what is being established. It is not indicated how this project builds on what already exists.

The strategic value is not clear and the EU perspective is missing. It doesn’t adequately convey the means to impact on target groups and have an effective intervention. Also the replicablity and transferability are very unlikely.

The aims, objectives, methods, effects, as well as outcomes are not well described and justified.

The proposal does not feature a proper description of the tasks envisaged and the methodology used. A good description of the roles and responsibilities of the partners is not provided.

The quality of the partnership and the geographical coverage are limited.

The budget is too large for a project with an unspecific focus and insufficient balance.

The project needs to be better elaborated. It would be interesting for the author to read some successful projects.





No

0

0.00





101,128.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: ReConExT



Recovery by Consensus of Experience and Theory

02/03/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:


ISTC - CNR

Public


Italy


International Mental Health Collaborating Network

Mario Negri Institute for Pharmachological Research

Stockholm's University

University of Abertay Dundee

4

Acronym

IMHCN

IMN

SU

UAD

City

Mons en Baroeul

Milano

Stockholm

Dundee

Country

France

Italy

Sweden

United Kingdom

4


The overall aim of ReConExT is to promote recovery in mental health. The international movement of mental health users has placed the self management issue in the centre of debate developing their own approach aiming for a more hopeful, recovery-oriented view of mental illness.

Recovery refers not only to the possibility of symptoms relieve but also to the capacity to develop a self-concept beyond the illness.

The recovery approach is in line with EU core values. It is based on person-centeredness, involvement and empowerment. Implemented recovery-oriented mental health services have a strategic relevance for the EU due to its sustainability. Although the recovery oriented paradigm has been implemented in reforms of many countries’ mental health services, hitherto scientific evidences of the efficacy of the recovery oriented interventions are missing as much as a theoretic model of the recovery process per se. The ReConExT-project will provide theory and empiric evidence of the recovery approach.

A recovery-focused training intervention will be offered to ca 450 users and professionals of seven European mental health services of three different nations. A longitudinal study will be conducted, to evaluate the outcomes of the recovery-focused training intervention on users and services. Based on a participative research design the longitudinal study will use qualitative and quantitative tools.

At the theoretical level, an integrated model of the recovery process as a multi-factorial phenomenon will be developed, marking a major advancement beyond the state-of-the-art. The model will take full account of socio-cognitive elements implied in the recovery process and will be validated by the qualitative part of the longitudinal study. Guidelines to promote recovery in mental health services will be provided to policy makers. The dissemination of the project results will address key stakeholders including the general public.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

857 774

786 950

57 340

142 810

8 800

9 590

50 000

17 361

135 141

2 065 766

Incomes

1 207 992

857 774

0

0

0

2 065 766













Note

2

6

5

4





6

23

Note

3

4

Comments

This project aims to develop and evaluate a methodology to promote recovery in mental health, using a longitudinal design. It fits in the general scope of the EU Health Programme, and particularly relates to the topics of mental health promotion and capacity building, but does not fit in with specific priorities of the work programme 2008, as it is concerned with treatment rather than mental health promotion and prevention of mental disorders.

The project could provide missing scientific evidence regarding effective interventions to promote recovery in mental health, using an approach which does not only aim for symptoms relief but also an enhancement of self-concept. As such, it could improve mental health care practice by contributing to relapse prevention and patient empowerment. The long term success and sustainability of this project will however depend on the wider dissemination of the results. As this project has a heavy focus on research, dissemination and transferability are not well addressed here.

The project is complementary with existing actions, as it will acquire and disseminate evidence on the effectiveness of a new approach in mental health care which has been piloted in the UK, US and Australia. The impact on the target groups will be indirect through improving mental health care interventions. However, the focus on mental health care rather than prevention and promotion puts it outside the mandate for public health action at EU level. The added value at EU level is also limited due to the limited coverage of the network.

The consortium only consists of 5 partners representing 4 countries, all of which are Western

European (Italy, France, UK and Sweden), but one of the organisations is a network so the geographical scope can be extended. The extensiveness and composition of the international network should however be better explained. The geographical coverage would greatly improve if one or two partners from EU12 would be included

The types of interventions that are foreseen in the project are community based, and are compatible with the social, cultural and political context. The explanations provided in the proposal are satisfactory, except for the fact that ethical consent is not mentioned.

Comments

The problem of the mental health burden is well stated, but proper referencing to key documents is missing. The analysis of the problem is less well elaborated and gaps in the current state of play in addressing the problem are only superficially stated, without any mentioning of the literature with regard to relapse prevention in mental health. The effectiveness and applicability of the proposed measures are stated in a descriptive way, providing some information about the method but not stating the evidence of its effectiveness

The aims, specific objectives, expected outcomes and deliverables are well stated but the envisaged activities are not always justified in relation to the objectives. The work packages are well elaborated and consistent with the general outline of the initiative.

Target groups are well indicated but some health professionals and policy makers are not sufficiently involved, and patients will only be indirectly reached through professionals.

The methods are clearly described but the method to develop the intervention model guidelines is not sufficiently participatory: the project will develop guidelines for, and not with the end users.

The geographic diversity is not reflected in method.



5

2

The applicants claim that the method is innovative, but the explanation and justification for this claim is not sufficiently provided in the proposal. A state of the art is provided on the recovery approach in mental health with reference to APA conclusions, but a comparison with the situation in the EU should be added to build upon. There seems to be no overlap with existing initiatives.

The evaluation strategy that is proposed is concerned with the evaluation of the patient recovery model, not of the project itself. Indicators are provided but they do not refer to the process evaluation and monitoring of the interventions, the quality of the deliverables or the degree to which the stated objectives are achieved. Evaluation should be focusing on process and output/impact and should include an external evaluation element. The proposed approach to entrust evaluation to the steering committee without further elaboration of the evaluation methodology is not satisfactory.



2




The project does not make an effort to actively disseminate the results. It is mentioned that a dissemination strategy will be developed, and the main elements are already known, but the descriptions are vague and re-iterate standard passive dissemination mechanism, including a heavy reliance on the website. Dissemination will be mostly directed towards the scientific community and not to the wider public health target audience. The transferability of the project outcomes at a wider EU level and sustainability are not addressed.




16

Note Comments






4

4

4

3

6

The description of the project activities is detailed and explicit, and compatible with the nature of the project, which is of a collaborative clinical research type. The division of the work into work packages is relevant. Tasks and responsibilities are shared among the partners in a balanced way, and they are corresponding to their experience. The timetable seems adequate but the milestones are generally similar to deliverables and should be expanded. The proposed risk analysis takes potential project risks into consideration but does not state adequate contingencies for potential delays or shortcomings (e.g., delays in obtaining approvals).

The management structure that is presented only focuses on the scientific management, not on the management of the project. The roles of the steering committee and executive committee are to monitor scientific progress, not the progress of the project activities. Decision making procedures, communication lines and tools, financial circuits and responsibilities are not outlined in sufficient detail. All partners will participate in all work packages.

The partnership comprises a small network of only 5 partners representing 4 countries, all of which are Western European, but the organisations involved are reputed and have a high level of expertise in the area addressed in the project. Some of the partners have a proven capacity to mobilise EU-wide networks. There is no explicit mentioning of previous collaboration, but collaboration will be based on the complementary of the partners in terms of skills and expertise.

An expansion of the network in terms of geographical coverage and complementary skills (e.g., dissemination) would provide an added value.

Internal communication will e ensured by the management office.

Sufficient resources are planned for the communication of the project results and the creation of the required visibility towards the various target groups, but there seems to be no intention to create links to stakeholder groups or actively use additional channels to reach a broader audience.

The overall budget is very high (2.000.000€), given the small size of the consortium and the dominant research focus, and unbalanced towards main partner, who receives almost 50% of the budget. Staff costs account for 80% of the budget, and are not sufficiently justified. An excessive number of work days are budgeted for the main partner and IMHCN, both in terms of number of staff involved and the number of days per person, which sometimes exceeds 800 days in 3 years.

Travel costs are inflated by a very high number of journeys (96 for IMHCN) without any justification.



Total:

21

60






No

0

0.00




This project aims to develop and evaluate a methodology to promote recovery in mental health. It could improve mental health care practice by contributing to relapse prevention and patient empowerment, and as such fits in the general scope of the EU Health Programme, as it is concerned with treatment rather than mental health promotion and prevention of mental disorders it does not fit in with specific priorities of the work programme 2008. The project is well elaborated in terms of planning, but the proposed method to develop the intervention model guidelines is very research focused and not sufficiently participatory, despite the claim to enhance patient empowerment. In addition, the proposed evaluation, dissemination and communication strategies are not adequate. As the consortium only consists of 5 partners representing 4 countries, all of which are Western European (Italy, France, UK and Sweden), an expansion of the network in terms of geographical coverage and complementary skills would provide an added value. A major weakness of the proposal is that the budget is very high in comparison to the small size of the consortium and the dominant research focus. If the project is recommended for funding, the budget should be significantly reduced without reducing the tasks envisaged. - The co-financing of the Commission should be reduced to 60% of the requested amount.

- The budget should be more balanced between the partner in the project.

- The geographical coverage should be increased by including partners from the EU12.

- Evidence with regard to relapse prevention in mental health and the effectiveness and applicability of the proposed measures should be provided

- The method to develop the intervention model guidelines should be more participatory

- An evaluation strategy for the project should be elaborated, focusing on process and output/impact and including an external evaluation element

- The dissemination strategy should be revised to include more active dissemination of the results, directed at a wider audience than the scientific community and addressing the transferability and sustainability of the project outcomes.

- The management structure should be expanded to include more than just the scientific management, and include decision making procedures, communication lines and tools, financial circuits and responsibilities.

- The risk analysis takes should state adequate contingencies for the identified risks

The Evaluation Committee:

believes that this project is not falling into the remit of the 2008 xworksporgramme as being concerned with research on treatment. Together with essential weaknesses identified by the peer review panel, this leads to a recommmendation not to fund the project





101,138.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: EHSS-CHAP



European Health Survey System for Child and Adolescent Population

01/07/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

University of Cologne

UCC

Public


Germany


European Pediatric Association

TNS Healthcare GmbH

Acronym

EPA-UNEPSA

TNS

City

Athens

Munich

2

Country

Greece

Germany

2


1: This project will provide deeper insights into causal correlations between socio-economic status of children and their families, migrant status, consumption of health care services, access, and cost to individuals and children’s health across eight countries and welfare systems in the EU.

Our comprehensive survey builds upon prior research and innovatively employs a micro-level survey technique as its primary data collection tool.

2: A better understanding and analysis of child care is crucial for the EU and national/regional governments in order to provide appropriate structures of care. Our study will yield answers to inequalities amongst EU nations using a statistical analysis of our selected variables. Advisory networks of researchers will also be established and together, armed with our data and a tested survey method, solutions to better health care will be presented to EU governments.

3: Our sample will divide children into three subgroups according to age (0-5, 6-10, 11-15). In order to capture a representative sample based on total population, we will interview about 500 individuals in each age group (1,500 interviews per country * 8 nations), yielding 12,000 interviews total. This comprehensive sample will therefore capture the heterogeneity and diversity of EU countries. Screening will be accomplished via significant questions that can be added to regularly conducted multi-topic-surveys among the general populations.

4: The main outcome will be an overview of childrens’ health based on descriptive and regression analyses. The report will: amplify the ability of governments and agencies to manage children’s health care; catalyze a network of researchers; underpin a summary conference; validate a new micro-level methodology, and establish a database for further study.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

974 750

24 000

0

11 000

0

960 000

0

43 800

2 013 550

Incomes

1 208 130

0

805 420

0

0

2 013 550










Note

7

4




4

3

4

Comments

The idea is good and in relation with the PHP and work plan (population: youth). But it is more related to survey analysis.

It is an ambitious project collecting data, but the links with other projects are not described and therefore the whole approach is unclear.

The idea is very good: to monitor this population in 8 countries; but it will be difficult to build up relevance on that subject: how can a survey such as this one identify unhealthy behaviours?

The expected contribution to knowledge is not explained. Applicants assume that this survey will identify the risks but they ignore the existing national surveys. Furthermore the implication for health is not clear.

There is need for this kind of data. This survey could bring complementarities with other relevant policies but it is already done by the Council of Europe and the applicants don't even mention this in the proposal despite the fact that they are supposed to know the field. It is stated that this is the only existing survey on this topic!

Impact on target group and potential long term effects remain unclear.

There is no guarantee at all that the planned countries will participate. It is obvious that too few countries are involved (Only 2 countries) in the project hampering strongly the possibility to reach the target population. It is even not clear how these 2 countries will be involved.

The subject is relevant in the context but evaluators are not sure at all that the applicants will have the capacity to work this out sufficiently. There is a lot of bias in the application; it is very difficult to reach a population without involving organisations of the country.

Unconvincing to reach the target group by telephone survey.




22

Note

2


2

Comments

Very general, no clear information on methods. Nothing about problem analysis, effectiveness, impact and applicability of the measures.

The hypothesis of the study is not provided. There is a mix of the topics the applicants want to study and the only method that will be used is telephone; there is no clear link between the description and the costs as stated in the budget, no explanation on the methods (survey, sample selection, languages of the interviewers, list of data to be collected…). The effects and outcomes are very unclear.



2

The arguments provided to demonstrate the innovative nature of the project are not convincing; the potential duplication with national projects is not described and neither is the potential overlap.

The applicants describe the micro-level of techniques, but in a very normative, theoretical way .

The survey itself is not innovative.

There is no discussion on the cultural adaptation of the questionnaire among the different countries.

There is no attempt to present a real evaluation strategy but only a description of the questionnaire, no target, no indicators, no external evaluators.

1


There is some very basic description of dissemination via conferences, reports, articles in journal, without sustainability being addressed. Transferability to other places is very limited.

3









Note

2





3

2

3

3

Comments

This kind of ambitious project needs a stronger organisation. The organisation and the network are very unclear: the network should support the data collection but the network is not involved.

The partners are too few, the link between the different Work Packages is not clear. Is it really necessary to organise a work package only to write articles and report?

The milestones are not described; the way the applicants will get the governmental support they plan to get is not described.

There is a too big part done by subcontracting: so it is unclear who is doing what in this project.

The deliverables and tasks are presented but the risk analysis is unclear.

The organisational capacity is absolutely unclear. There is a problem with WP 2: more associated partners should have been involved for this part of the project.

There is only 1 partner per WP. The number of staff planned is too small for the project. The subcontracting activities are not described.

The competence of staff seems good (they have experience) and the internal communication between the 3 partners is OK but no mention of communication with others stakeholders.

Applicants didn't describe monitoring.

There is a network on paper but it seems that there is not more than that. The potential failure of

WP2 in building a network is not addressed. The responsibilities are clear but the complementarities and synergies are less clear.

The internal communication is OK but the external one is not adequate. The target groups remain vague. The EU co-funding visibility is unclear and the ability to communicate with the target group is questionable. Communication towards governmental bodies without involving national partners will be difficult.

Subcontracting is too huge (half of the budget), overestimated, unrealistic. Why are 3 economists necessary?

Only one country keeps a large part of the money which has not been subcontracted: the budget is not balanced.

No control has been planned.



Total:


13

45

The applicants have to elaborate a project with a clear methodology, more partners; they have to look at what happens at local level (other surveys), they have to elaborate the impact of the project on its target group.

The Evaluation Committee endorses the recommendation not to co-fund this project baed on the little value expected from the data




No

0

0.00





101,146.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: PHATDOWN-YP



Public Health Actions Towards Diminishing Over-Weight Nationally in Young People

05/02/2009

30


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Keele University

Keele

Public


United Kingdom


Centre for Training and Research in Public Health (Centro per la formazione permanente e l’aggiornament personale del Servizio

Sanitario)

Department of Health

HealthMonitor Research and Consulting Non-profit Public Benefit

Ltd.

Institute for Biomedical Research of Kaunas University of Medicine

Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland

Institute of Health System Research, University of Linz


Health

Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Burlo Garofolo


Masarykova Univerzita (Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

Medical University of Varna, Faculty of Public Health

National Institute for Health Development

NATIONAL SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND HEALTH

SERVICES MANAGEMENT SCOALA NATIONALA DE

SANATATE PUBLICA SI MANAGEMENT SANITAR

Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research

Office of Minister for Children

Unité de surveillance et d’épidémiologie nutritionnelle (Nutritional surveillance and epidemiology unit)

Unit for Nutrition Research, Landspitali-University Hospital,

University of Iceland

Youth Research Forum Limited

18

Acronym

CEFPAS

MT-DoH

HU-HealthMonitor

LT-Kaunas

WARSAW

AT-Linz

GR-PROLEPSIS

IRCCS Trieste

Karolinska

CZ-Masaryk

BG-Varna

EE-Tallinn

RO-Bucharest

NIVEL

IRL-OMC

FR-CNAM

IS-UoI

YRF

City

Caltanissetta

Valletta

Budapest

Kaunas

Warsaw

Linz

Kastri, Athens

Trieste

Huddinge

Brno

Varna

Tallinn

Bucharest

Utrecht

Dublin

Bobigny

Reykjavik

Esher

Country

Italy

Malta

Hungary

Lithuania

Poland

Austria

Greece

Italy

Sweden

Czech Republic

Bulgaria

Estonia

Romania

Netherlands

Ireland

France

Iceland

United Kingdom

17






The general objective is to publish a compendium of proven initiatives in lifestyle education of young people, and their families and peers, aimed at addressing the growing problem of obesity through the lifestyle behavioral aspects of obesity and physical activity. This project will devise and apply a structured taxonomy of types of initiative, and an assessment of impact and evidence. Specific learning points will be drawn out through a summation of more detailed case studies.

The strategic relevance is high. Obesity is an acknowledged growing health challenge. Young people are a particularly important target in that their behavior is largely determined and influenced by the attitudes of others, and the initiatives to which they are exposed. Upstream determinants of lifestyle behavior are strategically more important than remedial services once obesity is present. This priority is represented in the current Corporate Proposals by item 3.3.3.4, which this submission seeks to address directly. The objective is to cover all 30 EU and EEA member states, together with European initiatives undertaken or sponsored by agencies such as the European Commission, World Health

Organisation, and Council of Europe.

The method will be a coordinated study covering thirty countries, managed by the lead partner, enriched by five core partners, and validated by an Expert Panel. The team has strong prior experience in this broad area. The lead partner is experienced in public health information initiatives, and led in 2007 a major review of behavioural measurement of children initiatives in Europe to address nutritional and physical activity as determinants of obesity. The five core partners include two WHO Collaborating Centres, and each is expert in an aspect of this issue, while national partners will report on their own countries' initiatives.

The expected outcome will be a significant European Compendium, supported by scientific publications.

Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

18 400

411 930

39 850

57 130

2 000

0

0

33 960

39 428

602 698

Incomes

361 488

18 400

222 810

0

0

602 698













Note

6

3

3

5

4

Comments

The topic of the proposed project (producing a compendium of proven initiatives in lifestyle education of young people, their families and peers) is in line with a key priority of the 2008 WP; however, the tool proposed is not the best one

Stating strategic relevance is not sufficient from a group of partners that have developed important know-how in the area – more arguments and data should have be provided to support the strategic relevance of the proposal, moreover so since such information is readily available on the internet. Also, there is already a host of activities and platforms/ networks in the area of child and adolescent obesity, as well as a considerable amount of knowledge (WHO project); therefore, it is not clear what the additional contribution of the proposed project is.

Added value is limited for the same reasons as per the strategic relevance above. Also the nature of the end product (compendium) is static in an area where modes of information and education change very rapidly.

Geographical coverage is comprehensive in numbers – covering many MS. However, it is the quality of each partner and its position in the national knowledge system which is more important than just finding someone in each country – there are doubts about this fact for some countries

Critical aspects of the context of the problem of child and adolescent obesity are absent from the proposal: political context is missing and no clear indication of what types of efforts will be made to recognize cultural, social context. These are sensitive/ important areas which should have been elaborated upon; also, the issue of social inequalities is not a driver of the project




21

Note

2


4


2


2


2




Note

Comments

Evidence is not provided for – there is a total lack of references, as if this should be taken for granted by the reviewers. The applicant fails to use information/ evidence even from own previous projects.

The application provides for a good/ clear description of the project's objectives and methodology.

However there is an important issue: it is not clear how they pass from a coverage of 4 to 18 and then to 27 countries.

Two important negative points: first there is clearly overlap with past-ongoing activities. Secondly, the main outcome of the project (compendium) is hardly innovative: it is a static product which is in danger of being outdated even before it is published

The evaluation section is weak, almost inexistent: there is no strategy, defined indicators are lacking. It is strictly internal, no methodology is provided for and there is no scientific validation.

No clear indication of strategy; transferability is to be covered though scientific and professional publications. This leave unaddressed the issue as to how outcomes will be disseminated to target population, i.e. parents/ families

Comments


3

Some aspects are present/ adequate: timetable, deliverables, etc. The risk analysis has some surprising comments: i.e. the high number of participant countries is a risk mitigating factor; the statement that if one given country drops out, this is not important, etc.








Total:





No

0

0.00

3

3

3

6




On the competency of the staff, previous experience is a positive point.

The section is not well developed: too much rests on the central coordinator. This is to be viewed with the fact that no information is provided on internal communication and problem-solving procedures – it is more of a "one-man-show"

Selection of the partners was arithmetical - focused on including biggest number of countries possible, however the profiles have not been sufficiently elaborated as to ensure an effective

(scientifically pertinent) coverage

Although target groups are listed, there is no information on how the project will ensure that they are reached; no timeframes given, even though the large number of partners makes this an important issue

Globally, the budget is more or less relevant; however, balance of distribution of tasks needs to be reviewed on the basis of the information to be collected – analyzed by each partner.

Travel budget is unrealistic - 42 trips for the main partner is totally unreasonable, even though partners are numerous.

18

51

A project proposal on a field clearly within the PHP 2008 priorities; however, the project suffers from important caveats: the deliverable (compendium of proven initiatives in lifestyle education of young people, their families and peers) is not maybe the most relevant, especially when taking into account the knowledge base on the issue (already very important) and the host of other ongoing activities, which limit very much the expected added value and contribution of the proposal: another desk search which, when delivering its results risks being overtaken by developments in the area

The Evaluation Committee endorses the recommendation not to co-fund this project as it appears mostly to deal with dissemination of results from a previous project





101,147.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: SIDI HeaP



Statistical and Communicable Disease Information Health Portal

03/11/2008

24


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:


Department of Health

Fundació Institut d’Investigació en Ciències de la Salut Germans

Trias I Pujol

MARG inženiring d.o.o

Region Syddanmark

Institut za varovanje zdravja Republike Slovenije (Institute of Public Health of the Republic of Slovenia)

IVZ RS

Public


Slovenia

Acronym

DoH

FIICSGTIP

MARG

RSD

City

Msida

Badalona

Brezovica pri Ljubljani

Vejle

4

Country

Malta

Spain

Slovenia

Denmark

4


The main objective of this project is to prepare a portal that will host the reporting service that could be used by countries and regions to automatically prepare reports for ECDC and similar organizations. With this project we will build applicable generic service portal solution for management of collected data, analyzing and disseminating data and information. With respect to relevant EU policies we will identify best practices in ICT tool managing health data and portal solutions to develop applicable solution which must meet EU plan and program. Local or national specific methodology presents no obstacle to a unique portal system which is effective in reporting to different organizations (as ECDC,

WHO, European Union Public Health Information Network (EU-IDA EUPHIN) and Early Warning and Response System (EWRS) and useful as a source of information for different users (policy makers, public, health care specialists etc). In this case the portal will act as a transformer from different local source of data (with respect to local methodology) to unique files and reports defined earlier.

First part of the project focused on the analysis of current state in Europe regarding the methods and transparency of statistical reporting of communicable (infectious) diseases. The second one is the set up of the service and implementation of a pilot reporting cycle in one of the countries. The last part of the project will look into the future: we will organise a conference focused mainly on dissemination to the countries that still have to solve this issue for themselves and include them in the solution. We will also examine the possiblitiy to include other contents in the web based portal to spread the service fictionally as well as geographically.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

259 345

491 030

49 400

35 820

102 500

4 000

145 000

19 500

76 650

1 183 245

Incomes

630 090

259 345

293 810

0

0

1 183 245












Note

6

3

4

4

Comments

The project meets the objectives of the Community action in the field of health and the WP 2008.

The proposed action could be considered as a pilot to test a an information system about communicable diseases.

There is a high level of knowledge already available, limited relevance and the proposal does not take into account the existing context of the systems in place in the EU (HEDIS and MEDISYS).

The information system proposed could be simple and build a common ground of exchange of information.

Proposal submitted by new MS health organisations, which will adapt the experience of the Baltic countries. However, the target group, synergies with other initiatives and systems are little described. The actual concern is the duplication of information system, without effort for interconnectivity.

Few MS are involved (MT, DK and ES) and Montenegro as collaborating partner. The applicants would like to use examples from the Baltic countries, but no involvement of the actors from the

Baltic region. Not enough countries to create a momentum or even access to all relevant data.

The project takes into consideration the context of the countries in respect to the epidemiological data gathering, covering the local and national specificities. It could be considered as a model of good practice with potential replicability.





5

22

Note

4


4

Comments

The analysis of the problem is well done and the description of some existing EU initiatives.

However, no data is provided on the applicability of the measures proposed. The risk of overlap with the ECDC mandate was expressed.

The aims, objectives, target groups, methods, effects and outcomes are well defined, even when there were concerns of risk of duplication of existing initiatives. The non involvement of other MS or the limited implication of EU regulatory or implementing agencies makes unlikely the achievement of the action.


3


5





4

20

Note

Not considered innovative, risk of duplication with other reporting systems. Adaptation of the

Baltic model to local context, without contribution from any Baltic organisation.

Well planned and adequate definition of the indicators, clear responsibilities.

Appropriate for the structure of the project. Other institutions will participate in the assessment of the conclusions of the project.

Comments


4

Good description of the partner's role, and private-public partnership appreciated. The pilot testing in real life environment was not well described, without clear involvement of the data providers

(hospitals, GPs, nurses, etc), who are not involved in the project.








Total:





No

0

0.00

4

4

4

7

23

65




The staff involved was considered adequate, diversified, with clear sharing of responsibilities with wp leaders assigned following competency. The team members have previous experience on the management of grants, what can be considered valuable for the coordination activities.

The partnership seems good and properly balanced, however the panel considered pretentious the assumption "that this will be a unique portal for health".

The planning for the communication strategy was well described, including target group and health information available.

The staff cost was considered high, especially for the ES partner, the partner with the narrowest experience. The travel cost, subcontracting and the hard and software purchase was considered disproportionately high. Conversely, the translation was considered too low.

The scope of the project seems to be above the capacity of the proposing partners. There is the risk of duplication of existing information systems, but the application could be adapted to be used in specific needs like children vaccination. It was considered a good proposal, which could provide an effective contribution to the Health Information systems in Europe and presents potentially transferability to other MS. It would be recommended to involve the Baltic organisation who developed the initial system to join the network.

THe Evaluation Committee sees a in this project a duplication of activties tasked to the ECDC

The scope of the project seems to be above the capacity of the proposing partners. There is the risk of duplication of existing information systems, but the application could be adapted to be used in specific needs like children vaccination. It was considered a good proposal, which could provide an effective contribution to the Health Information systems in Europe and presents potentially transferability to other MS. It would be recommended to involve the Baltic organisation who developed the initial system to join the network.

The staff cost was considered high, especially for the ES partner, the partner with the narrowest experience. The travel cost, subcontracting and the hard and software purchase was considered disproportionately high. Conversely, the translation was considered too low.





101,151.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: EUROMEDIVTRACK



European Medical Device Tracking

02/03/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

European Arthrplasty Register, EFORT-EAR

EAR

Private


Austria


Deutsche Gesellschaft für Orthopädie und Orthop. Chirurgie

(German Society for Orthopaedics)

Institut für Epidemiologie (Institute for Epidemiology) itCampus Software- und Systemhaus GmbH

Romanian Arthroplasty Register, Registrul National de

Endoprotesare

Slovakian Arthroplasty Register

5

Acronym

DGOOC

IET

ITC

RNE

SAR

City

Kiel

Innsbruck

Leipzig

Bucuresti

Martin

Country

Germany

Austria

Germany

Romania

Slovakia

4


It is the general objective of the project to develop a standardised system for the identification and tracking of medical devices; this also includes the definition of outcome-relevant variables to be included in standardised outcome evaluations.

The system shall comprise an implant database that shall be implemented in active national arthroplasty registers and presented to other stakeholders who shall be listed in a summary report.


This project will create added value for the EU in several fields of activity in the context of patient savety and the generation and dissemination of health information and knowledge in a standardised way.

Standardised implant tracking is a prerequisite for supranational outcome research on a European level based on existing national arthroplasty registers. It can also be applied in market monitoring, for instance, to detect falsified or non CE licensed products, or used to include outcome data in reclassification procedures of risk class III products.

Methods and means:

It is intended to develop a standardised methodology for product definition including outcome-relevant variables, as well as a system for automated product registration and decoding by means of a standardised product database will be developed. The project is supposed to deal with hip arthroplasties, the system will, however, be suited to be adapted to other medical devices.

Expected outcome:

The envisaged system shall be implemented into the routine operation of existing national data collection systems thus allowing system validation beyond the scope of limited pilot projects. Moreover, at least a Europe-wide standard shall be defined and disseminated via the EU,

EFORT and EAR networks. Not only will this enable every member state to safe costs by avoiding redundant activities, it will also significantly broaden the options for aggregated evaluations and market monitoring according to uniform guidelines.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

1 216 620

0

40 800

17 789

5 000

0

100 000

10 000

97 311

1 487 520

Incomes

753 000

1 216 620

- 527 100

0

45 000

1 487 520










Note

6

6

Comments

This project is in line with the priorities (3.4.1.3, 3.2.1 and 3.1.1). The project seems connected to the PHP priorities but we need more information to give a clear answer. It fits but it is too specific, too narrow, too specific, too much of a pilot project.

Seems to be a good project but there is an important lack of information. They should have justified the strategic relevance. The project is very theoretical. The gap between a narrow project such as this one and the improvement of the quality of life in Europe is really important.


5

The added value is very general; there is no explanation on this topic. The results could be used for further policy development but this concept needs to be developed. There is also confusion with another project submitted by the same applicant.



4

6

This is a pilot project to be developed in central Europe where registries exist and are active. But the whole EU is not covered and there is no information on how it will be expanded. There is a lack of future planning and sustainability

This part is surely interesting and is more elaborated than in the other project

(EUROMEDEVSTAT).

In any case, the presentation of 2 projects on nearly the same topic was really confusing for the evaluation. There is a lot of ethical issues related to the topic of the project but not really addressed here.




27

Note

4

Comments

Limited evidence given in the project even if we can imagine and assume the evidence does exist. There is a lack of details. If this is a pilot project, how will it be used for further study? There is no element on this issue.


4

The general objectives of the project are well established, the specific objectives seem good and the methodology seems adequate. However the future of the project after the pilot project is missing. There is an overall lack of details on the content.



3

This project could be innovative even if there is an overlapping and a strong correlation with the project EUROMEDEVSTAT but there is a lack of details on that issue.

If there is no overlapping at least they should have explained the differences between the 2 projects.

It seems a better idea to integrate both projects in only one.

A strategy is mentioned but not described. This is clearly insufficient. There will be internal evaluation but the process is not detailed at all.

2



3




A dissemination strategy, based on the potential stakeholders and network of national arthroplasty registries is mentioned but there is no plan at all. Or it is an essential point to ensure the cooperation of stakeholders in the project. No information is given on the way the project will be implemented in other countries.




16

Note Comments


3

As in the project EUROMEDEVSTAT, the team is good and certainly able to do the task. But there is no timetable. The deliverables are well defined. The logical succession of the work packages is not apparent in the application. For instance it is not normal that some WP are starting together since it is clearly stated in the application form that one work package is waiting for the results of another one before starting its activities. The planning looks structured but with a very formal structure.



2

2

As for the EUROMEDEVSTAT project, the staff is definitely competent with experience. Internal communication is described superficially but they know each other and that is surely a positive point.

However they seems to know themselves so well that it seems they don't bother to describe their procedures and organisation with all the required details.

The project relies on a pre-existing network with experience in registries and databases but no information on the partnership is given in the application.



2

6

The communication strategy is not detailed at all. The title is properly defined but this is all

The introduction of a double application (EUROMEDDEVSTAT and EUROMEDIVTRACK) is not a good way to raise more money or to increase the possibilities to be selected. On the contrary this is certainly confusing and hampers the trust in the project.

The budget is unbalanced among the different partners.

The financial management and circuits are not really clear. The applicants have to clarify the figures of the balance sheet (liabilities and assets are not equal) and the accounts: there are differences in the accounts figures of the 2 projects and the variation of the annual benefit from one year to another needs explanation.

The daily costs of the German project manager are very high.



Total:


15

58

In view of the double submission and the lack of details on several important managerial and technical part of the project, even if the policy relevance is acceptable, it is suggested to the applicants to resubmit next year merging both proposals in one and only one proposal including both aspects of registry and tracking devices.

Two Evaluation of the policy relevance done by DG Sanco C2 and C5 were presented to the evaluators.

See the conclusions.

THe Evaluation Committee endorses the recommendation of the peer review panel not to fund tihs project




No

0

0.00





101,179.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: CeHMSCS



Cardiovascular e-Health Monitoring System in Comprehensive Schools

01/10/2008

29


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Research Institute of Cardiology, University of Latvia

LUKI

Public


Latvia


Fondazione centro San Raffaele del Monte Tabor

Kaunas Institute of Cardiology

Acronym

HSR

KIC

2

City

Milan

Kaunas

Country

Italy

Lithuania

2


By examining adolescent students, we will obtain data on the prevalence of heart rhythm disorders in this age group. The information collected during the project will provide a basis for evaluating the general status of cardiac health in adolescents. The pilot project previously carried out by DPG showed that approx. 25% of school students have ECG heterogeneity, including that associated with a risk of sudden cardiac death.

The data obtained will provide not only a considerable scientific contribution and a basis for evaluating problems in this sphere and making the right policy decisions on the possibilities and necessity of adequate prevention. These results would create a possibility to draw the society's attention to the existing problem, emphasizing that cardiovascular disease is not just a problem of the elderly, and that a healthy lifestyle as well as primary prevention of cardiovascular disease is necessary from childhood. Children with considerable ECG heterogeneity or unclear results would be recommended to undergo an additional 12-lead ECG examination, they would be advised by a professional and receive medical care from certified specialists, which otherwise might not have happened until they had developed serious complications. These activities would improve the health and prognosis both for the adolescents with potential cardiac function problems, and for the rest, by encouraging a healthy lifestyle and prevention, and emphasizing their necessity.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

440 000

4 300

7 860

12 000

0

130 000

23 580

42 300

660 040

Incomes

393 609

0

117 000

0

149 431

660 040













Note

4

3

3

3

3

Comments

The topic of this project is heart disease and child health but the exact tangible contribution to the

PHP and annual work plan is not clear. No clear references to how the project will contribute have been added. The countries involved are not clear (only 2 associated partners).

There is probably existing knowledge but this knowledge is not described here.

The idea about prevention is interesting but there is no further elaboration. For example, the evidence showing that an intervention is useful in case of not normal ECG is not presented.

There is overlap with other existing programs (nutrition, obesity…). It could be a second step on the basis of evidence but where is the evidence?

The impact on target groups and the long term effect are not clear, neither the impact on potential intervention following a positive screen (this project is only dealing with screening). There is nothing on transferability and sustainability.

The geographical coverage is quite narrow. An extension is announced in the application in a second step but with no further details. Even the whole country of the applicant is not covered by the project. The target population not identified properly.

The only mention of these issues is the following sentence: "Moral and psychological effects will be avoided by screening boys and girls separately".

The political context is not analysed. As it is a project dealing with children, it should have been interesting to address the compatibility of the project with the cultural context of the targeted children.




16

Note

1


2

Comments

No evidence on the problem analysis, on the intervention or on the impact or effectiveness is presented in the application form. Nothing is said about the numerous surveys on child risks.

The motivation of such a study is not clear, there is no clear objective.

Aims and objectives are not really defined.

It seems that some things are mixed in this project (education of children, prevention, screening…).

It is not sufficient to pretend you are doing prevention to get a real effect and how is it possible to develop prevention actions on the basis of a normal ECG? The risk of sudden dead by children is not so high to justify the project.



2

It is not really innovative, it is a screening project. There is overlap with other EU studies. The applicants even mention that other organisations are doing the same kind of study but without presenting a clear analysis of the innovative nature of this one.



1

0

6

There is no real evaluation strategy but only internal control, no timeframe, no external evaluators, unclear methods and indicators.

No strategy is presented and there is nothing on the project sustainability. The transferability of the results is questionable. As the applicants wrote "if the project is successful…" the reader could have some doubt about the confidence the applicants have in themselves.








Note

2





3

1

2

6

Comments

Very basic: a timetable is provided, a risk analysis but without solutions and not really realistic.

Almost all the work is within the hands of only one organisation: there is no partnership, no distribution of tasks.

The deliverables are made of recommendations, scientific conclusions.

This is a small project with few partners. The competency of the staff seems good.

But there is no information on decision making structure and process. The management structure is briefly presented.

There is no clear organisational capacity, no clear internal communication, no clear monitoring and no clear supervision. Finally there is an unclear track record to manage such kind of project.

There are a limited number of partners and the project is unbalanced towards the main partner.

The network structure is not presented.

The synergies and complementarities among the partners are not clearly explained.

The target groups are not defined. The communication is rather vague (they will use the media and the internet). There is no real communication strategy.

There is no mention of the visibility of the EU co-funding.

This is a cheap project, heavy on subcontractors. The other costs and equipment costs could be reduced.

The financial circuits, the responsibilities, the reporting and control remain vague.



Total:


14

36

The biggest problem of this project is the absolute lack of evidence.

A DG sanco C2 evaluation form on policy relevance aspects was presented to the evaluators.





No

0

0.00





101,184.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: CSPM



COMBATING STIGMA AND PROMOTING MENTAL WELL BEING

01/01/2009

24


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Fondazione Mario Lugli

FML

Private


Italy


Associazione per la Qualità e l'Accreditamento in Salute Mentale

Azienda Sanitaria Locale Roma/A

Centre for Mental Health Care Development

Community Housing and Therapy

UNIVERSIDADE NOVA DE LISBOA

5

Acronym

QuASM

ASL RM A

CMHCD

CHT

UNL

City

Milano

Rome

Prague

LONDON

Lisboa

Country

Italy

Italy

Czech Republic

United Kingdom

Portugal

4


The project purpose is to combat Stigma with the improvement of information on best practices, forum on line, public conference with citizens participants, press releases and guidelines. This is an integrated project that involves mainly citizens. By researches on this sector most of the patients start their psychiatric and analysis therapies too late and the principal fault is the social stigma.

In fact it is proved that the patients who start the their therapies earlier they will improve normal conditions in less time in confront of the others.

This initiative is a social project aimed at guaranteeing the patient an independent life, whilst fully respecting his or her psycho-pathological conditions and succeeding in focusing attention on fears, mistrusts and unjustifiable intolerances that only result in stigma and marginalization.

Fear, one of the building blocks of stigma, can be reduced when people see that having a mental problem is not an automatic death sentence or something to hide from the families and friends. The health sector and its service institutions should be encouraged to review their policies, professional codes of conduct and practices to prevent and redress stigma and discrimination.

Procedures for taking action against those who discriminate should also be put in place. The monitoring of such policies, professional codes of conduct and practices should form part of country reports to the United Nations Human Rights Commission. This is the reason why the principal project object is to involve all kind of citizens by web, press releases (on national newspaper) especially by meetings. This project is a pilot project to create a network, thanks to the important professionalism involved to create a real confront to help persons with mental problems and their families. This is a work of intelligence and security to prevent as more as possible social stigma and patients to start before their therapies, when necessary.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

172 430

550 370

47 000

9 800

7 000

0

150 000

95 000

0

1 031 600

Incomes

416 000

172 430

89 500

108 470

200

786 600











Note

5

4

4



3

3

Comments

The proposal is introduced under the priority 3.3 (exchanging knowledge and best practices) but it is not sure at all that the project will contribute to this priority of the work plan since the proposal is weak in term of conceptualisation. It is more a dissemination project and has to be put under the priority 3.3.3.1.

The applicants don't explain how they intend to bring something new in the current situation of knowledge and the transferability of the anticipated project’s results are not presented. Therefore the strategic relevance in term of contribution to the existing knowledge is rather weak.

The impact on different target groups could be high and sustainable and so add value but as the description of the application is not clear the long term effects are hard to assess. Several countries are involved as partners but the synergies are not readily obvious. Rather it may be an additive effect. They could have added value through spreading the results among different countries but this was not done.

It is presented as a pilot project and therefore the coverage is rather small. In any case the coverage should have been expanded and the main partner seems to have a very central role. As it is described the partnership is not demonstrating a real European dimension to the project.

We are missing clear explanations on the way they differentiate the approach of the different target groups as regard to the situation and the needs in the participating countries (culture, language diversity, opportunities and or shortcomings of the related policies).




19

Note

3

Comments

The problem analysis could be better described and the review of literature is rather poor; it could exist but it is not described here.


4

The objectives of the project are clear but it is not sure if the anticipated objectives will correspond to the specific objectives.

Outcomes and outputs are described even if the methods description contains some flaws. The target groups could be defined more consistently; the role of health care professionals is hard to understand.

The final meeting seems not relevant in line with the objective of the project.

The technical part of the proposal is rather weak with some mistakes in the presentation.

(For example 2 person days for the preparation of an international conference).



3

3



4

17

The project doesn't present what others are doing in the field, so it is difficult to assess the innovative nature of their project.

There is an evaluation strategy presented but it could have been described with more details. It is more a generic manual than a strategy. Some indicators are described but they are difficult to measure, except maybe the satisfaction of the patients.

There is a dissemination strategy but very brief and generic, not really linked to the project’s activities. In any case it is a dissemination project.












Note

3

2

2

3

4

Comments

There is a very schematic timetable. The deliverables presented are clear but there is no analysis on the way the partners will produce them.

Everything is done by the Main partner who is probably capable but the organisational capacity is rather unclear and the role and responsibilities of the partners as well. Monitoring and supervision are not directly described.

This is a one partner project. The cooperation with the partners has to be improved.

Good description but little justification, and tasks are unbalanced among partners.

The budget is clearly overestimated and doesn't correspond to the activities of the work packages description. The daily rate of some salaries is too high for some partners, as are some travel costs.



Total:


14

50

The project addresses an important problem but the applicants have to make an effort to better describe their project and give more details on all aspects. Evidence base is a major point to be improved and also the balance among partners. There are some inconsistencies in the different target groups in relation to deliverables. The most important may be the overall organisation with poor handling of the partnership and EU synergistic value.see conclusions





No

0

0.00





101,198.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: RECALLED



Auditory processing disorders and developmental dyslexia: are they always associated or in comorbility?

01/10/2008

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

UNIVERSITA' DEGLI STUDI DI MODENA E REGGIO EMILIA

UNIMORE

Public


Italy


Centro de Foniatria y Logopedia

Institute for Language & Speech Processing, "Athena" Research

Center

2

Acronym

CFL

ILSP

City

Santander

Maroussi

Country

Spain

Greece

2


The aim of the project RECALLED is to strengthen the relationship between the participating countries in order to realize an adequate information network at a European level about dyslexia and Auditory Processing Disorders (APD) and to obtain more specific data on the impact of dyslexia on the participating European countries of the project.

The project RECALLED comes from the belief among the research groups involved in this project, grown from experience, that the dyslexia can be associated with APD of various levels. This term refers to the efficiency of the Central Nervous System which utilizes auditory information.As

stated above dyslexia has an average incidence of approximately 5% in school population, so it involves a considerable number of children.

This study allows all the participating countries to compare the real impact of learning disabilities and to share problems about the realistic expectations from re-abilitative methods, representing a meeting point between doctors, psychologists and educators.

This process allows children to make a rehabilitative training focused to reduce difficulties in school world. The audiological screening consists of a threshold hearing level examination, the administration of the perceptive tests (occasional quiet and noise); the children suspected of possibly having an auditory disorder will be selected and assessed with more specific tests.

The assessment of the psychopathological dimensions of the children will be implemented with the CBCL (Child Behaviour Checklist/4.

The data gathered and analyzed periodically, will be re-examined at the end of the observation period.

We expect:

1) )That the dyslexia will be more serious in children with the auditory disorder processing

2)That not all the children with dyslexia have the auditory disorder processing





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

768 000

1 167 150

27 000

20 000

50 000

6 000

0

45 000

145 820

2 228 970

Incomes

1 337 381

768 000

123 589

0

0

2 228 970












Note

5

3

2

2

Comments

The project is very clinically oriented; somehow it could contribute to the Health programme but surely not to the work plan sub priorities.

As the title conveys, the proposal aims to answer a clinical research question and does not focus on exchanging good practices.

Even if few details are provided, the project could have a strategic relevance in term of epidemiological finding and testing of screening but under strict conditions and with a special consideration for some issues such as the partners. However the Public Health action is difficult to find in the proposal and it seems more a replication of a regional experience. Should this approach have an EU added value, it should work with all languages of the EU. Furthermore there is a mix between incidence and prevalence when presenting the data on the disease.

It is a cohort clinical study with no real impact on target groups or added value for EU, no long term effect or potential multiplier effect. It seems more a research project. The link with Neurodys is not clear. Some duplication could be possible.

There are only 3 countries in the project and the only MS covered by this project are south

Mediterranean countries. However the problem of Dyslexia is universal and there is no reason to limit the coverage to these countries only even if the authors of the proposal raise the argument of the language to explain this very local coverage.

The ethical problem is kept in consideration in all the steps of this study. The project seems to be adapted to the social, cultural and political context even if this could have been better explained.





7

19

Note

4

Comments

The problem analysis is understood. However there is no mention of measurement of the action the applicants intend to study, the impact is difficult to asses and there is no mention of effectiveness. There are few figures and no references.




3

5


2

3

The general objective is vague and the specific objectives are mainly oriented on clinical aspects of the study. It is a longitudinal cohort study but not a public health action because the advantages for the population are not clear at all. There is nothing proposed to generalise the methodology or the results to other parts of the population. The target groups are not addressed with geographical relevance and this factor is even excluded from the study.

The action could be innovative in term of scientific advancing in the field of speech therapy. In any case the innovative nature is not in tem of Public Health but only clinically.

There is no identification of duplication or overlapping with other projects.

There is an evaluation strategy with the right indicators listed. The methodology could have been better detailed. For the indicators, the applicants use a benchmark of 100% of the target group which is rather optimistic. It would have been better to reduce the expectation.

This proposal is more adequate for a local action and not for EU project. There is no continuous dissemination and the transferability of the results is not addressed. The final meeting is presented to only one main scientific society (could be a mistake). The meetings of the project's partners cannot be considered dissemination.

The applicants should have asked the collaboration of a Public Health institute to transform the results of this action into a Public Health action









Note

3

Comments

All the processes are only described for the Italian sample; there is no description of replication in other countries. There is no risk analysis.

The timetable and milestones are good but the work plan is wrong because the nature of the project is wrong as stated above.





3

3

2

5

There is no clear description on the management structure but the number of partners is quite low. The internal communication is not detailed. The role of the coordinator is over ruling of all processes.

Not enough in term of participants even if the applicants have experience. A larger partnership could be interesting to exchange experience. In this proposal all the partners have the same experience and profile (epidemiologists and experts in social sciences should be added) there is no synergy and no network structure as such.

The communication strategy is limited to 2 big meetings not well described (one at the beginning and one at the end). There is no intention to create links and channels behind the project to export knowledge and reach a broader audience.

The visibility of EU co-funding should be improved.

A lot of resources and effort are requested in this project but the cost benefit ratio for the Public

Health Programme is not favourable for funding this project.

The budget is not balanced and there is no explanation on the high costs involved. There are about 8 different profiles with more than 50% of their time on the project in each country: This is exaggerated.

The financial management and financial circuits are briefly discussed.



Total:


16

52

The applicants should ask for the collaboration of a Public Health institute to transform the results of this action in a Public Health action. Moreover some strong improvements have to be added up such as geographical coverage, dissemination strategy, planning and organisation, description of the evidence base, budget…

Finally the sustainability of the project has to be ensured.

The EValuation Commitee endorses the recommendation not to co-fund thisproject




No

0

0.00





101,210.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: Santorio



European Network to Monitor the Health of People with Intellectual Disabilities

01/11/2008

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

National University of Ireland, Dublin

UCD/NUID

Public


Ireland


Asociacion Espanola Para el estudio Cientifilo Del Retraso Menatl

Cardiff University

Centre Régional pour les Enfants et Adolescents Inadaptés

Languedoc Roussillon

Foundation APEMH-Association Des Parents D’Enfants

Mentalement Handicapes

Institute of Public Health of the Republic of Slovenia

IRCCS ASSOCIAZIONE OASI MARIA SS

Maastricht University

MED FAM APOLO S.R.L (Ltd.)

South Trøndelag University College, Health Education and Social

Work

The Joint Authority for Kainnu Region (Kainuun maakunta kuntayhtyma)

University of Dortmund

University of Ulster

University of Vienna

Viešoji istaiga "MTVC"

14

Acronym

Jerez

Cardiff

Montpellier

Lux

IVZ RS

OASI

Unimaas

Medfam

HiST/ AHS

Kainuu

Dortmund

Ulster

UNIVIE

Lithuania

City

Jerez De La Frontera

Cardiff

Montpellier Cedex 3

Bettange/Ness

Ljubljana

Troina

Maastricht

CALARASI

Trondheim

Kajaani

Dortmund

Coleraine

Vienna

Vilnius

Country

Spain

United Kingdom

France

Luxembourg

Slovenia

Italy

Netherlands

Romania

Norway

Finland

Germany

United Kingdom

Austria

Lithuania

13






The general objective of Santorio is to create a European network of centres to capture and disseminate information about the health of people with intellectual disabilities. While integration with existing European health surveys may be an ultimate goal, it is not yet within reach: this project will contribute to a sustainable system targeting these groups in order to identify and reduce health inequalities.

Santorio addresses Priority action 3.4.1.3, developing best practice in gathering health information about people with intellectual disabilities by identifying and measuring health inequalities, despite the absence of population-based data about persons who are ‘invisible’ to public health screening.

The method of Santorio is grounded in the model of disability that recognizes the complex, multiple factors associated with evident health disparities among people in the target group, who are likely to incur secondary conditions throughout their lives. It is also assumed that recognition of people with intellectual disabilities within public health systems is a strategy that can help to reduce health disparities.

Project outcomes will add value to existing public health knowledge about the detrimental impact of health inequalities and the utility of health indicators in producing comparable data to identify inequalities among a socially disadvantaged segment of the population in Europe. The

Santorio project will build on knowledge gained in developing and applying health indicators for persons with intellectual disabilities. The project will contribute to EU policy formulation about how to include information about the health of persons in socially disadvantaged groups. It is not possible to predict the implications for better health for the target group: nonetheless, little progress is likely within a public health framework lacking effective systems to gather and share reliable, comparable health information.

Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

857 600

839 652

86 400

64 960

2 030

15 000

53 208

82 800

140 115

2 141 765

Incomes

1 284 165

857 600

0

0

0

2 141 765











Note

7

5

2



6

5

Comments

The project fits well in the PHP. It could be placed under objectives of the Work plan in General

Objective 3.3.6 (surveillance network and best practices on major and chronic diseases). Also mental diseases and disabilities are priorities in the work plan.

The contribution to improve knowledge and information on people suffering from intellectual disabilities is relevant and in accordance with strategic objectives of the European Commission.

As well, negative health inequalities are evident among individuals with learning disabilities.

The project will use health indicators worked out earlier in a previous project POMONA. However not much information is given on how it is built on this previous work and the description of the collection of indicators/surveys is confused.

The European impact is not clearly defined, but it is likely. However it is difficult to assess the effect at European level, since there are no references to previous European activities. The parents and patients associations are included, but other important EU organizations should be taken aboard. The target groups of the proposal are not well defined, and it is not clear what kind of learning disability groups are included.

The project largely duplicates an organized process of data collection on disabilities by ESTAT.

Very littie added value left in this regard

The coverage is sufficient, with 12 MS and different geographical areas. The number of partners looks appropriate to lead the action. However it will be desirable that the project includes in the partnership more new MS. Also the budget distribution should be more balanced within the partners.

The project could contribute to increase positively Healthy Life Years in the European Union and it is in coherence with EU values on health .The ethical issues are emphasized properly and the social and cultural differences between countries seem to be taken into account. However there is not enough information on how the partners will use the information collected, how the people with intellectual disabilities will be chosen and how at national level the standardized data will be collected.

The political context is not addressed.




25

Note

4




2

3

Comments

The problem analysis could be acceptable, based on the data collected from the previous study

POMONA. However, the validity of these data is not stated . It will be recommended to describe the evidence in more detail.

The transferability is also unclear.

The description of objectives could be sufficient.

The target groups are not clear.

The methodology should be better explained.

The outcomes and aims are described in a very general way, being difficult to understand.

The work packages do not demonstrate how the project will be implemented, and who will be responsible for each activity. The tasks should be better described and linked clearly with the objectives.

The sustainability should be ensured.

The project seems to be innovative, without overlapping. No duplication can be assumed.

However, with the information given it is not possible to asses this. There is not a description of previous projects and the links with them. It is not explained how this proposal builds on

POMONA.

4

The evaluation plan is not well described, one framework is given, but it is not clear who will do it.

It is not an innovative approach. No indicators provided to measure the process, the quality of the outcomes and the effects.

There is no external evaluation.



3




Some ways to disseminate results are presented, but there is not a real strategic and a stakeholder analysis. More information should be given about the ways to asses the needs of the target audiences, the channels to reach them and the time frame. It is not specific apart from a conference, but no newsletter, webpage, or relation to SANCO.




16

Note Comments






3

3

4

3

6

The activities and the task description in the work packages is poorly developed. It is not clear what will be done in detail. Few deliverables are concrete.

The definition of a "small survey centre" is not clear. The timetable is not concrete.

Risk analysis is incomplete and it will be necessary to provide possible mitigation strategies.

The organisational capacity is questionable. The management structure is not clear. The decision making process is not described and the internal communication needs to be developed.

However staff seems to be competent to perform the tasks.

There is no information about monitoring or supervision.

Broad association of partners. The partners seem to be experienced on the field. The roles and responsibilities could to be complementary. However the effectiveness of the collaboration is not proven. It will be recommended to add an academic association.

A real communication strategy with target groups, planning timetable,… is not presented. A website is mentioned and the link to stakeholders, but no real stakeholders analysis is provided.

As the activities of the project are not well described and defined (e.g. "small survey centres") it is difficult to assess if this budget is appropriate. It does not seem to be really related to the activities.

Overall the project budget seems to be overestimated. The staff cost is too high taking in count the work / deliverables proposed.The travel cost and subsistence are clearly inflated.



Total:


19

60

The project addresses the issue of intellectual disabilities and fits well in the PHP. It sounds innovative, no overlapping, no duplication can be detected.

The parents and patience associations are included, but other important EU organizations should be taken on board. The target groups of the proposal are not well defined, and it is not clear which kind of learning disability groups are included.

The outcomes and aims are described in a very general way, being difficult to understand. The work packages do not demonstrate how the project will be implemented, and who will be responsible for each activity. The tasks should be better described and linked clearly with the objectives.

Risk analysis is incomplete and it will be necessary to provide possible mitigation strategies.

The project budget seems to be overestimated. The staff cost is too high, taking in count the work

/ deliverables proposed .The travel cost and subsistence are clearly inflated.

The project can only be selected for funding if the following issues are addressed:

- The evidence base should be better explained. It is recommended to take in count previous

European projects;

- The target groups should be clearly defined;

- The aims, deliverables and methods should be specified;

- Explain in a very clear and detailed way the tasks envisaged and who will do it/when it will be done;

- Risk analysis should be addressed;

- Develop plans of dissemination, communication and evaluation;

- Review the workload (persons/day) that it is considered excessive for the tasks envisaged and the deliverables produced;

- Reduce the budget. Travel and staff cost should be revised. As well the budget distribution should be more balanced within the partners.

The Evaluation Committee does not recommend the project for funding due to duplication with

Eurostat activities



No

0










101,216.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: CARIMHA



Children Adolescents Risk Indicators Mental Health Analysis

01/01/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

UNIVERSITA' DEGLI STUDI DI BARI

UNIBA

Public


Italy


Association départementale de parents de personnes handicapées mentales et de leurs amis du Bas-Rhin

AZIENDA SANITARIA LOCALE BRINDISI

CONSORZIO FRA COOPERATIVE SOCIALI ELPENDU'

COOPERATIVA SOCIALE EUROPEA "ESCOOP"

Länsi-Pohja Healthcare District

Mental Health Institute for Children and Adults

SAVOIR ET COMPETENCE FORMATION

Syn-eirmos – Social Solidarity NGO

8

Acronym

ADAPEI

ASL BR

ELPENDU'

ESCOOP

L-P shp

MHICA

SCF

SYNEIRMOS

City

LINGOLSHEIM

BRINDISI

Mola di Bari

Mola di Bari

Kemi

Kallithea

Strasbourg

Athens

Country

France

Italy

Italy

Italy

Finland

Greece

France

Greece

4


La salute mentale del bambino è predittiva della salute mentale dell’adulto, pertanto l’individuazione precoce di indicatori di rischio evolutivo psicopatologico costituisce un’azione preventiva per tutta la vita.

L’obiettivo generale del progetto è l’individuazione di indicatori di rischio psicopatologico e psicosociale nell’età evolutiva. Essa consentirà una migliore programmazione sanitaria specifica nell’ambito di interventi di prevenzione primaria e secondaria in ambito nazionale ed europeo, nonché l’ottimizzazione dell’efficacia e dell’efficienza della rete dei servizi sanitari, sociali ed educativi, all’interno dei percorsi diagnostici, terapeutici e gestionali di tali disturbi.

Il progetto comprenderà:

I) Studio caso controllo retrospettivo su dati d’archivio di 500 cartelle cliniche di soggetti con diverse diagnosi psicopatologiche (Disturbi d'Ansia dell’Umore; ADHD; Disturbi della condotta; Psicosi a esordio precoce), e di 500 casi controllo di soggetti sani reclutati nelle scuole, per ognuna delle nazioni aderenti al progetto Al termine dello studio verrà elaborato un data set di indicatori da utilizzare nella pianificazione di attività di prevenzione primaria e anticipazione diagnostica dei disturbi psicopatologici dell’età evolutiva.

II) Realizzazione di attività di screening dei disturbi psicopatologici dell’età evolutiva in un campione di soggetti (300 per ogni nazione) reclutati nelle scuole e di assistiti di medici di base.

III) Sviluppo e sperimentazione di approcci integrati innovativi, congruenti con le informazioni rilevate attraverso le sezioni I) e II).

IV) Valutazione dei risultati raggiunti (analisi statistica dei risultati delle attività di ricerca su dati d’archivio, screening e sperimentazione di eventuali interventi a breve termine, efficacia ed efficienza delle rete di rilevazione ed intervento allestita).

Tutte le attività e i risultati del progetto saranno ampiamente pubblicate e diffuse tra le istituzioni e la comunità scientifica





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

548 000

1 104 000

84 100

115 862

127 000

65 000

688 400

124 566

143 072

3 000 000

Incomes

1 800 000

548 000

652 000

0

0

3 000 000









Note

4

3

Comments

The topic of the proposed project is in line with several priorities of the 2008 WP: mental health, focus on children and adolescent health, inequalities. However, the proposed activity, centred on a case control study, is too much research oriented.

This is in contradiction with the PHP, since the latter is much more geared to activities pertaining to mental health promotion – mental disorder prevention and identification of best practices for combating social exclusion, i.e. on the field prevention and promotion work.



4

3






2

3

16

Note

2


2

The project lacks a clear description of how the project's outcomes will influence/ impact care. In essence, the submitted proposal is a research proposal, on which the rationale is insufficient and which will not improve understanding and knowledge of EU child mental health.

The project states that it has the ambition to incorporate all the relevant existing knowledge, in order to progress in the field of prevention; however, the proposed activity constitutes more of a step back, by trying to establish key facts which have already been tackled in other studies (i.e.

risk factors, influence of wider determinants of health, currently identified best practices)

There are also doubts as to whether the project team will be able to communicate the impact of their work to the EU level, as the proposal preparation seems not to have been the result of shared work between the partners (it appears to have been drafted solely by the main partner and coordinator)

Finally, there is no link with existing networks.

Geographical coverage is limited: only four countries and several partners from same countries.

The importance of different socio-economic groups/ contexts and wider determinants of health

(i.e. social causations of adolescent mental health) are not sufficiently addressed in the design of the study – to begin with the translation.

Comments

Evidence is provided at the level of analysis of the PH problem the project wishes to address: there is ample citation of background & evidence on the factors which influence mental health in children/ adolescent. However, this information is not reflected in the design of the study itself and thus fails to justify the proposed line of activity.

The apparent clarity of objectives is not translated in a technically adequate and sound approach: the methodology of the proposed study is deficient in several aspects: adequateness of methods to expected results-impact; lack of a clear hypothesis; purpose of screening; lack of description of the expected interventions; Involvement of parents.




2

2

Relevant EU experience is only mentioned, but the project doesn't relate to it, nor builds on it.

There is also a lack of reference to other national/ international programmes in the area (WHO work etc).

The evaluation section is weak, lacking defined indicators. Even the scientific evaluation aspect, related to the nature of the activities proposed is vague.

Different dissemination tools are mentioned: scientific information, publications, web, other communication activities, but there is a lack of an overall framework/ local populations are not engaged in dissemination.




11

Note Comments










2

2

3

2

The timetable presented, although well structured in a step-wise approach, seems overly ambitious. Risk analysis is poor and lacks an anticipatory character.

Not well developed: too much rests on the central coordinator: project management capacity is highlighted, but in light of the proposed activities there is a weakness of scientific management.

On the competency of the staff, no previous experience on case control studies and analysis and no proven track record have been provided for. The difficulties of the scientific tasks seem to have been underestimated.

Also unclear who decides and what is the role of the advisory structure mentioned.

There is logic in the proposed partnership, as the partners come from same background. Some caveats though: possible previous experience of the partners having already worked together is not mentioned; Internal communication information lacking; main partner provides for strong leadership, but additional sources of access to knowledge resources would be beneficial (i.e.

participation of existing networks in the field).

Target groups are absent. Also, a key issue concerns the ways by which the project team will communicate its work with the specialized community of its peers in child mental health: how are they to be made aware of and involved in proposed line of work

The budget is really very poorly established. The overall level of expenditure is exaggerated.

There are also several items that are not justified: for example, subcontracting at such an important level cannot be justified, especially concerning staff costs (researchers).

2



Total:


11

38

In essence, the submitted proposal is a research proposal, on which the rationale is insufficient and which will not improve understanding and knowledge of EU child mental health. It is not a public health study and doesn't contribute to the priorities of the PHP, as the latter is more focused to mental health promotion – mental disorder prevention and identification of best practices for combating social exclusion, i.e. on field prevention and promotion work.

Furthermore, the project has serious weaknesses on the scientific/ technical levelThe Evaluation

Committee endorses the recommendation not to co-fund this project




No

0

0.00





101,222.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: E.A.S.Y.



European Aortic Stenosis in the elderly registrY

01/01/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Fondazione Centro San Raffaele del Monte Tabor

HSR

Private


Italy


Bichat Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris

Catholic University Hospital Saint-Luc

Edwards Lifesciences SPA

MEDEA SRL

Meditrial S.r.l.

Medtronic Bakken Research Center BV

National Heart Hospital

Regione Lombardia

Acronym

Bichat

UCL

EW

MEDEA

Meditrial

BRC

NHH

REGLOM

8

City

Paris

Brussels

Milano

Florence

Brescia

Maastricht

Sofia

Milano

Country

France

Belgium

Italy

Italy

Italy

Netherlands

Bulgaria

Italy

5


IT:NODATA





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

27 500

649 205

133 700

95 000

20 000

0

0

545 000

100 036

1 570 441

Incomes

943 998

27 500

604 315

0

0

1 575 813













Note

2

3

3

4

3

Comments

The EASY project aims to set up a European surveillance network for the Aortic Valve Stenosis

(AVS) in the elder population. The project could fit in with the PHP and the annual work plan in terms of objectives and priorities, because it can provide data useful for dissemination information mainly for elderly people affected by AVS. However the proposal sounds more a clinical study, than a monitoring system that could contribute to the PH programme. As it is presented seems to have marginal relevance to the call.

The claimed guidelines and surveillance network with the associated registry would have had strategic relevance, however the planning and execution of the project do not warrant that knowledge of value may be produced. The project is clinically oriented and it is not clear how it could reduce the health inequalities in EU. There is not concrete explanation/demonstration regarding the strategic relevance

The project could add value at EU level in the field of health (not public health, but clinical orientation) This is a typical multicentric study in which a lot of information on the patients and their treatment are collected. Although the coverage of the countries seems to be good, there is no European added value or at least not a synergistic effect of the information. The synergy and comparability with relevant EU policies is not demonstrated.

The participants come from different regions of Europe, but the geographical pertinence is not visible. There are 9 partners involved, but the list of countries of participants is not provided.

Ethical aspects are taken into consideration, as the authors are conscious about the possible differences among countries (one of the project objectives is to explore these differences).

However an analysis of the problem taking into account the social, cultural and political context is not provided.




15

Note

3

Comments

A description of the clinical problem and its prevalence is given, but the evidence supporting the positive impact on public health is missing. The analysis of the problem is reported as the state of the art. No specific initiatives are mentioned.

The information provided is not really based on Public health practice and no information is given to support the appropriateness of the surveillance network and the methodology chosen. The authors misunderstand the term surveillance. The surveillance is a systematic activity and it seems that it is not the intention to keep alive the register and produce routinely reports, instead of just some recommendations.

Evidence for effectiveness and applicability is lacking.



2

2

The content specification needs a more scientific approach and it is very difficult to understand: e.g. it is mentioned to explore inequalities, to do best practice analysis, to provide a methanalysis

(???) of different data of CVD in elderly, to give data to Eurostat,…

Therefore the general objective of the project could be clear, but the “specific objectives” are not objectives. The description of the network and its organization is completely unclear. The explanation of surveillance in this field is not adequate. The outcomes/deliverables are partially listed in a correct way, but they do no correspond to their objectives and their value remains doubtful.

The comparability and applicability at EU level is not addressed and very unlikely.

The project is clinically and therapeutically oriented. It does not really progress beyond carrying out some clinical study, with questionable scientific value. No innovation is expected or impact on

European health, however it is difficult to assess this taking into account the confused methodology and objectives proposed.

It does not seem to duplicate or overlap with projects or activities already carried out at European and international level




2

3




No external evaluation is foreseen. There is not a clear evaluation strategy and indicators were not established. The discussion regarding this issue is not concrete.

The internal evaluation has unclear criteria of evaluation. There is no mention of any quantitative or qualitative indicators.

The impact assessment is not described.

There is no dissemination strategy. It is stated that the applicants will submit at the beginning of the project a detailed dissemination plan, but this plan should have already been drafted.

Descriptions are vague and reiterate standard passive dissemination mechanisms. Many possible targets are identified, but the stakeholder analysis is not addressed.




12

Note Comments






2

2

3

2

5

The described activities, timetable, milestones, deliverables are unclear, so are the work packages. In fact the work packages part is incomplete: the leader of every WP is missing and no deliverables are included.

The partnership could guarantee complementarity and synergy. Distribution of tasks cannot be judged very well.

The risk analysis is quite weak.

There is a management structure and the involved staff seems to be competent, but unbalanced towards the commercial side. The role of HRS is absolutely central.

The internal communication is not enough addressed and described. Monitoring and supervision are lacking.

Neither decision making nor governance principles are provided.

The members of the partnership seem to have good backgrounds and a large experience in clinical CVD. However there is an important commercial presence, a medical device company, with a role not explained.

The role and responsibilities of the consortium should be better described, as well as the relationships, synergy and network structure.

In the consortium there is no specific competence for economical or inequality aspects, in spite of these being an important part of the project.

There is no real communication strategy. Several channels to address the stakeholders are mentioned, but there is not sufficient intention of creating links to target groups or using certain channels to reach a broader audience.

The visibility of EU co funding is not explained in detail.

Overall the information is insufficient to understand why this project needs such a big budget. It seems to be overestimated.

No public officials are present, in spite of public hospitals involved. The cost of enrolment of patients is high and difficult to understand. It should be clarified; what means 'patient enrolment'?

The cost of some staff is too high and should be checked. The travel cost seems to be overestimated as well.



Total:


14

41

EASY project aims to set up a European surveillance network for the Aortic Valve Stenosis (AVS) in the elder population. However it is presented as a multicentric clinical study, rather than a public health one, with no relevance for the Public Health Programme.

The proposal is not well prepared, lacking very important information and with confusing and unclear descriptions of intentions and tasks envisaged

The description of the network and its organization is completely unclear. The explanation of surveillance in this field is not adequate. The sustainability is not addressed.

The timetable, milestones, and deliverables are unclear, so are the work packages.

The evaluation and dissemination strategies are missing




No

0










101,263.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: PENSA



Public-private European Network for Synthetic drugs Abuse prevention

01/01/2009

30


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Fondazione IARD

FIARD

Private


Italy


Aragonese Association of Local Authorities (Asociación Aragonesa de Entidades Locales)

Chilli.org, o.s.

National Drug Prevention Alliance

3

Acronym

ASAEL

Chilly.org

NDPA

City

Zaragoza

Praha 12

Slough, Berkshire

Country

Spain

Czech Republic

United Kingdom

3


The objective of the PENSA project is to reduce the synthetic drugs’ use especially among young people. The creation of a system for the exchange of Information, Knowledge and Good Practices (IKGPs) in the field of drugs’ use prevention will allow a more effective and integrated approach to the problem thus contributing to the achievement of this general objective. PENSA will then develop a multi-stakeholder network involving public and private actors working in the field of drugs’ use prevention. The network will promote IKGPs exchange and more coordinated interventions in local contexts.

The creation of a network will give life to a system able to grant an ever improving IKGPs collection and exchange. The IKGPs collected during the project life will then be gathered in an Handbook. On a local basis, more coordinated interventions will grant them an higher efficiency and effectiveness, avoiding useless duplications.

PENSA will contribute to the public health programme promoting healthier ways of life by supporting the actions of European, national and local actors active in the prevention of drugs’ use as one of the addiction-related determinants of health.

The consortium has been created in order to grant the necessary expertise but maintaining a line structure. NDPA and Chilli.org directly deals with drugs prevention. FIARD, other than granting the overall project management, will contribute to the creation of the web tools for network support. ASAEL will grant the project to be in direct contact with public stakeholders and will provide its expertise in the field of networks creation.

The PENSA expected outcome is an easier and more effective exchange of IKGPs among actors involved in the field of drugs’ use prevention.

This actors will benefit of new tools and methodologies of intervention, opportunities for more integrated and coordinated actions on local basis and a framework for continuous training process of their operators.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

614 379

20 540

19 364

5 000

0

7 250

35 550

49 062

751 145

Incomes

450 000

0

301 145

0

0

751 145













Note

6

5

4

5





5

25

Note

4

3

Comments

This 30 months Italian project aims at reducing the abuse of synthetic drugs by creating an EU database and network (with Vortal) to exchange information, knowledge and good practice

(IKGPs) on synthetic drugs and facilitate permanent training processes. This project is consistent with the aforementioned documents; it fits especially well into the WP 2008 priorities (3.3.4.3).

The project should contribute to better citizens' health through effective way of dissemination to reach target groups. An open section on the Vortal will also be devoted to collect experiences from young people and their families. It is informed also that indirectly the project would involve the social and educational context of young people targeting also teachers but no detail is really given.

The strategic relevance is not completely clear; the most effective way to reach the target group remains an open question. Additionally synthetic drugs change often and might not be easily find back in some database.

The project comply with the EU drug policy and the EU added value of the project relies on the possibility to involve actors in the field from different Member States, comparing different local experiences in synthetic drug prevention to elaborate wider strategies able to tackle the problem in all EU countries. Public and private actors working in the field are involved and flexibility should be ensured for acting on both local implementation and international approaches to the problem.

The exchange of reliable and scientific solutions to this complex issue should be boosted.

However, results might not be replicable as they change very quickly and the action is not clearly explained concerning issues of sustainability and transferability. They should seek collaboration with the EMCDDA

UK, CZ Republic and SP are associated partners. DK, CZ, ST, DE are collaborating partners. The project highlighted that at the final stage its evolution, it should reach all EU countries the first seven being the starting basis as representing the highest level of synthetic drug consumption.

Doubts are expressed in relation on how they will reach out to other organisations in the countries that are not covered by the associated or collaborating partners.

Local operators are not involved and they should have been fully considered. Additionally it is seen more targeted towards professionals than to youth and families.

Comments

Work plans seem well established over the 30 months period; it is seen as well structured.

Additionally evidence base is considered but missing data from Spain. They do not describe much of the effectiveness of the measures and this should have been fully integrated, the question is also raised about how in concrete terms the effectiveness will be assessed (?)

Specific specification on the 'Vortal' is not very clear. Transferability at policy level of best practices should be further considered. Quality criteria for inclusion of information on the database should have been described. Objectives are seen as realistic and SMART but the target group appears as too large, from the description it is difficult to see the real overall impact of the project.




3

4

3

There are many other projects on drugs and synthetic drugs including the gathering of best practices. The innovation of this project is not fully clear.

Not defined as a strategy, but they mention an internal and external evaluation additionally the indicators have been included.

Actions are not specified concerning the actual dissemination. The impact of the dissemination proposed is not clear; they should have explained how they will reach the target specially the policy makers. Overall the strategy should have been better developed. The 'snow balling' is considered as a good idea but in practice it is not specify how they will cover the non participating countries.











Note

4

3

4





Total:


4

6

21

63

Comments

The planning is seen as structured and clear with a reasonable distribution of tasks. However there are many 'un-deliverables', many things planned but how they will be achieved it has not been specify.

Claimed expertise and experience in EU grant management from what it is guessed that the main contractor should have capacity but there is no information on the proposal.

It is not clear how the partnership comes together, although the fact that they have been consulted on the construction of the proposal is considered as a good point. How will they deal with the tasks specifically? Additionally the involvement of the collaborating partners is not clear.

A communication strategy in place but EU funding must be acknowledged.

The budget is unbalanced heavily towards staff cost. Additionally it is not clear specially in relation with the meetings and the PR activities, who will pay for the conference in Luxembourg (?). Some of the partners have different professional qualification but still remain with the same unit cost.

Synthetic drug abuse is a real problem in the participating countries and it is worth to be address by some funding. However, the overall presentation is not enough specify. A logical framework analysis should be considered if finally funded.

Too many deliverables are not specified and the functionality of the Vortal must be a lot clearer.

They must seek better association with additional partners (both collaborating and associated).

Quality criteria should be better specified for the inclusion of best practices in the database.

THe Evaluation Committee sees this project as largely overlapping with the ongoing Psychonaut project and with ECDMA activities and does not support its funding




No

0

0.00






Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: MESCD



Model for a European patient smoking cessation database to monitor the effectiveness of interventions

15/01/2009

22

101,294.00


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Office Français de Prévention du Tabagisme

OFT

Private


France


Research Institute for a Tobacco free Society

WHO Collaborating Centre for Evidence based Health Promotion in

Hospitals, Bispebjerg University Hospital

2

Acronym

RIFTFS

WHO CC, BBH

City

Dublin

Copenhagen NV

Country

Ireland

Denmark

2


In most EU countries the availability of smoking cessation services countrywide is seen as a key national strategy developed in conjunction with the introduction of smoking ban legislation. However, while different types of services exist throughout Europe, there is no systematic follow up, or review of smoking cessation interventions and evaluation is dependant on local resources. At present, in the majority of the European countries, there is little standardization in the data system used or the data collected. Through an assessment of the current state of the art in smoking cessation data collection and of an identification and review of the existing smoking cessation databases (SCD), a report will be produced evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of current national SCD outlining recommendations for best practice and suggesting a concrete model in order to assess and improve the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions. This information is crucial for all health service planners and interested stakeholders as it can facilitate the integration of smoking cessation services into an improved quality health care, one that can adequately respond to the challenge of reducing tobacco use, which we know is the single most important public health policy action that will bring about significant health gains. The overall objective corresponds to the exchange of knowledge and best practice with reference to Article 3.4.3 (Health information) and to smoking prevention and tobacco control, Article 3.3.4.1 (promote health). Findings will be disseminated to policy makers, health care managers, professionals and interested stakeholders in order to facilitate the future planning and development of a national standardised system for collection and analysis of data on smoking cessation services in the countries where this does not exist. Through these means, we will accelerate the transfer of knowledge and promote economies of scale.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

26 100

100 992

45 000

23 455

1 489

0

57 700

76 488

21 828

353 052

Incomes

211 832

26 100

115 120

0

0

353 052












3





1

13

Note


Note

3

3

3

3

4

Comments

The project seems to fit in the work plan under the topic'exchange of best practices' but less so under 'smoking cessation' .

The question concerning the strategic relevance is to see if the project will help anti-tobacco strategies? What will be the use of this data analysis? Indeed there could be some problem with the methods used here. However it demonstrates a strategic opportunity giving information to the

MS. But the panel hade no information on the results on a smaller basis such as the results of a pilot test within one country.

Onemight also assume that figures on total of cigarettes consumed would bring about the same information

It contributes to EU anti-tobacco work in a limited way as it seems not ot take into account theexisting legal basis of tobacco control . It might contribute to services development in that field, it is also a health services concept or tool .

However the target group is very limited for the added value (only 2 partners).

Moreover the long term effect on target groups is difficult to assess.

It is a 3 countries project with only 2 countries doing paid work and everybody else working for free. They plan to develop a network in 27 countries but there is already an existing network and they could find within that network active collaborators which is not the case.

Variation of culture which is important for smoking cessation is not addressed in the project. They seem not to know what happens in the different countries. Gender perspectives are ignored as well

Comments

No country has done it before. The national level of the action has not demonstrated any success and that's an important point.

No information on the expected impact.

Applicants haven't analysed the problem (lack of data? Situation in the different countries? ...)

If they don't find databases on smoking cessation, they will get no results at all and this could be a major risk of the project.

The technical aspects could be better developed: the end product (effects and outcomes) remains vague. What about the translations? When do they happen in the timeframe? Who will review the existing databases? What are smoking cessation services? Does it include primary care? The description of what they intend to do could be clearer.

The project addresses the problem of services and not only the database aspect.


4


5


6




Note

We think that the data on this topic don't exist so it should be innovative. Some projects exist in

EU and there seems not to have overlapping, but network involvement is not clear at all: they have to be aware that they are not operating alone in EU.

A very good evaluation strategy with independent external evaluation even if the details on who will do that are not provided.

The applicants have written down something and the dissemination is quite detailed but some part could be better explained: what about translations, and what about dissemination conferences for which no details are provided.

Comments





3

3

3




Time scale is not realistic To get data could need more time. Distribution of tasks is not the best point of the project, there is risk analysis but no solution, no collective meetings are planned and details on expert groups are not given adequately.

This is not a real partnership across countries. It is more a single lead project but for a very small project. But they have a track record at least within hospitals and not national level. There are some risks such as the no collaboration of the partners. It could happen that only 8 countries deliver information.

It is a one partner project, with no extensive network structure. The applicants don't try to include and involve the collaborating partners.



3 The communication is very standard. They haven't tried to develop EU visibility.

Most collaborative partners are not funded: they have to develop capacity taking on board more partners. No control structure.

7



Total:


19

54

The applicants have to give the results gathered in one country before starting the joband take more of the existing into account

They need more external advice on methods (external evaluation).

The involvement of more partners to guarantee the delivery of the results is required.

see conclusions.

The evaluation committe excludes this project on the basis of poor policy relevance




No

0

0.00





101,301.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: PerRY



Perception of Risk in Young people

12/01/2009

24


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:


Azienda Ospedaliera San Paolo – Polo Universitario

Center Research and Prevention of Injuries, School of Medicine,

National Kapodistrian University Athens

Escola Superior de Enfermagem/Universidade de Evora

SC PSYTEL

Universidad de Burgos

University of Tartu

Istituto Superiore di Sanità (Italian National Institute of Health)

ISS

Public


Italy

Acronym

San Paolo

CEREPRI

ESE/UE

PSYTEL

PSICUBU

UT

6

City

Milan

Athens

Evora

Paris

Burgos

Tartu

Country

Italy

Greece

Portugal

France

Spain

Estonia

6


The project intends to carry out an integrated and transversal model of survey and analysis, referred to health determinants that allows the comparison of the different adolescents risk behavior observed (alcohol abuse, drugs use, car accidents, nutrition problems, sexual behaviors) and support the diffusion of information and the development of knowledge. The project aims to define the guidelines for the strategies of prevention, considering the socio-economic and gender aspects, in order to facilitate the reduction of the health system inequality.It is a typical work of experience exchange and comparison of different methods, finalized to create shared means: a questionnaire to analyze the risk perception in the adolescents, collecting data methods to ensure the anonymity of the answerers, screening test for the risk diagnostic evaluation.Moreover, the project foresees the creation of specific training actions for the trainers (to teach modalities of using of questionnaire and test)and the elaboration of guidelines for the EU Authorities and the international organization involved. The most important method of work is based on workshops, on-line forum, focus groups for involving adolescents. The project foresees the creation of a Piloting Committee, to coordinate and monitor the activities, while a partner will carry out the evaluation. The information diffusion will take place through different instruments (an international congress, a web site, newsletters, scientific publications, press releases, awareness meetings, etc.). The implementation on a wider scale and periodical replication could create a very important monitoring system that underlines the deep changes happening in the Youth and allows to value the effectiveness of the preventive actions. Moreover the screening test, properly validated, could be used by teachers and general doctors for en early diagnosis, or spread on-line to increase the awareness among Youth and their parents.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

212 800

153 000

36 000

36 000

25 630

20 672

52 000

34 000

39 900

610 002

Incomes

365 958

212 800

31 212

0

32

610 002









Note

5





4

3

3

2

Comments

The project intends to carry out an integrated and transversal model of survey of health determinants. In this way it could be within the scope of the PHP on the objective of the generation and dissemination of information. As well there is a potential relevance regarding objectives related to injury prevention or risk assessment methodology, but authors fail to address it clearly

However as it is presented it seems to be a research project in the field of public health, rather than a project in the PHP. In this sense its contribution to the PHP and its annual WP is limited in terms of objectives

The overall objectives and specific aims of the project are confused, therefore it is difficult to asses the strategic relevance. It seems that the main objective is developing and administer a questionnaire to measure risks among adolescents. Considering the numerous among of existing surveys used among adolescents to measure health behaviour, the contributions of the project to the existing knowledge may be not really relevant.

The proposed investigation of risk perception across different risk factors would have a clear

European added value on the field of public health, but it is not clear if this is the aim of the project. Target groups are not clearly identifiable: youngsters, teachers or doctors? If all three is the case, it should be described clearly in content, aims, deliverables and work packages.

The impact on target groups will be, if any, minimum. There are several studies carried out at

European level about similar issues, so the added value and impact of this proposal may not be high

The participants are only 6 countries. Very limited average given that a risk factors data collection has already been completed in another study at European level. Even the UK partner seems to be only related to the development of a tool.

The partners provide a relevant geographical cover for a public health action project, however the aims of the project are wider and deeper, so more Northern, central and Easter European partners should have been involved.

The social, cultural and political contexts of the project are not addressed in a detailed way. The only acknowledgement to social or political context is given by a reference to "old and new member states difference", but Estonia is the only representative of new member states.

The cultural factors are missing. There is discrepancy between evidence and aims. The compatibility of actions is also questionable.




17

Note

3



3

3

Comments

Authors address the health problem, partially by referring to mortality data, but fail to make references to the underlying causes, factors and effectiveness of measures.

Not evidences provided for aspects related to the survey. It is not clear how the information given is related to this concrete proposal. The applicability of the measures is partially described: e.g., the potential use of the survey among researchers, international organisations.

No references to very important and large studies on Europe about these risk factors.

For a survey like this a more detailed methodology should have been provided.

Aims and objectives are rather vague and unclear. The objectives are not SMART. It is unclear the number of surveys proposed and the targets groups. As well in one part of the proposal a biological sampling is mentioned, no more information is provided in other parts of the proposal.

Methodology is confused and described in a very general way. No well description of the tasks envisaged.

There is not clear link between objectives and outcomes.

The innovation of this proposal would be a multi risk analysis (based on a questionnaire). The proposal doesn't give enough information on the previous projects on the field, but it seems to be overlapping with other European projects. There is not reference to another European study carrying similar work, on a much larger database covering 35 countries.




4

3




The evaluation strategy deals with the relevant issues, but is mainly qualitative for each deliverable. The methodology to perform the evaluation is not detailed enough. One of the partners is going to do the evaluation.

A list of indicators is given, however most of them are only process indicators and there are not qualitative or quantitative indicators to asses the impact. As well, the present list of indicators and measures does not include contribution to prevention, as it is stated in the general objective of the project.

External evaluation is not foreseen.

The dissemination strategy is poor developed. The main problem is the lack of definition of the material/information that will be disseminated.

A stakeholders analysis is not foreseen. It doesn't plan to use different channels for the different targets. The sustainability is not address.

This project seems to be a research one, but there is not mention/intention to publish the results in a peer review journal.




16

Note Comments






2

2

2

3

6

The proposal is confuse and some of the activities like the biological sampling are not presented in all parts of the proposal. The tasks envisaged are not well described and therefore the distribution of tasks is not clear.

Two years is a short time for this project

The timetable and deliverables do not fully comply. A list of outcomes /deliverables are provided , but it doesn't deal with all issues mentioned in other parts of the proposal

The risk analysis addresses the risk of the adolescents and not of the project.

The responsibilities are not clear. It is difficult to identify the lead. The staff seems to lack competences in risk behaviour.

Critical path may be visible when activities are put on a timetable chart.

The monitoring and supervision are not really addressed.

A piloting committee is mention with functions similar to a steering committee.

The internal communication seems to be planed and the decision making is not well described.

The network is small and not representative of Europe. Most partners have experience in traffic injury prevention and not in the whole field of risk behaviour. There is low synergy or complementarity on the staff profiles.

All partners are in principle public health based institutions and it will be recommended to involve peer age based NGO's, young people organizations,…, to make the partnership much more stronger.

Little is written about internal or external communication strategies. As well it seems to be focused in the hands of the main partner. A better distribution of the activities between partners would lead to a better dissemination to a wider audience

Doctors and teachers are presented as channels to youngsters, but peer groups would be likely more effective.

The EU co funding will not be visible.

For a 2 year project the budget seems to be overestimated. Also it is not balanced; it is too heavy in main partner side.

Staff cost are high for the aims proposed.

Travel cost is overcharged. There are too many trips (14 in two years), 2 trips every year is more than enough.

Equipment cost over evaluated. The price for a PC 6000€ is very high.

Not information about the subcontracting cost. The name of a subcontractor is given, without taking in count that it should be selected in a public call for tender.



Total:

15

48






No

0

0.00




The project intends to carry out an integrated and transversal model of survey of health determinants. However after reading the proposal it seems to be a research project in the field of public health, rather than a project fits in the PHP

The overall objectives and specific aims of the project are confused. Not clear enough on how the data will be collected and what will be their reliability.

It is unclear the number of surveys proposed and the targets groups. Methodology is confused and described in a very general way. No well description of the tasks envisaged.

There is not clear link between objectives and outcomes. There is a lack of concrete outcomes.

The timetable and deliverables do not fully comply.

The risk analysis addresses the risk of the adolescents and not of the project.

The evaluation and dissemination strategy is not well addressed.

It seems to be a very costly project for its aims

The suggestions of the panel for a future proposal are: reduced the study to a pilot one and then after testing its feasibility, try to implement it in a pan European level

Or: resubmit the proposal with a better description of aims, deliverables and inclusion of youngster based NGO's partners and with a total vision of Public Health.

THe Evaluation Committee agrees with the recommendation of the review panel





101,332.00


Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: Europe Pro Card



European integrating programme for management of cardiovascular disease based on information system at all level of healthcare

05/01/2009

36


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

UNIVERSITATEA TRANSILVANIA BRASOV

UTBv

Public


Romania


Escuela Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud. Universidad de

Almería

Institutul de Boli Cardiovasculare si Transplant targu Mures

IRIS - International Institute Research and Development

University Hospital Of Patras

University of Patras

5

Acronym

UAL

IBCvT

IRIS

UHP

UPATRAS

City

Almería

Targu Mures

Leverano

Rion

Patras

Country

Spain

Romania

Italy

Greece

Greece

4


General objective of project is to develop the European integrating programme for management of cardiovascular disease at all level of healthcare based on information system with research, educational, clinical, financial and operational workflow. E-health can improve prevention, reducing incidence, morbidity and mortality by cardiovascular diseases, delivery of treatment, and support the shift from hospital care to prevention and primary care.

Actual project proposal is in accordance with objectives of HP, WP 2008 objective 3 of ”WHITE PAPER-Together for health:A strategic aproach for the EU 2008-2013, supporting dynamic e-health systems and new tehnologies, wich have the potential to revolutionise healtcare and e-health systems and to contribute to their future sustainability in order to respond to burden of cardiovascular disease.

In this context actual project will optimize integration of all information solutions, establish basic categories for a working programme in cardiovascular disease at all level of healthcare to improve prevention of illness, delivery of treatment, and support the shift from hospital care to prevention and primary care including software for creating the database, security and access to applications, for integration services for the equipment in the departments and for third party integration services, statistics, research and educational applications by:

- develop Training Centers in e-health learning, to perform training programmes, materials, methodology, infrastructure support, e-healh software trainers, european reference networks.

- generate and disseminate cardiovascular healthcare information and knowledge for the best practice within the scope of the programme.

- evaluate the sustainabillity of program and to demonstrate the scientific and educational value of this e-health system.using Community

Statistical Programme

- To analyse, disseminate and validate the results including cardiovascular e-health reports





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

75 480

17 600

26 700

40 565

1 960

0

6 090

11 605

180 000

Incomes

108 000

0

72 000

0

0

180 000











Note

5

4

4

Comments

As the idea presented is not clear, it is very difficult to asses this point, but in any case as the proposal is dealing with e-Health and Cardio Vascular diseases, it can be assumed to fit more or less.

The objectives and target groups are very unclear: what kind of training is this? Why is it better than the usual training? The arguments presented by the applicants are always general but never applied to the concrete project.



4

4

The compatibility with EU relevant policy is not really described, so it is difficult to assess the added value.

The applicants stated: "Issues of citizen's trust and confidence must be addressed" but they don't tell how? This is not described: will it be a generic system or involve patients' data?

It sounds to be only a collection of ideas without a clear structure.

Just a few partners involved and collaborating partners from Romania only. Applicants have to invite more countries since they want to develop a system for all countries.

The impact of the project is on a very restricted area so the adequacy could be good on the

Romanian level but nothing more.

Cultural differences can be important when it comes to training.

If the intention is to include individual data, they should have addressed the cultural context with more details.




21

Note

3

Comments

The evidence exists for Cardiovascular diseases but there is no evidence concerning the systems proposed here (e-learning programmes). No references are presented.



3

3

The objectives are very ambitious and seem good, the target groups are specified but the content is very fuzzy so it is difficult to assess this point. There is no analysis of the needs.

No information. There are existing systems in other EU countries, so overlapping has to be avoided.


3





3

15

Note

The internal evaluation is well described but there is no external evaluation, no indicators, nothing on users' satisfaction.

It is not described. There is no information on the upgrade of the system. The applicants want to create similar centres with the same model: but they present no idea on how they will do this.

Comments





3

3

2




Even if the planning seems adequate the description of WP1 is rather strange: "to ensure that e-health services are made to provide optimal solution". It is mandatory to check this point before starting the project and not 6 months after the beginning of the project. Also WP2 is aimed at elaborating the management of the project and starts at M7 which is quite late.

The description of the project is rather unstructured. The interactions between work packages are rather unclear.

The risks are listed but without providing solutions.

The staff seems to be quite competent on Cardiovascular diseases and on IT and e-Health systems. They managed a lot of projects already.

But since the objectives of the project are unclear it is difficult to assess the organisational capacity.

Since the objectives of the project are unclear it is difficult to assess quality of the partnership.

However the partners seem reasonably organised. They should include at least a reference group with representatives from other parts of Europe.


3




Total:


7

18

54

Difficult to have a communication covering a broad range of target groups such as professionals and citizens/patients but at least there is a strategy even if it is not innovative.

Balanced, but difficult to assess the relation with the project as the description is rather vague.

The problem is not the budget but the project itself.

The applicants should have to describe the project and not only give a lot of general statements.

May be this project could be suited for a call for tender taking into account all the remarks done above.

No report from Sanco C2 on policy relevance was received at the time of the consensus meeting see conclusions




No

0

0.00







Strand:

Action:

Title:

Starting date:

Duration:

Acronym: Screnew



The newborn hearing screening (NHS) and life quality:epidemiological medical and genetic aspects, experimental drugs approaches

01/09/2008

24

101,335.00


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

University of Naples "Federico II"

AudioFed2

Public


Italy


Ceinge Biotecnologie Avanzate


Medical University of Hannover

University of Antwerp

University of Tuebingen

Acronym

Ceinge

CNR.ISIB

MHH

UA

UTUB

City

Napoli

Milan

Hannover

Antwerp

Tuebingen

Country

Italy

Italy

Germany

Belgium

Germany

5 3


The activities will regard the information requested for monitoring the natural history of hearing disorders and the network of all subjects and health facilities involved in screening project.

According to the experience of the associated partners we will facilitate a benchmarking process among all collaborating countries to compare each step both of data collection and of screening process architecture: screening and rescreening in places of birth, diagnostic confirmation, communication of diagnosis to families, hearing aids fitting and utilization, start-up of rehabilitation, follow-up of language, speech, and psychomotor development, identification of children who will need cochlear implants.

Similarly, The feasibility of molecular screening will be realized, by using novel techniques combining the use of DNA micro-arrays and highly

DNA parallel sequencing in all known genes involved in SNHL. The hypothesis is that such novel technique has lower cost and workload compared with traditional PCR-based methods.

The aim is of examining and critically discussing each of these steps, with strength and weakness of the models at present adopted in each country. This can permit to identify the best approach for each step of screening process.

This process can produce the adoption of common guidelines for European countries.





Budget



E2a - Travel


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads






Total:

Expenditures

0

1 804 928

56 001

108 040

0

484 500

0

13 000

168 951

2 635 420

Incomes

1 574 108

0

1 061 312

0

0

2 635 420











Note

4

4

3


3

Comments

The project is only very partly covered by the health program but does not target any of the specific priorities – although hearing loss is mentioned in regard to health information.

The project could contribute to the existing knowledge on hearing disorders, but as neonatal screening programmes are already in place in many countries the added value remains unclear and is not evident from the proposal.

The project aims at collecting data and standardizing data collecting procedures throughout

Europe. However, this approach would benefit from an extended network to get data and information from all European countries, as well as to agree on common guidelines. Sustainability and long term effects are not addressed.

Apparently the collaborating partners are from countries with screening programmes. The applicant intends to contribute to starting up screening in the rest of the European countries, but it is not clear how this will be done.

There are rather few partners and several partners from the same country. Only three countries participate as partners. There are a number of collaborating partners that improves the representativity, but the role of these partners is not clear. It is recommended to involve more partners and have the rest of the EU-members as collaborators in this broad project.


3

This is not well described even if social factors would be expected to be of significant importance.

Clearly, the social and economical situation plays an essential role in this context and should be taken into account.




17

Note

4




4

4

Comments

The evidence base is relevant and in parts well described even if references are missing. The applicant seems to have sufficient knowledge based on publications and experience from earlier projects in this area. The state of the art regarding screening in the different European countries would have been appropriate to include here, together with an analysis of pros and cons with different screening methods (and screening per se). Also a cost-benefit analysis would have strengthened the proposal.

The proposal is a mixture of development of diagnostic tools and production of guidelines for various aspects of care for children with hearing disorders. Some activities and objectives are mentioned but not further described in the work packages (for example guidelines for screening procedures).

It would be wise to divide this big project into several ones, each clearly targeted on a few, related aspects of hearing disorders.

There are already screening programmes in some of the countries but this project aims to collect and disseminate more or less existing knowledge. This is not very innovative but a valuable initiative. However, there are few details on the transferring of screening methods and experiences between countries in the application.

4

The evaluation strategy mainly targets the deliverables. Indicators need to be further elaborated to cover effectiveness and impact of the project.



4




The dissemination strategy is poorly developed and described, and the information has to be sought in several parts of the proposal. However, several dissemination activities targeting different stakeholder groups are planned, including scientific publications and information to families of children with hearing disorders. It would be important to inform the competent authorities in the European countries about guidelines on screening, etc.




20

Note Comments




4

3

3



4



Total:


6

20

57

The timetable seems to be rather unrealistic for the activities planned. Milestones and deliverables are adequate, but descriptions of some of the activities are not very clear. Due to the two 'parts' of the project the two core work packages seems to work more or less independently from each other. The risk analysis needs to be elaborated.

The management seems experienced. It is not clear whether the partners will actually meet during the project, although travel costs are included in the budget. Management issues are described in very general terms but seem adequate.

The partners cover academia and private, non-profitable research. Only three countries are represented, which is a limitation. Due to the two separated focuses in the proposal there are also two group of competences. The coordinator seems to take care of almost everything. A better spread of tasks and responsibilities would be an asset.

The internal communication is sufficiently addressed. See 'Dissemination strategy' for external communication.

The budget is excessive with high costs especially for staff and consumables. No public officials take part in the project. The budget is well balanced between the partners.

Although this project contain interesting elements it is not recommended for co-financing du to the following:

•The project is only in part covered by the Health Programme, but it does not target any of the more specified objectives or priorities in the work plan.

•It should be better focused instead of covering both methodological development of diagnostic tests. Only the epidemiological part can be considered relevant for the Health Programme.

•The partnership is limited to only three countries, the complementarity is not well described and the European dimension unclear.

•The budget is excessive. The Evaluation Committee sees the project not linked with the 2008

WP priorities , the policy relevance is modest; THe project is not recommended for funding




No

0

0.00


Conference proposals not retained for co-funding


Financial instrument: CONFERENCES

Summary report including Consensus evaluation

101,053.00


Acronym: Med-e-Tel

Conference title:

Priority area:

Action:

Expected conference date:

Duration:


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Med-e-Tel - The International Educational and Networking Forum for eHealth, Telemedicine and

Health ICT



01/04/2009

11

Luxexpo S.A.

Luxexpo

Public


Luxembourg

General objective of the conference:

Med-e-Tel focuses on eHealth, Telemedicine and a wide range of other medical ICT applications and on the convergence of information and communication technology with medical applications, which lead to higher quality of care, patient safety, cost reductions, workflow efficiency, widespread availability of health care services, and which contribute to better public health systems.

The "Med" in Med-e-Tel stands for health care services (institutional and home based care, prevention and education) and for medical products and equipment (medical imaging equipment, monitoring devices, electronic health records, etc.).

The "e" stands for the electronic and IT industry and services (hard- & software, internet, e-mail, etc.).

The "Tel" stands for telecommunications (whether it is POTS, ISDN, wireless, satellite, video conferencing, VoIP, or other).

Med-e-Tel brings healthcare professionals, institutional decision makers, policy makers, healthcare insurers, and other stakeholders together with buyers, manufacturers and suppliers as well as service providers in the field of eHealth and Telemedicine. Med-e-Tel provides a unique forum in which clinical and basic researchers and industry and government representatives participate in trans-disciplinary discussions of the latest advances and future directions of eHealth and Telemedicine. Thus, Med-e-Tel not only offers a broad view on the present status of eHealth and Telemedicine but explores new ways to improve the efficiency of the utilized state of the art technology in healthcare.

Second Programme of Community Action in the Field of Health 2008-2013 1 2008-07-10 12:32




Budget

E1a - Staff

E2a - Travel and subsistence allowances

E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads

I1 - Commission funding


I3 - Income generated by the conference

I4 - Other external resources

Total:

Expenditures

58 500

16 000

0

30 000

90 000

2 000

12 000

Incomes

208 500

88 500

0

120 000

0

208 500







Criteria Block A: Content of the proposal

(1) Relevance of the content and expected results of the event in relation to the objectives and priorities described in the second programme of Community action in the field of health and its annual work plan

(2) Participation

(3) European dimension

(4) Follow-up and evaluation methodology

Note

11

12

8

7

Comments

This conference is relevant for the community action plan in the field of health and is coherent with priority areas 3.4.3. and 3.4.3.1. It covers two important areas in the field: networking and education, as it is certified as a professional training action for health professionals.

The conference has also an established track record in the area of eHealth.

However, the private- commercial nature of the conference has to be checked. This can be done with a minimal number of participants (i.e. 30%) being healthcare professionals, as opposed to ICT and technology sectors (users, rather than developers). Also, aspects related to the public health related input and proposed activities should be strengthened (i.e. chronic disease management, public health, homecare and the elderly, etc.

The conference proposal doesn't provide enough information on the participants; a priori, there is a very wide coverage of different profiles, organizations participating.

However, the mix between private-public, commercial-not for profit, industry-healthcare professionals is a very important aspect, which needs to be checked in the run-up to the event, if the conference is selected for funding.

A fair balance needs to be ensured between technical/ "commercial" aspect of the event and public health related input

As above, the conference proposal doesn't provide enough information on the participants; a priori, more than a sufficient number of countries are covered, 80% percent coming from the MS according to the proposers. But we should have more information, especially with regards to the participants from the new MS. As per above, the number, profile and quality of the expected participants per country is important

The evaluation methodology is limited: details are totally lacking on how this evaluation will be implemented, especially with regards to possible impact of the conference in terms of knowledge transfer.

The questionnaire on satisfaction will not provide information of use to the

Commission. A more satisfactory approach will need to be provided, if the event is selected for funding. One example could be feedback from those who will participate in the training sessions, as to the impact this training will have on their careers – professional development.


Criteria Block B: Management Quality

38

Note

(1) Planning of the event


(3) Overall and detailed budget

9

6

8

Comments

It looks good on paper - timescale is adequate, the conference organization has the experience from previous events etc.

The public health dimension and participation aspects need to be reflected in the detailed planning of the conference.

A weak point is the risk analysis: it seems that the organizers take it for granted from previous experience that risks are under control; nonetheless, they still should have provided a more detailed risk analysis.

The organization seems highly competent for the "commercial" / technical aspects of the organization of a conference of this type/ size, although no elements are given for monitoring and supervision. Doubts have been expressed on the public health related scientific input, which is not at all highlighted in the proposal. A scientific committee is a sine qua non condition for funding.

The information as it appears in the submission form doesn't provide for a coherent and credible budget breakdown for an EU-wide conference of this size.

On the income side: we do not know the number and level of sponsors; the registration fees; the possible number of subsidized participants (i.e new MS). On the cost side: Cost elements seem to be missing from the detailed budget. In case the conference is funded, a much more detailed budget should be provided. Both the overall cost (210.000€) as well as, more specifically, the HR input (60.000€) are too important; especially since we have no idea of the revenue side. Also, no profit should be made on the proposed activity.

A maximum of EC contribution of 75.000€ or 50% on a budget of 150.000€ is proposed.






Overall appreciation - Total: 61


The proposed conference is recommended for funding on the condition that the possible commercial – for profit character of the proposed activity is checked, as well as by a minimal participation of 30% of healthcare professionals1.Clarification

on the possible commercial – for profit character of the proposed activity

2. Clarifications on the participation, including profile of participants (public-private, commercial-not for profit, healthcare professionals – other categories)

3. Scientific Committee to ensure public health related input and stewardship

4. Better evaluation – on knowledge transfer/ impact of conference

5. Detailed budget – both on the income, as well as on the cost side




No

0

0.00





101,067.00

101067 Acronym: WCC Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

WHO CARES CONFERENCE - Venice 2009



06/05/2009

9


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Co.Ge.S. Società Cooperativa Sociale

Coges

Private


Italy


The core theme of the WCC will be dedicated to activate a common work on the strategies and priorities provided by the Annual Work

Programme 2008 in the field of drugs and alcohol prevention. The conference will contribute to the priority action "Addiction" by tackling at least 2 of its work topics identified in the 2008 annual work programme. The first topic addressed will be "Preventing drug use and drug related harm", by "addressing the issue of new trends with regard to synthetic drug use among young people in particular in the context of poly-drug use. The second topic addressed will be "Preventing harmful alcohol use among young people".

The European Commission has invited Member States to contribute to the creation of a common epidemiological base on drugs and alcohol consumption and put evaluation activities in place on prevention to evaluate the impact of alcohol and drugs prevention initiatives, laying the base for a European common evidence base. The conference will focus on these 2 strategic objectives by inviting participants to indicate in thematic workshops what is in their view the most crucial common work to which a future concerted European evaluation effort should be dedicated, leading to a major breakthrough in this field. In the thematic workshops participants will analyze together the ideas they have contributed individually in the preparatory phase before the conference. They will cluster and rank these ideas, so as to reach a consensus-based set of evaluation priorities, which are precise, well focused, concrete and challenging.

Workshops will be introduced by the presentation of the results of the mapping activity on prevention performed in 9 Eu countries within the

Eu funded project SEID as well as by contributions providing evidence of performed or running evaluation experiences on prevention interventions in Europe (i.e.: underage drinking community prevention work).





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

34 920

47 520

0

17 000

39 600

18 000

7 400

Incomes

164 440

34 920

79 520

50 000

0

164 440









Note

14

Comments

Offering young people peer-educational services and thus diminishing the use of drugs, helping to a better lifestyle and addressing disable people, clearly focuses on the second programme of Community action and its annual work plan. A better description of the conference programme's session would have been helpful.




9

13

9

Relevant and well detailed. The proposal indicates that they will present the results of the mapping activities in 9 EU countries but more of less 14 countries are expected from different regions. Having said that the national representatives of these participants are not clear and further clarifications should be requested.

The conference is relevant to EU policy on drugs and alcohol related harm in young people. The vast majority of participants will be from Italy but the wide EU dimension is ensured by the number of countries represented, and presentation of results

(preliminary) from other EU funded projects.

"Constructivist" approach is not clear; how the evaluation group will be determined?

The 9 months schedule could prove too little in relation with the task. A hint on the follow up would have been welcome.



45

Note




10

7

9

Comments

As stated above there is a doubt on whether the conference could be planned in 9 months the planning is a bit approximative (i.e. Step 4 booking of venues only 5 months before the conference) additionally, the deliverables are not clear and the risk analysis is poor.

Evaluation groups remain to be determined, the management structure is clear and in line with the task foreseen. However the monitoring and supervision of channels used for the dissemination of the results is absent.

Overall budget seems sufficient and realistic, the financial contribution of the applicant is relevant but not enough explained. Income from the conference is unclear as it is the fact of whether they are paying scholarships or not, further explanations should be seek in relation to both items.


Overall appreciation - Total:

26

71


Offering young people peer-educational services and thus diminishing the use of drugs and helping a better lifestyle and addressing disable people clearly focuses on the second programme of Community action and its annual work plan. A better description of the conference programme's session would have been helpful. Overall budget seems sufficient and realistic, the financial contribution of the applicant is relevant but not enough explained. Income from the conference is unclear as it is the fact of whether they are paying scholarships or not, further explanations should be seek in relation to both items. The award of scholarships is seen as a conditionality for funding.




No

0

0.00





101,069.00

101069 Acronym: POCOS Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

XVI National Conference with foreign participation "Postoperative Complications in Surgery"



16/10/2008

10


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Union of Scientists in Bulgaria

USB

Public


Bulgaria


There is no field in surgery exempt from postoperative complications. The problem has various aspects, but common issues to these complications related to susceptible causes and diseases, operative techniques and strategy, diagnostics as well as their argumentation, prophylaxis and treatment are noted. Complications exist that are common to all kinds of surgery, jointly with others which are specific in expression or development depending on the organ/s, subject to the surgical intervention. The summarized clinical analysis, the discussion around legal, ethical, organization and normative issues will have an important result – a better and more effective care for patients.

The preliminary topics for discussion include:

• Characteristics of complications: frequency, predisposing factors and concomitant diseases

• Prophylaxis of complications: antithrombotic, antibacterial

• Postoperative pain and impact on the postoperative period

• Role of anesthesia and intensive care on prophylaxis and treatment of complications

• Geriatric age and postoperative risk

• General complications: postoperative bronchopneumonia, thromboembolism, myocardiac

• Surgical sepsis. Wound infection. Nosocomial infections

• Thoracic surgery: complications of thoracocentesis drain

• Complications after vascular surgery

• Postoperative complications in pediatric surgery

• Late postoperative complications in visceral surgery: ileus, peritonitis, pancreatitis, hernia/eventratio

• Complications after coloproctological surgery: urologic, sexual, incontinence, complications of the intestinal stoma

• Surgical complications and legal aspects

• Surgical complications: ethical issues

• Surgical complications and the National Health Insurance Agency: documentation, registration, payments

• New technologies in diagnostics and treatment of postoperative surgery complications





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

14 800

64 700

3 610

16 670

4 730

10 270

8 000

Incomes

122 780

60 000

5 000

32 780

25 000

122 780












Note

5

5

4

7

Comments

Mainly out of scope with regard to the PHP None of the priorities is addressed.

No information on the roles of the experts invited.

National conference with EU experts invited to justify the funding request.

Process evaluation is present, but the methodology is questionable (no quantitative evaluation). Only a questionnaire.



21

Note

(1) Planning of the event 7

Comments

The description is very general, very simple but the applicants have the capacity.

Methods of conference are not clear, no clear scientific committee.

(2) Organisational capacity 7

The applicants seems to have some experience but the readers don't get information on the kind of conferences they have organised, no clear information on the management structure, on financial aspects, on monitoring.




11

25

46

No special problem, seems realistic

They have own contribution.


It is a national conference. The role of participants is not defined clearly. Suggestion: to find another funding instrument more fit with the national scope of the conference

No policy relevance form was received from Sanco C2.

see conclusions




No

0

0.00





101,080.00

101080 Acronym: CAFS-EU Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

Inclusive CAring for the Future Society of EUrope - (The forgotten children)



09/04/2009

10


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

European Federation of Associations of Families of People with Mental Illness

EUFAMI

Private


Belgium


Children with parents who suffer from mental illness fall into a category of society which is neglected, are at risk and urgently need protection and support. These children, by their own particular family circumstances, are very much exposed to an increased risk of mental illness and depression, as well as exposure to socioeconomic problems. From a number of studies it is known that a sizeable number of such children develop mental illness by the age of 18 to 25. Because of the fact that they are exposed and develop illnesses at an earlier age, it has been shown from some studies that their illnesses are more severe.

EUFAMI for some time has become very concerned that this group, whom we call the 'forgotten children' and their situation needs to be highlighted and the situation across the various regions of Europe examined to determine what is happening to improve their outlook for the future. These children are very much part of our future society and should be afforded the opportunity to develop to their full potential. In their own right, these children need their own mental health protected.

Children and youth are also very much at the heart of current EU programmes, including DG Sanco's own progamme for 2008 - 2013 clearly recognising the importance of our future society. They are also identified clearly as a group with their own human rights in the UN

Declaration of Human Rights. But such protection and rights should extend to ALL children and so we are addressing one group which tends to be 'forgotten'.

This two day conference, which EUFAMI is planning to hold in early 2009 in Prague, will build on from previous work which has been done on the subject of children and mental health, such the CAMHEE project (part funded by the EU), and by organisations such as the WHO,

Unicef and also by a number of family support associations in a few counties in Europe and will hopefully increase awareness of this situation of the group of future society.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

43 850

19 350

0

0

32 600

18 000

7 966

Incomes

121 766

57 230

4 536

20 000

40 000

121 766












Note

8

6

6

5




25

Note

7



2

1

Comments

Distribution of tasks are unclear but the timetable is appropriate. Risk analysis is too general (i.e. key speakers should be looked at in detail)

Management structure is not detailed. The resposibilities of staff have been overlooked.

Staff costs are overly inflated (x5), travel expensed not broken down and the translation costs, will they be subcontracted?

Concerning the conference fees, more information should have been provided on the reimboursement policy etc, the budget is inbalanced and intransparent (i.e. no justification for subcontracting). Additionally the breakdown is not clearly specified, ie as regards other external resources.



10

35

Comments

Parents of children who suffer from mental diseases are even up to now generally neglected at a societal and policy level. The conference will exactly focus on this issue with a view to building a general awareness for these children to be specifically supported. Indeed it covers the points of the WP, but it is not an itself an specific priority. In general the aim of the conference is not clear, neither is the

'innovation' in relation to the new areas of research.

Membership distribution seems relevant but very narrow. A broader approach would have been desirable. Key players as child protection services have not been included. The profile of the participants is wide but more detail would have been an advantage (i.e. on the judiciary who will be involved; police? high security units, prisons?)

As an EU conference this event is expected to involve stakeholders, medical experts, sufferers and carers of all MS, EFTA and candidate countries. The applicant indicates that the national Ministries of Health and Education will participate but the specific countries involved have not been stated.

The proposal does not specify a methodology and follow up. The proposed evaluation is process based, and the outcome evaluation has been overlooked, the continuity is unclear.


The topics for the two days have not been identified as well as the key speakers.

The structure for the two days conference has not been established and the budget needs to be clarified. It is perceived that the conference is not sustained at the level of organisation despite the claims of the applicant that they do have experience organising such events.




No

0

0.00





101,086.00

101086 Acronym: LLB Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

Let Life Be



16/10/2008

7


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Foundation "Tomorrow for Everyone"

TFE

Public


Bulgaria


The main aim of the conference is the discussion the following themes:

- Total treatment of the patient with a diagnosis cancer of the lacteal glands /diagnostics, operative and medicament treatment, recovery and rehabilitation/;

- Legislation in help of patients : adequacy of the working health laws in the European countries and the state of our healthy system;

- Medical aspects of the fight with the cancer of the lacteal glands – new trends in the prevention /primary, secondary, tertiary/ and the diagnosing, treatment, post operative period and rehabilitation programs;

- The role of the rehabilitation and its place in the entire treatment of the problem, expressed as a percentage proportion in the world, in

Europe and in Bulgaria;

- The right of the ill people to a rehabilitation as a part of their entire treatment, resocialization, reconstructive surgery of the operated;

- The place and the meaning of the state institution – legislation, hospitals and civil associations in help of the people with a diagnosis cancer of the lacteal glands;

- The formation of partnership between the EU member countries and the other countries aimed at building an united functioning system, that will provide exchange of information, practices and education courses for the specialists;

- Monitoring of the entire situation of the cancer diseased people in Bulgaria and in the other countries, that are taking part in the conference and giving proposals of how to improve their standard of life;

- Bringing out the main problems, offers, developing strategies and plans for offering a full range of procedures to the cancer diseased people;

- Making complete proposals for solving the problems;

- Establishing connection and contacts between the different countries, international and civil institutions and organizations, the participants in the conference and ensuring conditions for leading a constructive dialogue between them.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

34 600

28 200

2 800

5 000

3 000

20 000

7 000

Incomes

100 600

50 000

10 600

0

40 000

100 600









Note

10

Comments

The conference is relevant to the Health Programme. The applicants chose to refer the proposal to the objective in the Work Plan labelled Improve citizens’ security where patient safety is briefly mentioned. However, cancer is not prioritised during

2008.




10

10

9

Approximately 60 participants are expected to take part in the conference, comprising a good mixture of patients’ organisations and professionals. Six member states are specifically mentioned and it is indicated that more will be invited.

However, the European coverage remains somewhat unclear.

The countries mentioned represent mainly South-east Europe. The participation of northern and western member states would have been an asset.

The evaluation of the conference is well described, but addresses mainly the use of questionnaires. Indicators for follow-up of the objectives are missing and ought to have been described as well, including indicators measuring impact.




39

Note

9



6

10

Comments

The time-table, with the conference taking place in October 2008 seems very optimistic if the financing is not yet granted. Otherwise no specific comments.

The application doesn’t describe the scientific competence of the staff, but CV:s are provided for key personnel. The organisation is clearly experienced in arranging conferences. There is otherwise not so much information on organisational aspects given in the proposal.

The budget is reasonable even if the travel costs seem excessive. It is not clear how the costs not covered by the requested co-funding will be covered (‘other external sources’).



25

64


The conference is not recommended for cofounding. This is a good initiative, but although the conference falls within the scope of the Health Programme, it does not target any of the priorities of the 2008 Work Plan. Furthermore, the European dimension is not obvious, and the innovative value of the conference was regarded as rather low.

As regards organisational issues, the time-table was regarded as slightly unrealistic.

The travelling costs in the budget were considered excessive.




No

0

0.00





101,088.00

101088 Acronym: gzeu Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

Health Targets in Europe



22/06/2009

12


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Gesellschaft für Versicherungswissenschaft und -gestaltung e.V.

GVG

Public


Germany


The conference focuses on the national health target processes in the European countries. The orientation on targets helps to coordinate activities and to tackle health risks with coordinated strategies and thus imply a considerable innovative potential. The designs of these processes conform to the specific structures, health system and premises of the particular country. Target processes are promoters for health and support the players´ commitment for concerted action. Moreover they are in a constant process of change in the sense of learning, which means that new targets can be developed and new aspects can be integrated into already existing targets. Health targets form an ideal link to the main priority areas of the “Health Programme 2008-2013”. Health information and knowledge (HI-2008), health security (HS-2008) and health promotion (HP-2008) can either be autonomous health targets or form important aspects of targets like e.g.

childrens’/young people´s health.

The formulated targets of the EC-programme can enrich existing health targets processes and vice versa health targets can help to achieve them.

Moreover the conference supports the EU-approach “Health in all Policies” and contributes to its further implementation.

European countries look back on different traditions of health targets as part of the national health policy. Whereas countries like Sweden pursue health targets since about 20 years, especially some of the east-European countries just started similar processes. Yet there is no systematic exchange of experiences between the protagonists of these parallel processes, so that potential synergy effects are not utilized so far.

The conference wants to offer a platform to look at targets processes in different European countries and to support the exchange of experiences and approaches between the countries. Moreover it wants to stimulate the integration of the main priority areas of the EC into the national target policies.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

41 100

3 600

0

0

0

104 600

10 452

Incomes

159 752

79 876

79 876

0

0

159 752












Note

5

5

6

10

Comments



26

Note




12

8

10

Comments

The organization, methodology and timetable seem to be adequate and realistic.

Distribution of tasks is presented, but not in appropriate detail. Related evidence is mentioned. Financial circuits are not described. It is mentioned only that the finances will be supervised from their finance department.

As well the promotional activities seem to be comprehensive.

Risk analysis needs to be better elaborated and include the risk of a low quality of the communications.

The elements of organizational capacity are clearly presented and sound relevant, leading to the conclusion that the organizational capacity is fulfilled.

GVG have long standing tradition in management and staff seems to be competent.

Monitoring and supervision were not mentioned in detail. A scientific committee is missing.

It is recommended to have at least one person working full time in the month preceding the conference.

The overall budget is not balanced. They do not expect to generate any income by the conference. Why not include conference fees?

The main weight is on staff and other cost. It is not clear what is included in 'other costs'.

Travel costs seems to be underestimated: does it includes the invitations to the speakers?



30

56

The conference focuses on health targets in Europe that may be relevant for the third strand "exchange knowledge and best practice".

These targets can help to achieve the objectives and priorities of the PHP and the

WP, stimulating the integration of the main priority areas. The scope is large but the idea of exchange methods on targets and objective definitions is valuable.

The expected participants seem to be sufficient, however there is not enough information about the profile and quality of the expected 200-250 guests. It is mentioned that the target audience are policy makers, associations, trade unions, science and research.

All member states are invited and encompass EU and EFTA.

The speakers and their profiles are not identified.

The number of countries seems to be sufficient, but it is not specified. It is not clear if this is a national conference with international participation, or if it is really an international conference. The panel assumes that the latest is the case, but it should be clearly stated that the conference has an international framework.

More details about the number and profile of participants from each country should be provided. There is no information about the language of the conference.

Follow up is clearly presented, but with limitations. More information about the profile of speakers should have been given in order to asses the quality of the conference.

The evaluation methodology needs to incorporate quantitative and qualitative indicators about the process, the outcomes and the impact.

The applicants seem to have capacity to organize this kind of events. They have already organized 5 conferences with a well defined topic and attendance at a rather high level, but mainly held in Germany.






It seems to be a solid, well planned conference. The main concern is about the real international dimension of the proposal and the guarantee that many of the MS participate.

More information about the profile of speakers and participants should have been given in order to assess its quality

The organization's methodology and timetable seems to be adequate and realistic.

The evaluation methodology needs to incorporate quantitative and qualitative indicators about the process, the outcomes and the impact.

The distribution of the budget is not balanced

The conference can only be selected for funding if the following issues are addressed:

- It is really an international conference with a sufficient and equilibrate number of participants and speakers from most of the MS.

- The profile of the speakers and participants should be specified.

- The risk analysis should be better addressed.

- It must have a scientific Committee.

- The budget should be balanced. The staff and 'other' costs should be explained.

The 'other costs' should be reduced.




No

0

0.00





101,104.00

101104 Acronym: MEDTEL / CNFeH 2008 Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

MEDTEL / CNFeH 2008 International Conference - Consumer focused eHealth



28/11/2008

12


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

MEDTEL, o.p.s.

MEDTEL

Public


Czech Republic


1.The first general objective of the conference MEDTEL- CNFeH 2008 is to contribute to:

COMMISSION DECISION of 27 February 2008 on the adoption of the work plan for 2008 for the implementation of the second programme of Community action in the field of health (2008-2013), and on the selection, award and other criteria for financial contributions to the actions of this programme.

ANNEX I

Annual Work Plan 2008 including budgetary implications and funding criteria for grants

3.PRIORITY AREAS FOR 2008

3.4.

Priority actions for the third strand ‘Generate and disseminate health information and knowledge’

3.4.3.1.

E-health (43) — To develop the concept and basis of a protected web platform for multimedia content and communication, capable of drawing and sending relevant health information from and to distributed sources (for support of patient movement and education and training of health professionals, among others)

— Report on disseminating health-related information using ICT in Europe

— Report into the incentives and drivers of adoption of ICTs in the health sector and development of related indicators for monitoring and benchmarking (including case studies to provide new data and insights)

2. the second general objective is to support and formulate expectations, needs and views consumer (citizen, health care provider, public health officer)

3. the third objective is to continue in the tradition of MEDTEL conference, and to prepare the field for forthcoming Czech Republic

Presidency eHealth Conference to be held in 2009





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

12 800

9 800

0

7 200

6 000

6 000

3 000

Incomes

44 800

22 400

8 800

4 000

9 600

44 800









Note

8

Comments

The proposal fits with the WP priorities in eHealth. However, the relation with the proposed eHealth presidency conference, scheduled to take place in the same period, although mentioned is not substantiated. There is a possibility of thematic overlap but also of overlap in funding.




5

5

5

The information on participants only refers to MS represented, but there is no information on their profile. There is also a lack of information/ rationale on why certain countries are or are not represented. Information should also be provided on the previous events, since it is a regular activity

Too focused on the organizing country, sounds like a national conference – no guarantee that there is a real EU dimension. Finally, a detailed enough description of what the "traditional" MEDTEL conference is about is not provided, in order to verify EU dimension

It is a regular event; there should have been more information on this aspect. The simple mention of indicators without elaboration is insufficient. The lack of a structured framework and clear concept is reflected also on the insufficiency of evaluation, follow up and possibly, sustainability-related information



23

Note



7

5

Comments

General information is there (timetable, milestones, proceedings, risk analysis).

However, it is not detailed enough. The timetable is too short/ optimistic. Also aspects related to the impact of the event and on how this relates to previous and maybe future activities, not clear.

No details on the management structure. Staff involved seems competent and experienced. However, in view of the regular nature of the activity, more information should have been provided, from previous experience, i.e. on sponsorship, or other organizational aspects.

Budget not realistic with regards to organizing a good level reference – too small to have impact and deliver the stated objectives.




6

18

41


The proposal is too much focused on the organizing country, seeming to be a national conference – with no guarantee that there is a real EU dimension and added value for EC funding.




No

0

0.00





101,124.00

101124 Acronym: EUROCARE-5 Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

EUROCARE-5 PLENARY MEETING



29/01/2009

6


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

FONDAZIONE IRCCS, ISTITUTO NAZIONALE DEI TUMORI

INT

Public


Italy


The EUROCARE project - a European, cancer registry-based study on cancer patients survival and care- is active since the early nineties and is aimed to monitor and compare survival of cancer patients across Europe. The project activity consists in centrally collect, validate and analyse with unified procedure incidence and follow-up data at the individual level from participating cancer registries. The EUROCARE results were considered for planning public health interventions in many EU countries. The project also provides the data and the procedures for the development of ECHI-EUROCHIP indicators regarding survival and prevalence. Currently, the network is constituted by

93 Cancer Registries from 23 European countries, with a database including survival data from more than 12 million persons. The coverage is national for thirteen countries, whereas it varied from 1% to 58% in the others. The overall coverage of the European Union is 31%.

Despite this large European participation, two regions are inadequately represented: Germany, with only one registry included, representing

1.3% of the adult population, and Eastern European countries from which only Poland and Czech Republic participated in the last

EUROCARE analysis, mainly due to legal restrictions. A main aim of the EUROCARE-5 plenary meeting is to increase the participation in

EUROCARE, first of all from Germany, through an involvement of the new established cancer registry. An increased participation from

Eastern countries will be also pursued. Other objectives of the conference will be to:

• communicate the EUROCARE results to citizens and Public Health stakeholders;

• illustrate experiences, results and methodology achieved by the previous EUROCARE projects to the Cancer Registry community;

• support analyses on cancer survival and prevalence at regional level;

• agree a protocol of analysis for the next EUROCARE-5 project;

• promote the use of cancer registry data for research and for clinical studies.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

20 000

110 000

1 000

600

5 000

3 400

0

Incomes

140 000

70 000

70 000

0

0

140 000









Note

12

Comments

The proposed conference fits with the priorities; cancer is an important public health concern. The conference also helps achieve a goal and has potential impact, by enhancing cooperation between the cancer registries.




8

8

7

Several weaknesses: unclear how the participation of target groups will be ensured and what steps have – or will be taken to that effect.

In terms of size, the focus of the event is unclear: if it is a meeting of experts, what is the point of inviting the public (the level of participation of general public is very unclear).

As a statement, EU dimension is ensured (coverage of 31%). The objectives are however unclear: this is the meeting of one network, but other networks are absent: there is no mention of existing initiatives and how this meeting relates to them. The planned event could be part of the regular activities of the EUROCARE network, since there is no proof or added value by involving other initiatives.

Timing not stated. There is a list of previous events – which is discontinuous.

Weak evaluation methodology: the simple mention of previous positive experiences is not sufficient. Lack of indicators and dissemination




35

Note

5

(2) Organisational capacity 2

Comments

Section poorly developed: Timing chosen not good (summer). No specific mention of timetable milestones and deliverables, no draft programme given.

No reference to management structures, responsibilities and organizational capacity. The simple benefit of the doubt from previous experiences is not enough

Staff costs are very low, while travel costs are very high, without details on who will be subsidized to participate




6

13

48


Either, the proposed event has a meeting of experts scope and is therefore part of the activities of the EUROCARE network, whereby it should not be funded separately; or, it is indeed a wider EU-dimension conference on cancer, but it is not sized in such a way as to deliver and have impact.




No

0

0.00





101,125.00

101125 Acronym: PRO SUM Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

ImPROving Services by AsSUMing Responsibility for Children and Adolescents' Mental Health and Well-being



15/05/2009

12

MENTAL HEALTH EUROPE aisbl

MHE-SME

Private


Belgium


Mental health and emotional and psychological well-being are fundamental for all children, enabling them to meet their potential, to experience life as meaningful and to be active citizens. Unfortunately, current estimates indicate that at least one out of every four to five young people in the general population will suffer from at least one mental disorder in any given year. Similar data have been previously reported by WHO, showing that world-wide up to 20% of children and adolescents suffer from a mental illness with at least mild functional impairment: one adolescent in five has behavioural, cognitive and emotional difficulties and one adolescent in eight suffers from a mental disorder. According to the Florence Declaration - developed during the XIII European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Congress and signed by WHO and by European Academy for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry – prevention programs can have strong potential as part of the spectrum of mental health interventions for children and adolescents. Despite the scientific support for prevention programs and scientists’ efforts to develop this area of research, most of the children in the world outside research trials still have little access to these programs. Prevention is still not a sufficient high priority for policy and decision makers at all levels. Against this background, the PRO SUM conference will focus on effective strategies and services that help preventing major mental health diseases and reduce health inequalities in children and adolescents across the EU. The focus will be on the most promising examples of preventive interventions now available, and particularly on programmes in school settings where children spend large parts of their time (e.g. school programs aimed at the promotion of psychological well-being, life skills and bullying prevention). The conference will thus contribute to evidence the need for building capacity for effective public mental health policies.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

70 300

34 448

14 085

0

0

7 600

0

Incomes

126 433

63 217

0

0

63 216

126 433












Note

10

8

8

6

Comments

The main achievement of the conference should be a delivering of shared recommendations for integrating mental health promotions and mental diseases prevention into the training and practise of professionals related to the children and adolescent. This relates to the topics identified in the 2008 annual work programme, however some precise specification of the conference programme would be needed.

A note is made on that it is very relevant in the light of the recent high level EU conference on MH.

Numbers of participants is to low (100) more countries, more health social educational legal etc. participants are to be invited. Cfr.3.3 educational services are omitted. MHI is seen as a guarantee of EU dimension as proven in the past but is not clearly stated in the application and a wider audience is needed.

This project is compatible with the relevant EU policy and complementary with existing actions. However there is a partial overlap of this event with State Mental

Health Centre -Lithuania which launched recently the similar program (Child and adolescent mental health in enlarged European Union: development of effective policies and practices).

The conference is aiming to be a basis for the preparatory work of the Commission thematic conference on 'Mental health in youth and education' (expected 2010)

4 areas of evaluation: of equal importance (scientific and creation equally considered). The evaluation of the event only with notes/reports on direct participant observation.. post conference evaluation missing unless the own network will formulate emerging themes and areas of future research.

Expert evaluation has to be developed and the follow up of stakeholder's platforms should be addressed.



32

Note




7

4

6

Comments

The main risks are not put forward: i.e. short duration, small numbers of participants exclude many interested persons also interested to speak and discuss. Additionally detail has been omitted:

What is the introductory session? What are the key speakers? What levels of debates and discussions are going to be implemented?

Competency of staff seems proved by the evidence of past organised events by

MHE. However, there is no information available regarding who does what, when and how often.

Concerning the budget certain issues needs to be addressed and further explained:

- How comes that the conference coordinator gets 220/ day and the secretary

200/day?

- Are the travel cost and subsistence allowances included?

- Who travels?

- What does the subsistence for participants include?



17

49


The topic of the conference is highly relevant and compatible with the second programme of Community action. However there is no specification related to the planning of the event, the key speakers should be specify early and the target audience is too general. The dissemination does not seem to be adequate if it wants to reach family members of children and adolescents and the EU dimension should be clearly stated.0




No

0

0.00





101,136.00

101136 Acronym: European Congress Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

European Congress "The Future of European Health Care Systems"



05/11/2008

12


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Techniker Krankenkasse

TK

Public


Germany


The general objective of the conference is to generate and disseminate health information and knowledge about the future of European health care systems. This comprises knowledge, ideas and experience, particularly on best practice. The conference is basically divided into two parts: (1) the latest health care reforms in Germany, the UK, the Netherlands and Estonia and (2) examples for best practice in cross-border health care in Germany, Italy, Austria and the Czech Republic. We are deliberately keen to ensure that the experiences and ideas from the new EU-members are sufficiently represented among the countries. For putting the future of European health care systems into a global context there will be an analysis of chances and risks from an U.S. health economist. Thus there will be experts from academia as well as from the field. Among them are also speakers of the world’s two leading Universities of Social Sciences, Harvard Medical School and the London School of Economics and Political Science. Speakers from the field will also report from their experience as contractual partners of the TK either in the hospital or in the spa sector. Moreover TK carries out a study on cross-border health care (“TK in Europe") beforehand in which 34,000 members are inquired about their experience with medical treatments in other EU-countries. The aim is to disseminate the results of the study at the congress.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

50 898

8 190

2 242

27 500

37 370

4 000

9 800

Incomes

140 000

70 000

70 000

0

0

140 000











Note Comments

10

This conference on health systems has relevance for the community action plan in the field of health. In the Annex I of the Annual Work Plan one of the priority actions is "generate and disseminate health information knowledge", which includes exchange knowledge and best practice.

11

6

The number and profile of the participants seems to be very good. 250 participants are foreseen and they have a relevant expertise. Participants from all MS will be invited. However the new member states will have difficulties to attend, if there are no grants available.

This is not the only conference on the topic, but it is not mentioned in the proposal, e.g. the Gastein conference covers most of these areas. As well it would be recommended to include other European organizations.

There is a concern about the private health insurance discussions, which is still marginal

An agenda and a programme are provided, but the timetable seems to be unrealistic.

The number of countries seems to be sufficient. There is not much information about the profile and countries of the 215 participants expected.

EU organizations and hospitals should have been invited

It is not clear why in a conference about health systems in Europe, USA participants are invited as experts.

(4) Follow-up and evaluation methodology 6

The evaluation methodology is poorly developed. There are no qualitative or quantitative indicators, nor even process indicators. The impact of results of the conference will not be assessed. The relevance to future health system policy is not clear



33

Note




12

7

10

Comments

The Agenda, the organization and timetable seem to be adequate. The planning as stated, and milestones, sound feasible.

However there are concerns from one of the members of the panel about how realistic the timetable and the milestones are. The deliverables are described in a general way and more detail is necessary.

Risk analysis needs to be checked and improved, it seems that some of the risks they could face have not been addressed properly.

Management structure and the competence of the staff seem to be appropriate.

However the number of staff is small and there is only one organization involved.

The responsibilities and the decision making process should be better described.

This kind of conferences needs a scientific committee.

It is questionable that the success of a conference with 140.000€ of budget will depend of the health status of one person, as was stated in the risk analysis.

The budget seems to be overestimated. Staff, other cost and subcontracting are too high. It is necessary to provide more information, mainly about the subcontracting costs.

The budget should be closer to EU objectives.



29

62









This conference on health systems has relevance for the community action plan in the field of health.

The Agenda, the organization and timetable seems to be adequate. The planning as stated, and milestones, sound feasible. The evaluation methodology is poorly developed. There are not qualitative or quantitative indicators, nor even process indicators.

The budget should be closer to EU objectives.

The panel has a concern: is it ethical to fund a conference, for which planning has already started?


- Invite people from new MS's, including travel and subsistence grants

- The risk analysis should be done

- Link up the Conference with the European Commission Agenda

- Set up a scientific Committee

- The budget should be revised and explained in a more transparent way. Mainly

'other cost' , subcontracting and staff cost should be reduced

No

0

0.00





101,149.00

101149 Acronym: VIIIHHTROW Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

VIII HHT/ROW SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE



28/05/2009

12


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

HOSPITAL SIERRALLANA UNIDAD HHT

HSLL-HHTUNIT

Public


Spain

General objective of the conference: and it is expected to receive the ever biggest number of audience. The objectives will be:

1. To compile the whole HHT community in the bi annual common forum, sharing experiences, and showing the reality in every center and every area of the disease management.

2. To get an update in clinical and research in HHT.

3. To promote the development of guidelines in HHT.

4. To facilitate the presence of lectures of invited first figures in general areas of vascular biology, clinical management and European and national policies in rare diseases.

5. To motivate new teams and recruit interests in the HHT field.

6. To consolidate the Spanish Unit multidisciplinary HHT team sharing this experience and spreading its conclussions throughout the state.

7. To promote the consolidation of a European network in HHT of researchers, clinicians and patien´s associations.

8. To promote the collaboration in multicenter trials ans projects.

9. To promote quality standards in the HHT management.

10. To give an impulse in the general consideration of rare diseases considering that it is going to be a major event in Spain in the area and the first meeting organized by a CIBER group.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

26 000

70 000

0

5 000

6 000

0

10 000

Incomes

117 000

30 000

0

30 000

12 000

72 000










Note

4

Comments

The general topic is in line with the 2008 PHP (under various items, rare diseases, exchange of best practice and knowledge). The proposed focus though, centred on clinical aspects lacks a public health perspective and therefore is out of scope. An alternative scope could have been provided by questions-issues related to the delivery of care

5

Participants represent diverse groups, but the proposal is weak in explaining the way these target audiences are brought together. For example, even though patient associations are included, there is very little on the needs of patients.

Also, HHT is treated as a standalone item and there is no context, either medically

(integrated in a related group of diseases) or rare-disease related (integrated on a

RD platform of activities)



4

2

This is in fact the bi-annual global HHT group meeting (which takes place "en alternance" in Europe and the Americas); this is not relevant to the EU PHP

Evaluation process is weak and not adequately described-what we have is a description of the material developed for the conference. There is really no follow-up proposed



15

Note



4

3

Comments

The is a description of the methodology for delivering the conference and the deliverables ok – the rest is lacking/ the applicant puts forward the programme of the conference. There is no risk analysis, except for the financial risk

There is the fact that this is a recurrent event and therefore some issues-problems have already been dealt with. However, the applicant has only experience from the organization of national-level events and has no track record for such an endeavour.

Management and organizational aspects are mentioned in the application, but are not demonstrated.




2

9

24

There are serious doubts on the capacity to balance the proposed budget


The proposal is too much focused on the clinical aspects of a specific rare disease; there are serious doubts as to whether this kind of conference proposals should be funded under the PHP, when they are out of context, even when well designed

(which is not the case of the specific conference)




No

0

0.00





101,150.00

101150 Acronym: I_WOS Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

INVISIBLE WOUNDS & SUFFERING: faintness of society and civilization. To promote health sharing well being



15/05/2009

10

Santé Mentale Exclusion Sociale - Europa

SMES-Europa

Private


Belgium


INVISIBLE WOUNDS & SUFFERING: Civilization, society and its discontents

The general objective is to add value to the Public Health knowledge: to make become visible the invisible sufferings, so that nobody can say: I did not known! In European countries 15-20 years ago the phenomenon of homeless, especially homeless and mentally ill people, was numerically not so important like today, but perhaps more visible as phenomenon. To be homeless means more than simply being without a house, but also without health - identity - relationship - family - job ... HOME is more than housing.

To be homeless, today, becomes more & more a serious problem of public health.

1) SMES doesn’t want to ‘psychiatrise’ the poverty nor avoid the social problems of the mentally ill person but involve the participants of both sectors in an holistic analysis and evaluation of the problem.

2) To Identify the causes : good diagnosis for an adequate making cure and taking care. In Europe up to 20 years ago the phenomenon of homeless (specially : homeless and mentally ill people) was numerically lower and the health-social needs were less complex that those of today. WHY? Which were the causes? What kind of social pathologies?

3) To presents the complexity of the social and health needs/wounds of these people in order to guarantee for all access to health and to quality services.

4) To identify efficient & inefficient ‘therapeutic – rehabilitative’ practices: in reasons of “rationalization” of costs: from inter-subject, ‘personal’ relation, to ‘standard’ relation. WHY again the hyper_dimensional and dislocate. Society masks its wounds while making them invisible or less visible.

5) To collect information & data: in all (or almost) these centers exist infirmaries for the residents where these wounds become visible and its passers by shout their sorrow, their suffering, their despair. What about well being and mental health of these excluded people ?





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

43 000

10 000

0

5 000

31 000

5 000

5 369

Incomes

99 369

50 000

9 369

10 000

30 000

99 369












Note

12

10

10

6

Comments

The proposal for this conference is part of a succession of conferences looking at mental health issues from different angles. It aims at preparing a 2 day conference on barriers and inequality in the access to health and social care for people with mental health problems living in severely precarious conditions (homeless and migrants). This topic fits within the priorities of the Health Programme and of the

Work Plan related to social inclusion and mental health. It reflects an idealistic, rather than a scientific approach, and targets a small population, yet by influencing these groups the conference results may also impact on the larger population

Between 100 and 150 participants are expected, including psychiatrists, social workers and health workers. This means the confernce is small but addresses a varied audience. The proposal also refers vaguely to juridical workers, but do not include "gatekeepers" such police, border control people, emergency services, or coast guards. To address this issue the target group needs to be expanded. High level participants representing the policy makers should also be included.

Participation is foreseen by representatives from 18 countries, ensuring a sufficienly broad coverage. The differences in policies related to social inclusion of mentally ill people in different of EU Member States are acknowledged but the language usage is not in keeping with the sensitivity of the issue: policies in Western EU countries are referred to as "better" integration, rather than as "more experienced".

The proposal also reflects a low ambition in terms of the diffusion of the results at

EU level. High level participation from the Member States should be sought, although they could be discouraged by the somewhat idealistic approach that is reflected in the title.

Evaluation is mentioned but no real evaluation method is provided, only the intention to set up an evaluation team that will assess the level of visibility of the topic, the quality of the exchanges (sic), and the quality of the documents. The composition of this evaluation team is not known and the procedure it will follow is not specified.

The evaluation indicators are output related and will not provide valid info on the achievement of the objectives. Indicators could also focus on the quality of presentations, number of articles published, etc.). A follow-up multidisciplinary team will be set up to look at the impact of the conference on legislation, facilities and barriers in access to services, quality of services and incidence of relevant pahthologies, but again the method to achieve this is not explained. Evaluation and follow-up should also pay special attention to countries with less experience.



38

Note




6

5

11

Comments

The planning is very general and is more a list of intentions than a realistic and detailed planning of activities. The timetable seems realistic but no real milestones are indicated except for preparatory meetings for the conference. No real deliverables are listed. The distribution of the tasks is not clear. The role of 15 national reference persons is not explained. The risk analysis does not convey a realistic analysis of the risks: the identified risks are not the most relevant ones and the stated contingencies are very vague. Financial circuits are not explained.

The fact that the applicants have organised conferences before suggests that they have the capacity. This capacity is further supported by the involvement of a local partner with conference experience (the Richmond Foundation). A structure is in place to manage the preparation of the conference, backed up by a steering committee that will meet several times during preparatory trajectory. However, an outline of how they will work is not given. The role of the national referents

(budgeted for 10 days) in the organisation of the event is not clear.

The budget is in keeping with the overall objectives and scope of the Conference.

Cost estimations are realistic except for staff costs, which are very low. The calculation for the costs of human resources is not well explained. The estimation of the costs for keynote speakers and invited participants to attend the conference should also be more detailed, as is the income generated by conference. The proposal explicitly states that no financial support is received from pharmaceutical companies.








The proposed two day Conference addresses a topic that is important and highly relevant for the EU health policy, reflecting an idealistic, rather than a scientific approach, and targeting a small but varied audience. However, in order to reach its objective of drawing attention to this issue and offering suggestions for solutions, the proposal should be more elaborated technically. The target group needs to be expanded to include high level participants representing the policy makers, the planning of activities must be more detailed with a detailed timetable and milestones, listing of deliverables, clear distribution of tasks, and description of the management, and with a realistic risk analysis. More detailed information is also required regarding the budget.

If this proposal is to be funded a substantial improvement has to be made of the content, preparation and evaluation and follow-up.

1. The target group needs to be expanded to include high level participants representing the policy makers,

2. The planning of activities must be more detailed with a detailed timetable and milestones, listing of deliverables, clear distribution of tasks, and description of the management, and with a realistic risk analysis.

3. More detailed information is required regarding the budget, more particularly the cost estimations for staff costs, the estimation of the costs for keynote speakers and invited participants, and the income generated by conference.




No

0

0.00





101,162.00

101162 Acronym: EMISE Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

ENFERMEMENTS ET MISES AU SECRET EN EUROPE



16/10/2008

12


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

ASSOCIATION LOGOS : faculté humaine de penser et de parler

LOGOS

Private


France


1°/ Promouvoir la lutte contre la stigmatisation et l'exclusion des usagers de la psychiatrie.

2°/ Promouvoir la création et l'organisation de rencontres européennes bisannuelles sur le thème des pratiques de soin en santé mentale avec les pays membres de l'Union Européenne partenaires de cette manifestation. Ces conférences européennes visent l’échange entre professionnels de pays étrangers, l'élargissement du champ de pensée et d’action des institutions, associations, personnes citoyennes oeuvrant dans ce champ. L’objectif est de mutualiser les acquis et échanger sur les pratiques afin de les faire évoluer toujours dans un souci d'une pratique plus éthique.

3°/ Formation des professionnels dans le champ de la santé mentale : ce colloque vise, entre autre, la mise au travail des représentations de ce qui guide les pratiques professionnelles, les fonctionnements institutionnels.

4°/ L’échange entre institutions et usagers doit permettre une meilleure compréhension de ce que chacun vit au quotidien, de réfléchir sur ce qui s’y vit afin de pouvoir dégager des nouvelles pistes de réflexion, d'améliorer l'accompagnement des handicapés psychiques en travaillant avec eux sur ces thématiques

5°/ Echanges pluridisciplinaires : permet d'envisager le sujet sous d'autres angles de perspectives et d'enrichir la réflexion

(ex. : point de vue de la justice, du social... : réflexion sur l'articulation entre la justice, le social et la psychiatrie).





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

20 700

41 250

0

3 000

17 100

2 000

2 800

Incomes

86 850

43 425

7 000

24 000

12 425

86 850









Note

6

Comments

The proposal addresses the topic of stigmatisation in mental health service users and aims to contribute to the reduction of inequalities in this group. Mental health and inequalities are mentioned as a priority in the health programme and 2008 work plan, and the conference and its deliverables could contribute to identifying good practices. However, the focus of the conference is very clinical and psychoanalytically dominated. A multidisciplinary element is mentioned but is not elaborated in the proposal. The objectives are clearly stated but the training of professionals and the creation of a network are too ambitious for a conference.




3

2

5



16

Note




12

4

5

Comments

The event is well planned, in the sense that most of the conference content is already known. The distribution of the preparatory tasks is specified, and a realistic timetable is given with clear milestones. The risk analysis is adequate but does not address under-attendance. Deliverables are specified but are very clinically oriented.

Financial circuits are not clearly specified.

The competency of the submitting organisation in the field of mental health is well documented. The competency in organising conferences can be inferred from their previous experience in organising conferences. The management structure is less well explained: management tasks are defined but not assigned to specific persons.

A scientific committee will define the topics and objectives for the conference, but the composition of this committee and the tasks of its members are not elaborated.

The overall budget for the conference seems appropriate, but the detailed budget is difficult to appreciate as not sufficient justification is given for some items. Staff costs seem appropriate but their tasks need to be defined. Travel costs and subsistence allowances are relatively high, when considering that most keynote speakers will be from France. It is no clear if here will be any travel costs for preparatory meetings.

No details are provided for subcontracting. The calculation of the budget for income generated by conference and the external funding resources are not known.



21

37

The conference plans to include 300 participants from 10 participating countries, but apart from that there is no clear indication of the Pan-European dimension of the conference. The majority (two thirds) of the participants will be from France, and the keynote speakers are also predominantly French speaking. The proposed participants would be from different fields (mental health professionals, social workers and policy makers) but the keynote presenters are very psychoanalysis-dominated and do not include leading French and EU scientists, practitioners and policy makers in the field of mental public health.

In terms of participants, organisation and keynote topics this is mainly a French conference without much EU added value. The follow-up to the conference is not sufficiently detailed and too limited in scope to have an impact on EU health or social policy making and/or practice.

An evaluation plan is proposed, but it is largely process evaluation focused.

Scientific papers are envisaged as a follow-up to the conference but given that the conference will be exclusively in French it is unlikely that these papers will reach a broader audience than the French-speaking community. Training is mentioned as a method for follow-up but it is not clear how this will be elaborated and if it will be linked to recognition within a continuous evaluation credits system.


This proposal for a conference on stigmatisation in mental health service users narrowly meets the priorities of the Health Programme and the Work Plan 2008. It does not, however, sufficiently cover the EU dimension, as the large majority of the participants will be from France, and the keynote speakers will also be predominantly French speaking. There are also major deficiencies in the content and budget specification and in the follow-up and evaluation. The proposal receives less than 50 points for overall appreciation and is not recommended for funding.








No

0

0.00





101,170.00

101170 Acronym: CEECMHG 2009 Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

"1 st Central and East European Conference on Men´s Health and Gender"



26/03/2009

6


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Real Men Slovakia consulting n.o.

RMS co n.o.

Public


Slovakia


The general objective of the conference is:

- increasing of interest about health of men and presentation of gender research on the lives of boys and men in consideration of the area

"men, education and vocational choices" and "men between family and work".

- providing oppurtunities for organisations and individuals across Europe with an interest in men´s health to network and collaborate.

While in the West Europe is problem of men ´s health, prevention and follow protection, his position of family, work and social life and elimination of gender inequalities in discusion and in the move. Situation in central and east Europe is weak due to impact of unfavourable clima of socialistic authoritarianism. Because in previous periode wasn´t devoted nedfull atention on the men ´s health, his prevention and protection and needed care in work life. The result of this period is disproporcional develop of attention on women health care and men health care is inequality in promotion, information system and system of prevention between gender.

Planned conference is tending to create stabile Coalition of Central and East Europe for men ´s health and also Institution in Central and

East Europe by foundation charter. This Institution will be endorsement by European Man ´s Health Forum and will diseminate information about prevention and protection of men´s health and betterment of men ´s lifestyle and position in family life, work and social life.

Under influence of achievements of the conference and running information campaign we would like to create appropriate conditions for men to join the equality train, and devote more attention to their health. Education of man started in family by accurate on health tend upbringing , and continued by the process of vocation choose in the schools. We would like establish the principles of more attention of health during the education process and also devote attention to betterment of health men´s protection at work.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

19 200

40 500

3 800

5 500

19 100

17 650

7 400

Incomes

113 150

56 500

5 650

11 330

39 670

113 150









Note

8

Comments

The general topic and objective of the proposal fits in with the priority to reduce health inequalities between EU regions, but the specific objectives – to create a coalition and set up a foundation charter for an Institute for men's health in Central and Eastern Europe – do not. The focus of the conference seems to be on reducing inequalities between men and women rather than between regions. The choice of objectives is not substantiated by evidence on inequalities.



7

5

The conference aims to attract a wide range of participants, both scientific and policy makers, from various countries, but the selection of participants nor the distribution by Member States are sufficiently made clear. It is not clear on what basis participants or keynote speakers will be selected. The idea of a forum to represent different backgrounds is fine but is not explained well. Only some of the NMS in CEE are represented as well as ENP Countries (Ukraine, Belarus), but some MS

(Romania, Bulgaria) are not represented.

The Conference will invite lecturers from 17 countries but will mostly be focused on

6 CEE and ENP countries. This gives it a regional rather than a European-wide dimension. It is not explained why these specific countries were selected.


The proposal mentions the creation of a coalition and a foundation charter for an

Institute for men's health in Central and Eastern Europe, but these are not well explained. It is also difficult to see how these can be achieved as a follow-up of the

Conference without additional funding. The same applies to the idea of a regular conference. The other follow-up activities, notably the creation of a database and publication of a conference report, are more realistic but also need to be better explained. The follow-up and evaluation entails a series of action points rather than a methodology.



28

Note


Comments

The planning of the event is not sufficiently detailed:

-There is a general timetable with milestones but several tasks and their preparation are not included in this timetable.

-The composition for the scientific committee is unknown.

-Reference is made to "invite cards" for participants but it is not clear if this refers to a call for abstracts.

-it is not indicated which languages will be used for the conference and whether translation is foreseen.

-the status of the anniversary volume is unclear.



4

7

The applicant claims to have experience with the organisation of conferences but this is not substantiated. The staff of 4 part timers will be small given the ambition and envisaged scope of the event. A management structure with indication of tasks and responsibilities is not provided. The HR table is not clear about the tasks. The staff competency cannot be assessed.

The overall budget of 113.000 € seems appropriate for a three day conference.

However, not enough information is given for the detailed budget.

-It is not possible to assess the appropriateness of staff costs without a management structure and indication of tasks and responsibilities. The computation of the staff costs is not realistic: all staff seem to have the same salary and number of work days, regardless of their tasks.

-Travel costs are high. It is likely that this is to cover some of the participants' travel and subsistence, but this is not explained.

-Subcontracting costs are not explained.



17

45









The proposed conference deals with an interesting topic, but the scope of the event is regional (part of Central and Eastern Europe) rather than European and the focus of the conference seems to be on reducing gender inequalities rather than health inequalities between regions. The proposal contains insufficient information and is not sufficiently focused in terms of specific objectives and target audience. The planning of the events, follow-up and evaluation are not sufficiently elaborated and organisational capacity is not sufficiently demonstrated. The overall budget seems appropriate for the event but not enough information is given in the detailed budget to justify the costs.

No

0

0.00





101,174.00

101174 Acronym: ITB Conference Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

International Tissue Banking Conference



09/12/2008

6


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Fundació Privada Institut de Formació Contínua de la Universitat de Barcelona

IL3-UB

Private


Spain


Technical and biomedical advances have resulted in rapid growth in the need for human tissue allografts, and as a result, there is a vast need for effective programs of tissue donation, tissue donor screening, tissue recovery and processing around the world.

Emphasis will be giving at the development of public support, willingness to donate, obtaining consent, donor evaluation and testing, tissue processing and distribution.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

25 300

5 500

0

4 650

26 550

9 200

4 984

Incomes

76 184

38 092

20 592

17 500

0

76 184










Note

12

10

Comments

The content is very relevant and will hopefully promote cells and tissue donation. It is important to stress that one of the main objectives with the planned activity is to help implementing the directive EG 2004/23/EC in the MS.

The activity is not very innovative and perhaps more of a training course than a conference, but it is still very relevant. It is covered in general terms by the health programme but not by any of the specific priorities in the Work Plan for 2008.

The Commission is organising a very similar course on October using similar methodology. Overlap with that activity should be avoided – or the initiatives could possibly be combined.

REALLOCATION TO 3.2.2 OF WORK PLAN 2008/1.2 IN APPLICATION

RECOMMENDED

There could be more than just 40 participants. The conference should invite candidate countries, since export and import of tissues and cells within the EU and to third country is a very important issue to discuss.

Invitations should be sent to the Competent Authorities dealing with implementation of the EU directives in this area. It would also be helpful to invite some representatives of organ organisations with regard to the close links between these fields.





10

42

Note



10

12

9

The European dimension should benefit from opening up the participation as described above. If possible, tissue banking organisations from other areas of

Europe than those mentioned should be engaged.

The evaluation process is well described but the indicators are not sufficiently elaborated. Could some quantitative targets be set?

Comments

The planning is professional, but the time-table should be seen to as it may not be realistic. Early notice is important to attract relevant participants – especially when addressing health care professionals.

This is a well known organisation with a good structure and excellent competence in the field, although this could have been described in some more detail.

(3) Overall and detailed budget 13

The budget is realistic but unit costs should be checked. The budget should allow for a higher number of participants.



34

76






This proposal is recommended for co-financing provided that the possible overlap with activities planned by the Commission are investigated and necessary changes made to avoid duplication (alternatively the activities should be combined).

The proposal addresses an activity which may be closer to an educational activity than to a conference but is clearly relevant and useful for the MS. Participation could have been widened to cover more MS and aceeding/neighbouring countries, since safety of imported cells and tissues is an important issue.

The timetable may be optimistic and should be reviewed, since it is important to advertise the activity well in advance.

The budget is reasonable but unit costs should be checked. It seems possible to expand the number of participants within the budget to improve the impact of the course to approximately 60.

Possible overlaps with other EU activities should be investigated and modifications in the content or target groups addressed should be made if necessary.

The budget should be revised to allow for more (60) participants.




No

0

0.00





101,180.00

101180 Acronym: W&H Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

WOMAN AND HEALTH IN THE XXIst CENTURY



17/03/2009

12


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

INSTITUTO DE LA MUJER DE LA REGION DE MURCIA (ES)

IMRM

Public


Spain


TO COMPLEMENT, SUPPORT AND ADD VALUE TO THE POLICIES OF THE MEMBER STATES AND CONTRIBUTE TO INCREASED

SOLIDARITY AND PROSPERITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION BY PROTECTING AND PROMOTING HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY

AND BY IMPROVING PUBLIC HEALTH.

TO GENERATE AND DISSEMINATE HEALTH INFORMATION ABOUT THE DISEASES AND ILLNESS RELATED TO FEMALE GENDER,

AND MORE SPECIFICALLY IN THE XXIst CENTURY, AS WELL AS TO SPREAD THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE BEST PRACTICES IN

THIS FIELD.

TO CREATE A CONTACT FORUM WHERE DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES, PROFESSIONALS AND SPECIFIC BODIES COULD TAKE

THE CHANCE TO CREATE FURTHER COOPERATIONS UNDER THE HEALTH PROGRAMME FRAMEWORK.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

27 000

42 375

0

0

90 000

30 000

8 000

Incomes

197 375

100 000

71 575

0

25 800

197 375









Note

9

Comments

It could fit with the Community programme but it is surely not a real priority; it is too general.



7

7

Mostly from Spain, no good distribution among MS and not clear who will come from the MS, no description of the network; participation is very broad, but what is the link between all these groups in the same conference with regard to the main topic: it is not explained.

What is the expertise of the people they invite: not clear.

Very local participation (regional and national), invitation of MS seems more a justification to get EU money.

It seems that the applicants invite anybody interested without targeting specific groups.

The EU dimension is mainly assured through the use of a webcam, which is quite weak.


Everything is unclear: the applicants try to explain something on this, but it is difficult to understand what they will do. There is a quality questionnaire but that's all.

The applicants have an evaluation committee which is a nice point but not enough to guarantee a good evaluation and follow-up.

The applicants seem to miss a clear concept of EU added value.



30

Note




8

6

9

Comments

Very sketchy planning. No mention of a call for papers. Timetable is OK. They consider risk analysis. The applicants are not providing information on the preparation of the programme. It is not clear if the conference will be only in Spanish with translation. These kind of elements should be clearly described.

No details, the readers of the application form have to assume that the applicants have the capacity.

Only 2 persons are mentioned in the section on staff; the budget is very high for 100 participants; the travel costs are high (is it planned to fund the lecturers' travels? It is unclear) The subcontracting costs are not detailed. There is no mention of any reason why subcontracting is used.



23

53


It is surely an interesting idea because gender health issues are increasingly important on the EU health agenda but the applicants have to be more specific on the topic, they have to add more EU value and give more details in general.

A policy relevance form done by a Sanco C2 official was presented to the reviewers during the meeting.

see conclusions




No

0

0.00





101,192.00

101192 Acronym: Alcohol Marketing Conference Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

Alcohol Marketing Conference



20/11/2008

10


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Stichting Alcohol Preventie

STAP

Private


Netherlands


The conference proposed addresses one of the priority areas of the European Commission described in the Commission’s Communication, namely: protecting young people against alcohol related harm. There is an increasing body of evidence which shows the harmful effects of exposure to alcohol marketing on drinking behaviour in young people.

( http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/alcohol/documents/alcohol_com_625_en.pdf.) The European Alcohol and Health

Forum prioritizes a focus on alcohol commercial communications by establishing a task force alcohol marketing. It is essential to protect young people to over-exposure to alcohol marketing by effective regulations. The ELSA project, a project coordinated by STAP and co-funded by the EC, shows the lack of information of the adherence of self regulation systems on alcohol marketing and the poor monitoring of alcohol marketing in EU Member States.

The general objective of the Alcohol Marketing Conference is to build capacity at the European and country levels to protect young people against alcohol related harm by: (1) supporting active monitoring of alcohol commercial communications by Public Health NGOs and national government officials in European Member States; and (2) supporting knowledge on trends in alcohol commercial communications, the development of alcohol marketing regulations and effectiveness of existing regulations. The second general objective of the Conference is to support dissemination of health information on the effects of alcohol commercial communication on drinking behaviour in young people and to support knowledge on how to protect young people from harmful effects of alcohol commercial communications.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

8 417

877

0

250

0

6 536

1 126

Incomes

17 206

8 603

5 603

3 000

0

17 206











Note

12

9

9

Comments

The project focuses on an issue that is perceived by many to be an influential factor in the alcohol consumption of young people: marketing communication. The relevance of the conference for the implementation of the EU Alcohol Strategy is high since it provides an opportunity of assessing voluntary approaches towards restricting advertising to children and youth. Marketing communication and youth is an important topic of the European Alcohol Forum; more than 70 commitments have been made by members of the forum for action in this field. The conference could provide a forum for discussion and knowledge and exchangeof good practice, and assessment of trends in commercial communication, as well as outcomes of voluntary action in comparison with legislative measures in the filed of alcohol marketing. By doing so and by issuing a conference report and conclusions it could have an impact on future developments in this area.

Expected participants are from the governments, academic institutes and NGOs. It would be recommendable to invite young people's organizations because of the relevance of this topic to them, and also media people. Minimum terms of geographical coverage is not specified.

The number of expected participants is not given: 20 governmental organizations being invited (why not 27?), plus NGOs, plus academic institutions.

Broad representation of countries expected from all parts of EU. There is no written strategy on participation but some activities are foreseen - leaflets distributed in advance and networks informed -. The participation of the network of STAP would present an advantage, but there is no assurance.

The project addresses an issue which is under discussion in the EU Alcohol and

Health Forum; it is of high strategic relevance, and has an EU dimension although they focus on the North West EU. The project can be expected to make a substantial contribution to policy development in this area.

Follow up and evaluation of the conference by participants is planned. The outcome is not being evaluated; this should have been desirable (i.e. in terms of impact).




8

38

Note




8

6

9

Comments

No exact planning. One would want to know if there would be any other forms of exchanging knowledge and information beside oral presentations. Workshops are mentioned in the summery but no further details are given (how many, for whom...)

Training pre-sessions could be considered, poster presentations, launch of any relevant publications. For information, good practice and knowledge exchange, ex-cathedra presentations are least effective. Opportunities for real exchange between participants should be identified in the timetable.

Risk analysis does incorporate solutions to the potential risk of a too limited participation.

Deliverables realistic but the risk analysis is weak. A declaration of honour is missing.

The competence of the agency is evident from its description. Unclear how the work will be done. No sub contracting? The conference has a manager and a coordinator and an administrative assistant - their tasks are not defined. Is there going to be organizing committee, who will decide on presentations/presenters....?

Decision-making is probably satisfactory given the size of the conference. A conference committe should have been set up to draft the agenda.

Budged OK, except that it is not clear how the income will be generated by the conference - sponsors or participation fee ? - for whom on what bases, what amount?

Participation fees could represent and additional risk factor in terms of participation.

A minimun number should have been predicted.



23

61









The conference would be a good and needed opportunity to exchange views on alcohol marketing, and voluntary restrictions. However, the organizer should be advised to pay more attention to organization of the event in terms of providing enough opportunity for exchange of experience. Not asking a fee for conference participation would be highly recommended to avoid biased participation.

Geographical distribution of participants could be an issue which would diminish the

EU dimension of the conference. Additionally it is recommended to include activities during the conference for people from Eastern EU and from wine-producing countries.

A timetable should be specified and other fundamental key issues are missing. More effort should be made for the overall application. It will be important to clarify the relation with ongoing EU projects.

0

No

0

0.00





101,202.00

101202 Acronym: CliRPaS Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Clinical risk perception and patient safety assessment. Can citizens assess the exposure to clinical risks?



13/02/2009

12

Centre for Clinical Risk Management and Patient Safety

CRM centre

Public


Italy


The presentation and discussion of the international state of the art on clinical risk perception and on the assessment of patient safety initiatives is the general objective of the conference. In particular, there will be an open discussion between the point of view of citizens, healthcare professionals and administrators on the current activities for patient safety, considering outputs and outcomes as they are perceived by the different stakeholders.

The conference has then the objective to give a wide picture of the different perception of clinical risk between healthcare workers and citizens, taking into account the gap between doctors and patients in knowledge of the process, personal experience and state of health during the clinical pathway. The available literature on this topic shows a considerable difference in the evaluation of factors contributing to an adverse event between doctors and patients. The latter tend to attribute the cause mainly to lack of communication, to paternalism and inborn self-referentiality of medicine, while the former to the workload. Available data on sentinel events seem to confirm the interpretation of patients, where communication is reported as the most frequent root cause of sentinel events. Actually, the standards and values at the base of these contrasting judgements need to be appraised and discussed in order to share operational models and indicators to assess patient safety in a way that makes sense to healthcare workers, managers and citizens.

The conference has a specific focus on safety in organs and tissues transplant. After a severe sentinel event happened in 2007 in Tuscany due to a system failure, where 3 patients received organs from an HIV positive donor, an official enquiry was carried out with a commission of international experts. After the enquiry a regional and national plan for patient safety in transplant was launched. The conference will be an occasion to evaluate the first results of this plan.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

40 000

50 000

10 000

20 000

50 000

30 000

10 000

Incomes

210 000

100 000

70 000

30 000

10 000

210 000











Note

12

Comments

The conference is relevant to the Health Programme. The applicants chose to refer the proposal to the objective in the Work Plan labelled Improve citizens’ security where patient safety is briefly mentioned. However, there are not any specific priorities on risk perception or patients’ abilities to assess clinical risks in the Work

Programme 2008.

Since the conference in part builds on the recent case of HIV transmission to an organ recipient it has some connection to the subobjective on human substances in the Work Plan. Exactly what the applicants want to achieve with the conference is not clear. There has already been a lot of activities in this area, and for this reason the added value of the proposal is questionable.

10

10

This is a fairly big conference with delegates from Europe and overseas. A lot of interesting people are invited but have they accepted to participate? The conference will only last for 1,5 days. Approximately 200 participants may take part, but the calculated number of people from some organisations seems unrealistic. The participants represent a relevant selection – but only transplant organisations from the South of Europe are represented.

The conference mainly targets Italy, although experts will be invited from several countries. This makes the European dimension unclear. To be successful in reaching the objectives of the conference, a wider involvement of member states would have been preferable.


The evaluation of the conference could have been further elaborated, even if the methods described are relevant, using both web-site and documents. The structured feedback to the participants is an asset.



43

Note




12

8

12

Comments

This is a professional arrangement with interactive sessions, using a Delphi-type method for setting of priorities based on the conference’s outcomes. Although the subject addressed – clinical risk perception and safety assessment – has been extensively addressed this is an interesting approach. The planning is generally well described and reasonable.

The competence of the organisers is not well described (apart from giving the CV of the director), but they are experienced in organising conferences. Otherwise descriptions of the organisation seem adequate.

The budget seems fairly relevant although quite large for a conference of this kind.

The high travel costs are apparently due to the large number of experts to be invited. Also staff costs might possibly be reduced since there are a fair number of working hours allocated to high-level people.



32

75


The outlined conference is interesting in many aspects but is still not recommended for co-funding. The main reason is that the conference is covered by the Health

Programme in more general terms only, and does not address any of the specific priorities. Furthermore the objectives are not sufficiently clear, and the innovative value, as well as the European dimension of the proposal remain unclear.

Also the participation of the experts and organisations mentioned in the proposal would have needed to be further analysed. It is not evident if there already is some form of acceptance as to participate, or if the described participation only represents plans of the organiser.



No

0










101,203.00

101203 Acronym: EBPF09 Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

European Brain Policy Forum – A Focus on Depression and the European Society



25/02/2009

10


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

European Brain Council

EBC

Private


Belgium


The project fits within the objectives of the Programme, as it aims at organising a Conference, to be held in Brussels, focusing on depression, which is today among the most pressing public health concerns, affecting about 2–10% of European citizens. By the year 2020, depression is expected to be the highest ranking cause of disease in the developed world. The socio-economic costs of depression for society as a whole, not just to the health system, are considerable, approximately equivalent to 1% of Gross Domestic Product. The general objective of the Conference is to foster a debate on depression, by engaging all stakeholders and targeting groups such as patients, carers, healthcare professionals, media, scientists and industry.

Among its topics, the Conference will include presentations on: patients' real life experiences, impact on the family, burden and cost, causes, strategies for medical and psychosocial treatment, prevention of depression and suicide, importance of the media, depression in children and adolescent, proposal for future strategies, etc.

The Conference, in line with Area 3.3.3.1 of the Annual Work Programme, will play an important role in:

- disseminating information on the causes, diagnosis, prevention and treatment of depression, thus promoting a healthy lifestyle and improved societal environment (obj. 1);

- creating recommendations and guidelines, integrating the prevention of depression into training and practice of health professionals and professionals in social services (obj. 2);

- understanding the impact of the disease on society through the experience of patients, relatives and carers, thus identifying best practices to eliminate stigma and ensure social inclusion (obj. 3);

- contributing to the policy debate within relevant European and national institutions and among the stakeholders (obj. 4).





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

29 000

11 648

0

0

69 500

71 902

12 744

Incomes

194 794

93 394

0

21 400

80 000

194 794










Note

7

6

Comments

The conference is mostly dealing with dissemination of information on diagnosis, treatment and prevention of depression.

This is a pertinent topic affecting widely the population. However it is almost purely a medical conference. The psycho-social and Public Health aspects are missing out while the quality on biomedical field is good.

If the applicants find a way to transform the event into a Public Health event, it could be acceptable.

The participation is mixing up different Public Health stakeholders and is mixing up different kind of public (patients, journalists…) with no clear justification to do so.



6

7

There is an EU wide dimension but no specifications and no details. On the other hand there is no reason to doubt about the capacity of the applicants to get the expected audience, mostly made by scientists.

There is some evaluation, easy going but no real follow up. The applicants will try to put the topic in the political agenda but there is no information on how they will do that. The involvement of policy decision makers could have an added value on the local level but probably not EU wide.



26

Note




6

6

5

Comments

The timetable difficult to follow, there is no info on the distribution of the tasks even for a "one partner" proposal, the risks are mentioned but there are no solutions proposed, there is no description of the organisation of the conference in itself.

The milestones are defined but are rather generic.

The applicants are certainly very good in their field, but the organisational capacity is poorly described in the application.

Overall the budget is too high and has to be decreased.

Other external resources are not specified and as the industry seems involved it is not acceptable.

Subcontracting costs are too high.

The "other costs" category has to be detailed and explained.



17

43


The programme of the conference has to be improved taking more into account the

Public Health issues.

Due to the link with pharmaceutical industry presented in the proposal, the external funding has to be detailed and explained in order to guarantee the absence of conflict of interest for the applicants.

The budget has to be decreased and more information has to be given.


The evaluators suggest to the applicants to try next year taking into account the comments done here.




No

0

0.00





101,206.00

101206 Acronym: WBMB Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

Where Bioscience meets Biosecurity



22/05/2009

12


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

-

Science Alliance

Private


Netherlands


The risk that research knowledge may fall into wrong hands to pose a biologic threat to public health and national security makes that there is growing interest in biosecurity. The issue about biosecurity is more than only prevention. Not only for policy makers and politicians is the topic of great relevance, also in the scientific field is the issue subject of increasing debate. Security measures cause limitations and restrictions for research, while for research and innovation freedoms are required. As laws are created, bioscientific knowledge is hardly used in the process and informed academic knowledge is needed.

Science Alliance has the aim to organise an interdisciplinary conference where these issues will be addressed. A focus will be on how health information and knowledge can be disseminated in a functional way, without creating false security. The rising awareness of biosecurity has led to many regulations, but do they really provide people with more knowledge and a stronger sense of safety?

The general objective of the conference is to organise a well- informed interdisciplinary debate with a focus on the balance of prevention and freedom. The aim of the conference is to address this topic on a global level in order to connect European initiatives with global initiatives. Especially since the threat is not European only, but has a worldwide dimension. We try to fine tune our activities with the BTWC support office in Geneva to realize an as informed debate as possible and to ensure a leading role for the EU.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

41 250

10 750

3 250

24 650

57 150

29 000

12 500

Incomes

178 550

89 000

0

20 550

69 000

178 550












Note

7

7

7

6

Comments

The conference is relevant for the Health Programme and its Work Plan 2008.

Although it does not clearly target any specific action it is in line with the first strand and its first objective (3.2. Improve citizen's health security; 3.2.1. Protect citizens against health threats; 3.2.1.1. and 3.2.1.2.). The applicant has however refered the project to Health Information, Exchange of knowledge and best practice.

The proposal's description of the content and expected results of the conference is incomplete an very general, making the relevance somewhat difficult to evaluate.

Participation is not sufficiently described, although a list of organisations to be invited is provided. This is however very general. Many stakeholders are missing, such as the ECDC, US Global Health, national Health authorities, etc., as well as representatives for veterinary sciences, environmental health, among others. This issue should have been further analysed and developed. The event is plannned for

250 participants.

References are made to the European Union, and participants will be invited from

EU27 (as well as from other countries) but by and large the EU dimension is not well described.

There is no follow-up and evaluation methodology. The subject is discussed, some issues are touched, but there is not any description of a methodology of follow-up.

The use of a questionnaire focusing mainly on logistical aspects of the conference and the use of this information to evaluate the working methods used is not considered to be sufficient. Indicators are not given. This part needs further development.



27

Note


Comments

The planning of the conference is described in very general terms. The methodology is discussed and several issues are commented, but milestones and monitoring are not clearly described. The list of deliverables is also too unspecific. The nature and distribution of tasks is not enough described, and there are no financial circuits indicated. The timetable is difficult to interpret but may be too optimistic with the number of staff given. The task seems large to be managed by the indicated staff.

It is not clear why the Risk analysis discusses the risks of locating a conference to

Asia.



5

7

The information given is not sufficient to evaluate the competence of the staff, although the organisation seems to be experienced in arranging conferences - but perhaps more so in other scientific areas. Issues on management structure, responsibilities, decision making, monitoring and supervision are discussed in a general way only.

The budget seems by and large relevant, balanced and consistent with the outline of the work. Some costs related to consumables, subcontracting and 'other costs' are not easily interpreted. It is not clear how the incomes are calculated or which sources they will come from. Costs to cover travel costs for participants from countries or organisations with limited possibilities to travel on their own expenses would have been valuable to include.



19

46






Although the area addressed is very important and there may well be a need to discuss the topics which the conference targets, this proposal is not recommended for co-funding due to the following:

* There is a general lack of sufficiently detailed information in the proposal on a range of issues concerning both the planning and the content of the event.

* A range of important stakeholders should be involved, such as the ECDC, other

European institutions and the Commission.

* The evaluation strategy is not adequate.

* The added value from an European perspective is not clear.

* The budget needs further explanations, especially regarding incomes.




No

0

0.00





101,214.00

101214 Acronym: HIV and Universal Access Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support in Europe: strengthen the role of civil society



09/05/2009

7

Stichting Aids Fonds ~ Soa Aids Nederland

SANL

Private


Netherlands


The general objective of the conference is to strengthen the role of civil society in achieving universal access to prevention, treatment, care and support in Europe by facilitating exchange, identifying challenges, and defining how NGOs can play a more effective role. The conference aims to identify and reduce inequalities affecting meaningful civil society involvement towards universal access in the European

Region and will thus actively contribute to reaching multiple objectives of the Second Health Program.

Leadership by governments and full and active involvement of civil society, including PLHIV and other stakeholders is key in achieving universal access. Without it, the commitment agreed at the 2006 UNGASS High Level meeting to universal access by 2010 and the

Millennium Development Goal of halting and beginning to reverse the HIV epidemic by 2015 won't be reached. Participation of NGOs and specialised networks must be encouraged and intensified, in line with Dublin, Vilnius, and Bremen Declarations, UNGASS & Dublin review, recently organised EECAAC conference and the EU health programme. This is the moment to unite civil society and timely involve them in the common endeavour of reaching political commitments (UNGASS 2010, IAC 2010, EECAAC 2010).

In the 2008 report of a major review on implementing the Dublin Declaration on Partnership to Fight HIV/AIDS in Europe and Central Asia,

WHO and UNAIDS alert us that our region is now undergoing the world’s fastest growth of HIV prevalence. The 2008 UNGASS report confirms the alarming situation in Europe. Rightfully, the EU Health Programme 2008-2013 warns that HIV is becoming a health threat to all people in Europe. Access to prevention, treatment, care and support remains a challenge that needs action on a European level, especially for vulnerable groups such as men having sex with men, drug users, sex workers and migrants. For them, often marginalized and criminalized by society, HIV is a disproportional burden.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

29 222

6 518

0

600

20 988

133 170

13 335

Incomes

203 833

100 000

0

0

103 833

203 833











Note

13

12

12

Comments

This conference is in line with the WP 3.3.3.3 priority area, addressing important chapters of the Commission's HIV action plan and could deliver a critical reflection on how and why universal access is most probably to be missed. The expected results would be important but the organisers should include a session where Ngo's undergo a critical reflection of their contribution to failing universal access to prevention, treatment and care. The description of the conference gives more the impression of a standard monitoring event than of a meeting seeking solutions and improvements. The goals of the conference are not very clear, and no targeted outcomes are described. Under certain conditions this conference may contribute to a more streamlined way forward towards common goals in Europe.

Good narrative, potentially there will be the involvement of large community of stakeholders, however there is no a clear specification of the MS represented, nor the clear criteria how the different stakeholders will be involved: NGOs, Health authorities, etc.

The organisers should address better how to include critical issues and voices and not assemble the usual stakeholders to come up with more recommendations and papers (e.g. the HIV 2007 testing conference). The NGOS assemble a group of

NGOs representing at least 44 countries from the EU region, but no clear identification of those countries is provided (it is assumed that more than half of the

EU Member States are represented).

The monitoring and evaluation was considered too generic, with not clear set of indicators defined.





10

47

Note

13



8

11

Comments

Well described milestones', including risk analysis and the organisation of the event, but the timeline was considered too short (7M).

Competence of staff and organisation capacity seems beyond doubt; however the human resources table seems underestimated in terms of staff involvement, especially the financial officer.

The application does not allow the analysis of the detailed budget. The budget for

'other cost' was considered oversized. There is no precise indication of how many participants will receive scholarships. The amount of other external resources source was not defined, the evaluators presumed that it will come from the pharmaceutical industry and should have been acknowledged.



32

79






The expected results can be important, but the organisers should include a session where Ngo's undergo a critical reflection on their contribution to failing universal access to prevention, treatment and care.

The description of the conference gives more the impression of a standard monitoring event instead of a meeting seeking solutions and improvements. The goals of the conference are not very clear, and there were no target outcomes, the impression is that the event will be more a discussion how to monitor achievements and progress and not a forum to define clear perspectives for actions and policy developments. This conference may contribute to a more streamlined way forward towards common goals in Europe.

More details about the proportion of the different participants should be included, to avoid an exclusive NGO's meeting. The applicants need to provide information about the other external resources. The preparatory phase before the conference should allow the elaboration of the Action Plan by a committee of experts, which will be sent to the participants before the event. Later, in a plenary session the participants should be able to make amendments, before the final adoption of a conference recommendation.

The goals of the conference should be clearly stated, defining target outcomes. The event should not be just another forum for discussion how to monitor achievements and progress and but a momentum to define clear perspectives for actions and policy developments. This conference may contribute to a more streamlined way forward towards common goals in Europe. The expected results will be important, when the organisers include a session where Ngo's undergo a critical reflection on their contribution to failing universal access to prevention, treatment and care. More details about the proportion of the different categories of participants should be included, to avoid an exclusive NGO's meeting. The applicants need to provide the information about the other external resources. The preparatory phase before the conference should allow the elaboration of the Action Plan by a committee of experts, which will be sent to the participants before the event. Later, in a plenary session the participants should be able to make amendments, before the final adoption of a conference recommendation.




No

0

0.00





101,235.00

101235 Acronym: PM_prevention Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Urban Particulate Matter exposure in Europe: novel evaluation, prevention and risk communication methods



19/06/2009

12

Department of Public Health and Microbiology - University of Turin

DSPM

Public


Italy


Ambient air particulate matter (PM) is a heterogeneous and complex mixture made up liquid and solid particles with an aerodynamic diameter below 100 µm. It originates either as primary particles emitted directly into the atmosphere, or as secondary particles. These latest are produced from atmospheric chemical reactions between precursor gases (coagulation) or between these gases and primary particles

(condensation). The most widely utilised indicator for PM pollution is PM10, this is the PM inhalable fraction which is the part able to exceed the first breathable system barriers. The coarse mode of particles, or PM10-2.5, contains particles having aerodynamic diameters between

2.5 µm and 10 µm. The fine mode of ambient PM, designated as PM2.5, is defined as comprising those particles having aerodynamic diameters below 2.5 µm, this PM fraction is part of PM10 and it is able to overtake the alveolar lung region where blood exchange takes place and, for this reason, it represents the high-risk breathable fraction of the inhalable fraction. A subcomponent of the fine mode is ultra fine particles (UFPs) - particles having diameters below 0.1 µm; however, most of the PM2.5 mass is about in particles above the ultra fine cut-off size. The conference aim -with an international dimension - is to discuss the air pollution health impact assessment. This meeting is an important occasion to communicate and to discuss among experts from different discipline approaches. The epidemiologic data, the qualitative and quantitative evaluation on particulate matter from different European Region were treated and evaluated. Moreover the quality assessment of this environmental matrix by chemical and biological models is focused. The objective is a collaborative comparison of the recent technical and scientific knowledges to prepare prevention and communication strategies in Europe. This theme is priority for the European people, and this event could generate and improvement knowledge.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

81 120

0

3 300

2 630

43 230

51 480

12 723

Incomes

194 483

94 613

81 120

18 750

0

194 483












Note

5

8

10

7

Comments

The main scope of the conference is to discuss a set of indicators for PM in the urban context to improve risk assessment and risk communication. Although, the topic is very important given the relationship between PM concentration and health risk, it has to be noted that ambient air quality is not a priority in the work plan 2008.

The conference is not expected to have any impact on DG SANCO policies.

Very vaguely described participants; contradictory information given in different parts of proposal.

In 3.2. they mention multi-disciplinary approach, but later only experts from environmental health, environmental epidemiology, general public heath are mentioned. Only estimated numbers are provided as the conference is clearly at beginning stage of planning

They should have a plan to enlarge participation. The topic is considered interesting enough to attract a larger audience.

Formally they do involve the whole Europe, but participants are limited to specific discipline, what is in contrast to aim and title of the conference. They should have a method to include broader EU audience including 'new' EU countries.

There is a plan to form a Scientific committe to govern the conference but not clear measures given. At least a tentative committee should already have been organized. Follow up and evaluation is not address other than in general terms. How this conference enhance the current state of the art ? this has not been stated.

Having said the fact that it is an 'open conference' on the topic is acknowledged.



30

Note




10

7

8

Comments

All is on plan level; it looks like they will not do the conference in case they do not get the funding from DG SANCO. Timetable starts with signature of the contract.

There is a risk analysis, little is known on financial circuits, methodology, deliverables, products of the conference.

The timetable could work but the risk analysis is superficial.

Organisation will leave most of the work to a subcontractor to manage the practicalities of the conference. Scientific capacity is described but not the organisational one.

The main organizers are described more as of their scientific capacity, not as of organizational capacity to run this conference. Little is given on decision making, monitoring and supervision

The overall cost acceptable, but has not been done with the carefulness that should have been required. The roles of staff have not been specify neither equipment cost and 'other' cost.



25

55


The overall topic is important and the enterprise is worthwile in the sense that it could open the discussion of PM rather to other stakeholders than the networks and project fora. However the scope should be clarified and more attention should have been paid to the planning. The applicant is strongly encurage to improve the application and to seek funding from other EU programmes (i.e DG Environment)




No

0

0.00


Proposal number:




101,239.00

101239 Acronym: ICENEAN 2008


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS - THE ERA OF NEW ECONOMY AND NEW JOBS: STRESS

AND MOBBING



10/11/2008

9

Udruga Split zdravi grad (Association Split Healthy City)

ASHC

Private


Croatia


The general goal of this conference is fully compatible with the Public Health 2008-2013 programme, Work Plan for 2008 and its priorities and objectives.

Namely the focus of the conference covers the issues of health promotion, health information and knowledge sharing with a special emphasis of the health issues within the rapidly changing and globalized world of work. The conference addresses the health effects of social and environmental determinants at the contemporary workplaces with special emphasis on human relations, social interactions and conditions that are among health key factors (stress, overwork, mobbing, physical activity, nutrition and work, family-work balance, IT & health). The conference invites and stimulates involvement of new/non-traditional factors for health in sustained, cooperative and ethically sound actions, both at regional or local level and across participating countries. This includes the public sector, the private sector and civil society organizations whose primary aims are not limited to public health.

The conference aims to enhance the capacity of professionals and organizations to obtain and generate knowledge and best practices, and secondly to connect organizations and individuals, locally and globally, in order to facilitate knowledge sharing and dialogue.

Long-term goal of the conference is to stimulate existing and new expert networks dealing with the issues of health and the world of work to join their efforts in informing and educating relevant target groups (employees of public health institutions, syndicate leaders, entrepreneurs, judges, solicitors etc.) on the impacts and interactions of new economy and new jobs with the mental and physical health of both those presently employed or those to be employed in the future in order to lower the specific health risks of the contemporary workplaces and thus to contribute to the productivity, life quality and healthy life years of individuals and organizations.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

58 040

16 000

4 000

8 000

126 000

12 000

12 100

Incomes

236 140

100 000

6 500

59 500

70 140

236 140









Note Comments

The proposal deals with an issue (occupational health) which, although not fitting exactly with one of the priorities of the 2008 WP, has public health relevance, especially as it relates to a holistic approach to mental health. It needs to be clarified whether conference proposals could deal in a more horizontal way with cross-cutting issues which are not as such addressed by specific priorities in the WP

4




8

13

10

Positive aspects: representation of a more than sufficient number of MS and also the involvement of expert networks in the field. Negative: the total number of participants might not be sufficient for the impact the conference, especially as we do not know at what level and how effective will the MS participation will be (2 per

MS)

Comprehensive coverage of EU MS; a recurrent question concerning all conference proposals, is to know whether the proposed participants will really make it. This is linked to the fact that, although this is not the first conference to be organized by the applicant, it is the first one in the specific field and therefore it is not an already established event

Adequate information has been provided in terms of evaluation. The creation of a think-tank is a positive feature, but there are doubts as to how this can be implemented. This is objectively a difficult endeavour and if more information could have been provided it would have helped better appreciate this point



35

Note


Comments

General information is there (timetable, milestones, proceedings, risk analysis).

There are some caveats: time allocated to evaluation of scientific papers too short, even though this is identified as a risk. In general, the timetable is too short/ optimistic.





8

10

28

63

The organization has previous experience, albeit in other but still relevant fields

Although there is not sufficient information on specific budget items and the applicant is not requested to provide such information, the budget is too important, at least for the currently expected level of participation (150 persons).


The proposal is recommended for funding: it deals with an issue (occupational health) which, although not fitting exactly with one of the priorities of the 2008 WP, has public health relevance, especially as it relates to a holistic approach to mental health. It needs to be clarified whether conference proposals could deal in a more horizontal way with cross-cutting issues which are not as such addressed by specific priorities in the WPThe budget is too important, at least for the currently expected level of participation (236.000€ for 150 persons=1.500€/ person). A higher number of participants needs to be ensured.

Also, specific budget items need to be checked during the negotiation phase (i.e.

subcontracting). Finally, the possibility of reviewing the timetable should be explored, in order to give more time to scientific preparation and review of submitted papers.

Recommended for funding: No







0

0.00





101,243.00

101243 Acronym: ENHW Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Homelessness and Access to Healthcare - a European perspective on obstacles and good practice



20/02/2009

8

Health Service Executive

HSE

Public


Ireland


The conference objective relates to both priority number 2 (to promote health, including the reduction of health inequalities) and priority 3 (to generate and disseminate health information and knowledge) of the Second Health Programme. It aims at bringing together relevant stakeholders involved in the design, implementation and evaluation of health policy measures aimed at ensuring access to health of the most vulnerable and excluded groups of the population, in particular people who are homeless.

Health is a key determinant for individual well being and participation in society. Ill health conditions can be both the cause and result of social and housing exclusion. Health related issues (such as mental illness, substance- abuse or illness leading to loss of employment) are often among the trigger factors that lead to homelessness; once in a situation of homelessness, a variety of health problems may result

(exposure to infectious illness, mental health problems, development or aggravation of substance-abuse and addiction, problems resulting from an unsanitary or overcrowded environment). These health problems may make it harder to break out of a cycle of homelessness.

Moreover, accessing health care services is often very problematic, including as a result of stigmatisation, and may imply very late recourse to care.

Following FEANTSA's conference on the right to health in 2006 and the growing interest/demand among EU health professionals working in the area of homelessness for information and exchange, a European Network of Homeless Health Workers (ENHW) has been set up in

2007. This multidisciplinary initiative is underpinned by 2 aims: to be a virtual forum for exchange and mutual learning; to foster support and solidarity among health care professionals working with people who are homeless across Europe and beyond. The conference will build on this initiative and allow for people to meet for the first time, thus creating potential for further cooperation.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

14 640

40 612

0

8 900

0

6 900

4 973

Incomes

76 025

38 013

30 012

8 000

0

76 025












Note

11

8

10

7

Comments

The conference objective is related to both priority number (to promote health, including the reduction of health inequalities) and the priority number 3 (to generate and disseminate health information and knowledge). However the focus seems to be too narrow and limited to Ireland. It is not clear if this is an EU conference, but aims at having stakeholders to participate and discuss relevant issues, related to homeless people and to develop clear recommendations that can be used everywhere.

The number of participants is low and the profile of participants is not clear.The

proportion of participants from Ireland and England is too high. While it is normal to get more participants from the organisation country, in this case it seems to be excessive ,if they intend to celebrate an international conference. Also it is not clear what are the criteria for the selection and distribution of participants (It is based on the countries with more homeless? with more inequalities of health?)

Are there homeless invited to the event?

The conference aims at having participants from the entire EU. However the number of participants is low and there is no guarantee that people from all countries will attend.

Follow up is described in a very general way. The evaluation methodology mentions only some quantitative indicators. It is necessary to incorporate quantitative and qualitative indicators about the process, the outcomes and the impact. Measuring participant's satisfaction is important, but not enough.

For a conference that wants to influence EU strategy it will be necessary to measure the outcomes and the impact.

The applicants seem to have capacity to organize this kind of events.

The idea of create a network is considered a positive point.



36

Note


Comments

The timetable seems adequate. The methodology to organize the event is described in a general way. A preliminary programme and the duration of the conference are not given. As well it would be interesting to know the profile of speakers.

It is considered a good point that they mention a steering group, but there is no scientific committee to ensure the quality of the conference. The distribution of tasks should be specified. It is necessary to give more details about the deliverables and the financial circuits.

Risk analysis needs to be better elaborated and include the risk of low quality of the communications.



8

8

The organisers and their management structure seem to be adequate to perform the organization, since previously they have organized a number of events. The staff competences lead to believe that necessary skills are there to ensure a conference success. However the responsibilities are not clear and the process of decision making is not explained.

The overall budget seems to be overestimated and it is not well described. They should include grants for participants from ONG's. How many ONG's are invited?

The travel cost seems to be very high. It should be clarified: why the applicants need all these trips when the conference will be held in their own country?



26

62









This conference addresses an important topic, as it is homeless and health. It is not clear if this is an EU conference, but aims at having stakeholders to participate and discuss relevant issues, related to homeless people and to develop clear recommendations that can be used everywhere.

It is not sure that conferences were the best tool handles this problem. It is stated that one good approach will be doing a systematic and comparative epidemiological study in EU, which provides us the information that is lacking about this population:

E.g. the number of homeless in EU, their profiles and health status.

However the panel considers the topic very relevant and that the conference should be co- founded, if it is assured that is an international conference and has an impact.


- It is really an international conference with a sufficient and equilibrate number of participants and speakers from most of the MS's

- Increase the number of participants;

- The profile of the speakers and participants should be specified;

- The impact should be evaluated and assured;

- The risk analysis should be better addressed;

- Have a scientific Committee;

- The budget should be balanced.

No

0

0.00





101,249.00

101249 Acronym: HEART DISEASE CONFERENCE Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON CONGENITAL HEART DISEASE



06/02/2009

6


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

THE ASSOCIATION OF PARENTS AND FRIENDS OF CHILDREN WITH HEART DISEASE

THE ASS. FOR HEART CHILDREN CY

Private


Cyprus


TO INVITE MEDICAL SPECIALISTS IN ORDER TO PRESENT THEIR RESEARCH FINDINGS ON CHD AND TO SHARE THEIR

KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE ON MEDICAL PROGRESS IN THE FIELD.

TO VIEW AND COMPARE HOW PEOPLE WITH CHD ARE TREATED SOCIALLY AND MEDICALLY IN EUROPE. MORE

SPECIFICALLY, TO COPARE AND CONTRAST EXPERIENCES, MEDICAL SUPPORT AND SOCIAL SUPPORT IN EUROPEAN

COUNTRIES.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

3 600

6 000

350

3 000

11 000

12 100

2 300

Incomes

38 350

19 175

19 175

10 000

0

48 350









Note

7

Comments

Network development, patients' information and CVD fit with the PHP and work plan but the conference is very narrow in term of countries and objectives. The objective is vague and limited to 1 country. The number of expected participants really low.

The expected results are unclear.




5

3

4

The idea to invite different kinds of participants is good. But why only doctors and officials from UK and Cyprus and why only people already chosen?

There is no distribution by MS, expertise not really defined (specialists, patients,

NGO, families?)

The European dimension is too vague, not really specified in the project and there is no guarantee of a wide participation. The organisation is not transparent at all.

There is mention of follow up (minutes of the conference, website, forum...) but no real description, there is no evaluation.

No real indicators presented in the form.



19

Note




2

4

6

Comments

There is a sort of timetable but nothing about methodology, tasks distribution, risks analysis, selection of speakers...

A lot of tasks are subcontracted, no clear description of the financial circuits even if the staff involved is small.

No information to identify the capacity.

They seem to have some experience but limited to conferences involving 100 participants and 2 countries and not for the size of the planned conference.

Not really expensive but we don't know what they are doing.

Travel costs are too high and not justified.

A big part of the project is subcontracted.

The budget could be understated in view of the quite extensive follow up planned.



12

31


It is a one country initiative, the target audience is a mix but not really described; they have some capacity but the event is bigger than what they usually use to do.

The added value to get an EU funding is not clear at all.

No DG Sanco evaluation received for this conference.




No

0

0.00





101,255.00

101255 Acronym: WildHealth Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Towards a holistic approach to public health: what do we know about the wildlife - livestock human disease interface in Europe?



10/06/2009

12

Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut

FLI

Public


Germany


The general objectives of the conference are as follows:

1. to highlight the importance of wildlife as a health determinant in the spread of zoonotic diseases

2. to investigate the role of Global Warming for the future emergence and spread of zoonotic diseases through wildlife and livestock

3. to gather and exchange information on the distribution of wildlife in urban areas and its consequences for public health throughout the

European Union

4. to establish a network of professional experts form various fields of expertise (e.g. veterinarians, physicians, epidemiologists, wildlife biologists, ecologists) to collaborate on the creation and establishment of a wildlife disease monitoring and surveillance (M&S)system throughout the European Union, the European Economic Area, Candidate and Neighbouring countries with the aim to establish an

European Early Warning and Response System (EWRS) for emerging zoonotic diseases from wildlife

5. to establish a first database structure for the collection, processing and analysis of such data using available databases as starting point and examples (e.g. the NewFluBird database, the Avian Influenza - Wild Birds database at FLI, etc.)





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

124 000

40 000

0

5 000

10 000

5 000

12 880

Incomes

196 880

96 880

100 000

0

0

196 880










Note

8

11

Comments

The objective of the Conference is relevant for the Health Programme (action 1.1.1) and in accordance with the objectives of the Work Plan 2008, where it can be attributed to the first strand, Improve Citizen Health Security. It does not specifically address any of the more detailed priorities.

Although zoonotic transmission from wild life may not be a large public health problem today, changes in transmission due to global warming effect and creation of networks of experts in theis field are important to addressed, as well as an Early

Response System for zoonoses. There is however very little information on the content of the conference - as well as on other issues - in the proposal.

The conference is planned for 80 participants. Institutions to be invited are specialized in the area and are of relevant importance. About half of the participants are MS representatives (CVO:s) and other organisations listed in the proposal. It is not quite clear which the others are. Selection criteria for invitation vwould have been an asset. Some important actors like WHO and CDC Atlanta are missing.

The European dimension is adequately addressed by inviting CVO:s from all MS.

The evaluation methology is only vagely described and needs elaboration. A set of indicators is given but should be further defined to be adequate.





14

7

40

Note




9

6

8

Comments

The overall planning seems to be quite good, but there are numberous questionmarks. What is the role of the pre-conference questionnaire? Will all abstracts be accepted or how will they be selected? The timetable seems reasonable. The general methodology used for organising the meeting could have been better described, but has certain advantages like leaving room for changes in staff intensity in case of time constrains.

The risks analysis is adequate but does not address the risk of low participation.

The organisation seems adequate and has organised several international meetings. No examples are however included. The conference leader is experienced in the field of animal health. One additional person is mentioned.

Assumptions as to the qualification of the rest of the staff involved have to be done, since it is not described properly. Staff with competence in public health are not described. A Steering Committee and Organization Committee are mentioned. By and large descriptions are fairly weak.

The budget is difficult to evaluate du to lack of information. Cost do not seem to cover travel for participants (from less privileged countries, which would have been desirable). Staff costs are high. The origin of the applicants contribution is not specified. The amount asked for as co-funding exceeds 50 %. The total budget seems excessive.



23

63


The conference is recomended for cofunding since it addresses a pertinent problem and seems to be well organised, even if there is a general lack of information on a number of issues. The comments given by the reviewers should be carefully taken into account if the event is funded.

It is proposed to reduce the budget as it seems to be overestimated. Despite the reduction, funds should be set aside to cover travel costs for participants who cannot find the means to travel in their own budget. This is highly important to assure full EU coverage.




No

0

0.00





101,257.00

101257 Acronym: N&NReg Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Consumer Regulation in Europe and Abroad- The Challenge to

Regulate the Unknown



19/12/2008

6

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE

EUI

Public


Italy


Nanoscience and -technology (N&N) are research fields of major future importance. Although N&N promises improvement in consumer products, no-one may yet investigate which hazards are involved with N&N. However, according to the precautionary principle, the EU has a treaty obligation to ensure safeguards to lower possible risks evolving from technologies to the most reasonable extend. This need to

“regulate the unknown” causes challenges for Member State and European regulators. The conference shines a light on these issues from a specific consumer interest’s point of view. It will bring legal, economic, political and social scientists with international expertise together in

Florence to discuss and develop consumer policy tools to properly manage chances and risks of N&N. From the consumer’s perspective, this approach is unique and has not been properly researched to date. Because of the indispensable need of such expert conference to deepen the scientific base for policy on the main determinants of health in the EU the EC has issued several action and working plans and provides special funding. Acc. to Sec. 3.2.1. Ann. I of Dec. 2008/170/EC (WP) the EC supports networks that “develop strategies and mechanisms to respond to health threads and emergencies”. It especially covers “identification of additional health threats, such as those posed by physical and chemical agents”. Acc. to its Sec. 3.2.2.3. especially the building up of networks and knowledge of scientific expertise in the field of N&N are eligible for funding. This in-cludes “implementation of International Health Regulation in the EU, including a comparative analysis of the legal provisions of the IHR with the Community acquis” (3.2.1.2. WP). The Call for Conferences stands in line with COM(2005) 243(hereinafter AP). “Consumer Protection” and proposed regulation strategies are therein identified as N&N areas that need specific research (Chapter 6, specifically 6.1. d) and 6.2. of the AP).





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

13 758

28 650

0

0

0

700

0

Incomes

43 108

21 554

16 554

0

5 000

43 108









Note

12

Comments

The proposal is relevant for the health programme and the Work Plan 2008, where it fist the objective in 3.2.2. Improve Citicens' safety. Nanotechnologies are a specific priority for thematic risk arssessment networks, but not for conferences.




8

10

10

Participation (approximately 24 persons) is mainly from academia. Although this group is well suited to discuss the theme of the conference/workshop, consumers are not well represented, although it is their needs that will be discussed. The evaluators also miss other relevant bodies such as the EC Jonit Research Centre.

Participation of broader stakeholder groups, including national authorities and industry's representatives would have improved the value of the conference. Eastern and Southern Europe are poorly represented. Competence in risk assessment and technical issues related to nanotechnology would be important to include.

The initiative is clearly interesting from a European perspective. Participants cover

10 countries and is thus acceptable. It is not obvious from the proposal whether peple from othe rcountries than that of the applicant are part of planning the workshop. Participation is mainly limited to Western Europe, and the group of participants fairly small - perhaps from a previous network?

More details should be given on the follow-up methods. The "EUI's evaluation concept" should be better explained. Traditional questionaires are not very relevant, as the follow-up of interest should rather be the footprints of the workshop in the surrounding world, i.e. evaluation should focus on impact.



40

Note



8

9

Comments

The group is probably well suited to organise the meeting, but a lot of details regarding the planning are missing or not sufficiently described, such as methodology, tools, milestones. Still, the planning seems good enough for a small meeting like this. The risk analysis, concluding simply the absence of risks, would have deserved a bit more attention.

The organisers have good capacity to organise the meeting and have excellent experience. More details on their capacity would however been beneficial.

The budget is by and large relevant. Staff costs seem a bit high due to the fact that a highly paid staff is used in work with the conference.




11

28

68






This conference, or rather ‘work shop’, targets a new and important technology that may have important public health aspects. It is well covered by the Health

Programme and the 2008 Work Plan, although it is not a specific priority. However, the conference tries to cover (too) many different aspects of the matter and should benefit from focussing on a fewer. Furthermore, the application is very brief and there seems to be some inconsistencies between goals, expected achievements and targeted audience. It is generally lacking in detail.

The organisers have high competence and extensive experience in organising conferences.

The participation is a clear area of improvement and should be more representative, bot regarding invited stakeholder groups (including national authorities), and geographical coverage. Southern and Eastern Europe is not well covered in the present proposals. The professional groups invited should include risk assessors and representatives with relevant technical knowledge.

The proposal is not recommended for co-funding in its present form, but would very well be if the applicant improved the level of detail and re-evaluated the list of participants to improve the European dimension and therepresentativity of different stakeholder groups. Regulating nanoscience and nanotechnology will certainly be highly in focus in the years to come.




No

0

0.00





101,268.00

101268 Acronym: EUROMG Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

European Conference on Myasthenia gravis



29/05/2009

12


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS

UPAT

Public


Greece


The general objective of the Conference is to provide quality, relevant scientific information and knowledge, in order to support and advance health support at European, national, sub-national and local level. The Conference aims to provide the ideal environment for a lively discussion on the most recent information on health science and on-going developments in Myasthenia gravis and Related Diseases such as myasthenic syndromes, LEMS, etc. Furthermore, during the meeting a number of Patients' Associations will be invited and a special session will be hosted. Innovative ideas, relevant data and health indicators will be exchanged and the up-to-date information and statistical analysis, produced during the Conference, will be forwarded to as many persons as possible so as the population affected by these diseases will be more informed. It also aims to guide the future work in order to implement a mechanism of achieving the above objectives.

To achieve these goals the project will focus on the following priorities:

- Raising awareness between the Academic and Health Community worldwide, through a strong communication strategy analytically described in the related field below.

- Encourage the local authorities and legal representatives for an active participation.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

20 500

47 000

0

38 000

17 000

5 000

10 000

Incomes

137 500

68 000

3 500

60 000

6 000

137 500









Note Comments

10

The proposal is in line with several priorities of the 2008 PHP work plan; there are some doubts however, on how the planned conference can contribute to EU level actions and initiatives, other than through raising awareness on the specific disease

- the expected impact is not clear

(2) Participation 8

There is insufficient information on the profile of the participants, while EU participation is also not sufficient: this is more of a "classical" university hospital national-level conference with some international participation, focused on clinical management issues of the selected disease. Although generally worthwhile, it is not the nature of activities to be funded under the PHP



7

6

The proposal seems to be in fact a national conference, extended to some international guests. There is no clear view on how the proposed event will contribute to an EU strategy, since it deals with clinical aspects of the disease and not with what constitutes the EU related actions, on general organization of care issues, patient support and services, etc. Only one EU-wide organization is mentioned, efforts could have been made to include more patient associations. The proposal is also weak on the participation of new MS, while there is no justification for the strong US component

The questionnaire on indicators in order to produce comparable information is the key outcome/ follow-up item of the proposed conference, but it is not in itself a sufficient outcome to influence EU strategy; more so, as it concentrates on clinical management (see reference to innovative therapies) and provides scarce details on aspects related to possible national care plans. Finally, there are doubts on the data collection itself: how will they be collected/ analysed.



31

Note




6

4

6

Comments

The timetable seems adequate. The proposal is ok on the promotion and the provision of conference facilities/ services area, but very weak on the scientific content and management: there is a gap in ensuring/ controlling quality of content.

There is also a lack of involvement of networks which would ensure good response and representativity and which would also support the use of the outcomes of the conference and the sustainability of the initiative (the conference is sort of "hanging up in the air")

The organisers are part of an important tertiary care structure (University hospital and department of pharmacology of University of Patras), which leads to believe that necessary skills are there to ensure a conference of the required level. Still, information is lacking on scientific input and management structure to deliver the planned event.

The budget planning seems poor (although the application form doesn't help…): fees seem too low; sub contracting is very important. Consumables are very high

(even if catering is included in this category)



16

47


This is more of a "classical" university hospital national-level conference with some international participation, focused on clinical management issues of the selected disease. Although generally worthwhile, it is not the nature of activities to be funded under the PHP




No

0

0.00





101,319.00

101319 Acronym: YiE - CMN Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

Youth in Europe - Community Mobilization Network



20/02/2009

11


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

The Icelandic Centre for Social Research and Analysis

ICSRA

Private


Iceland


“Youth in Europe – A Drug Prevention Programme”, initiated by ECAD (European Cities Against Drugs), is a five year international project started in 2005. It was based on the "Icelandic model", a theoretically-grounded, evidence-based approach, which main objective was to unite the Icelandic nation in an effort to fight illegal drugs, strengthen preventive work and organize actions and projects. The Icelandic model also entailed, among other things, the seeking out of new and targeted ways to prevent the importation, distribution, selling and use of illegal substances. Evidently, the Icelandic model was a great success in many aspects and clearly there was every need to create such a forum for the various groups of people, organizations and associations wanting to participate in preventive work.

"Youth in Europe – A Drug Prevention Programme" is carried out in cooperation with several European cities. The overall aims of the project are to: a) Use research that provides the basis for action to facilitate comparison of prevention strategies and success factors across

Europe, and to provide reliable and valuable information to the participating cities and to ECAD. b) Mobilize society against drugs by raising awareness and enhancing preventive work at both community- and international level through the collaboration of the cities that take part in the programme.

The objectives of the conference will be to:

• strengthen participants knowledge of the theories which the prevention program is based on,

• introduce the "Spectrum of Prevention" for all participating cities, a strategic tool which is needed to broaden peoples minds and identify the big picture,

• exchange of information and comparing of prevention strategies in order to provide valuable and reliable information on the ongoing task of protecting youth from the injurious effects of drugs,

• evaluate what strategies will be most likely to be effective in the different participating cities.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

50 431

124 345

0

6 897

34 146

12 931

11 250

Incomes

240 000

100 000

100 000

29 000

11 000

240 000










Note

8

7

Comments

The main achievement of the conference will be sharing knowledge and best practice, to introduce “Spectrum of Prevention” and evaluate strategies of drugs control in young people.

The general objective of the conference is compatible with PH program and WP

2008, since prevention programmes for youth are part of the 2008 work plan

However there are doubts that the Icelandic model could have an European dimension.

The number of participants is average (250) and it is expected participants from all over Europe (all cities, which participates in YiE program will send people).

However the real number of participants and their countries are unknown, and the participants cities of this programme from EU/EFTA are only 8 countries



5

7



27

Note




7

6

4

Comments

There are expected 250 participants in 5-day conference. It seems to be a very long conference, with an important promotional and tourist part

The methodology could be appropriated.

There is planed a timetable for conference organizing process and follow-up.

However 5 months to prepare the conference could be not enough, mainly if you want to invite people from many different countries.

The risk analysis is not addressed.

The staff has experience and seems to have enough competency and experience to organize the event.

The management structure is not well described, with no clear responsibilities and monitoring or supervision. The decision making process is not described.

The budget seems to be overestimated.

More than 50% is for travel and subsistence. The subcontracting and the staff cost should be better explained.

Too many days of conference with an important tourist side



17

44

It will be covered at least by 12 countries, but only 8 from EU/EFTA. The European dimension is not guaranteed with such an small number of countries.

The ICSRA has experience to organize conferences in Iceland and abroad.

It's identified the general outcome of conference – well constructed theoretical framework, final report and handbook with guidelines. However this seems to be a very optimistic outcome. The follow up is unclear and sound unrealistic

The evaluation or dissemination plan is not given

Indicators are not described and there is no intention to evaluate the impact


The conference seems to have not European dimension, with a small number of EU cities or countries involved. The conference also related to a specific project ECAD and has a local and specific approach to drugs and young. Its impact in Europe is doubtful. As well it seems to be a very long conference, with an important promotional and tourist side.

The management structure is not well described, with no clear responsibilities and supervision. No evaluation strategies described

The budget is overestimated.




No

0

0.00





101,337.00

101337 Acronym: TBRisk Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

European TB Conference - Children in Risk



23/04/2009

10


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Bourgas Pediatric Association

BPA

Public


Bulgaria


The general objective of the conference is EU-wide sharing experience and ideas and dissemination of good practices in the field of tuberculosis, affecting children, concerning TB prophylactics, diagnosis and therapy, as well as knowledge improvement in this problem area. I will be achieved by involvement of a wide range of stakeholders at European level

The goal of the conference is to contribute to finding solutions of the problem by:

- enhancing the importance of modifier on the disease severity and outcome of TB

- generation of new knowledge in the pathophysiology of TB

- updating the current concept of host microorganism interaction; the value of resistance in vivo and in vitro; factors that affect the effectiveness of antibiotics( mechanisms of resistance)

- awareness raising of the current state of the art in the epidemiology and natural history of TB

- knowledge update on the diagnostic algorithms in the diagnosis of atypical cases of TB

- better understanding of the basics of evidence-based medicine in TB and understanding what answers the literature in TB can give and what answers are not yet available

- better understanding of how inflammation contributes to the severity of TB lung disease and what could be strategies to treat this inflammation

- clarification of the complexity of drug development programmes to understand the basis of pharmaco-economics

- exchange of different views and experience at European level

- sharing ideas and good practices

- generation of new knowledge in the field of TB prophylactics and treatment

- children TB sick rate risk assessment

- provision of practical and innovative value-added solutions of the problem

- strengthening networking and collaboration in the field of tuberculosis with children prophylactics and treatment at European level

- providing greater visibility of the problem of TB sick rate with children at European level





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

26 000

2 000

0

3 433

24 267

1 000

3 969

Incomes

60 669

30 300

10 000

6 000

14 369

60 669












Note

5

5

7

6

Comments



23

Note




10

3

7

Comments

Few details are provided about the conference: the place and the duration of the event are not included. No draft agenda

However the methodology is well described. The timetable is realistic. The deliverables are, at priori, interesting. Tasks are not detailed, but many persons are involved in the preparation.

Many tools about dissemination and circulation of the event are planned. The webpage of the organization is not provided, so it was impossible to asses if the information is in English or just in Bulgarian. The language of the conference is not stated.

The risk analysis report problems linked with the participation.

No financial circuits are described.

Not enough information provided about the management. It is difficult to asses the real capacity of the association to organize an event with EU impact.

The principal doubts are related to :

1.it was impossible to find the association in internet, probably due to the language

2.no information about the previous and "important" conferences organized for the association.

3.TB is nor mention between the topics treated by the organization previously

4.The language of the conference is not stated

5.the mail address and the telephone number of the beneficiary don’t belong to the association, but to a generic service provider.

6.scientific quality of the event. The scientific committee is not mentioned.

The budget is low and unrealistic to the size of the conference, that also intends to be international. It is almost balanced, but it is not clear who is going to pay for the cost of the invited speakers, since the amount allocated to travel and subsistence is very low.



20

43

The content is not appropriate: the event and the scope of the congress are not in line with the work plan 2008.The conference will focus on one single disease:

Tuberculosis. TB is not a priorities issue in the WP.

However the children are specially mention in the WP, but the TB in children doesn't fit very well with the WP

The number of participants planned is in the average (about 300). Representatives of scientific European institutions and international associations will be invited.

However this seems to be an optimistic estimation.

This is the first edition and the organization has not record of activities on TB

The geographic coverage seems unbalance to the Western Europe and not high coverage to the Easter countries, that have a big problem with TB

The profile of the participants is vague, with a wide mix of medical specialities (some of them with limited relation to TB). No invitations to EU organisations, as ECDC.

It seems to be a clinical oriented conference and mainly national, with some international participants.

Around 20 organizations from many countries will be invited. However it is not clear how many representatives will really attend. To add to the 300 representatives it is necessary that each organization send around 10-12, which is not likely to happen.

What about the profile and nationality of the speakers?

The number of participants sound overestimated, especially to the international part.

The follow up is not described.

The strategy for internal evaluation is vague. What is evaluation matrix or efficient grid? The survey among the participants is a very simple tool.

No indicators of quality or impact are provided.









This conference about TB in children does not fit the priorities of the PHP. The initiative is vague. The topic is interesting but not in line with the call. It seems to be a classical conference at national level with some international participation, focused on clinical management of the disease and not in prevention. The conference is not oriented to Public Health.

The real capacity of the proponent to organize the event cannot be established due to lack of information.

No

0

0.00





101,356.00

101356 Acronym: NOHE (NUSE) Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

NOURISH THE HEALTH (NUTRIRE LA SALUTE)



28/11/2008

4


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

University of Tuscia - Department of Animal Production

UNITUS-DIPA

Public


Italy


The main goal of the Conference is to contribute to improve health and well being of UE citizens by means of:

- onset and application of suitable common policies for the prevention and the responsive capability toward the health threats in general and the ones involving the food chains (especially the food chain based on animal products) in particular;

- assessment and management (including the communication) of agro-food related risks;

- increasing of the awareness and information of people, researcher, public local authority and other relevant stakeholder about the National and Community strategies for prevention and control of heath risks due to food chain transfer of contaminations (chemical and biological hazards)





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

35 000

28 000

0

2 000

44 300

28 380

9 954

Incomes

147 634

41 500

24 834

0

81 300

147 634









Note

8

Comments

The topic is covered by the Health Programme in a broad sense, but does not fit any specific 2008 Work Plan priority.




7

9

10

Participation is not clearly enough described to be easily evaluated. It needs to be more precise in the description of stakeholders. The number of participants seem to be fairly low (22 people invited?) but will the event be open to additional participants? In any case the coverage seems limited. Given the requested budget, to spend this kind of funds on a meeting for 22 people is puzzling. Even if travelling is covered, the cost per person is high. Selection criteria for participation should be given.

Northern Europe is missing, but as the content of the conference is not fully clear, the geographical coverage is difficult to evaluate. Eleven countries will participate, making the event eligible for funding.

The evaluation is appropriately addressed but somewhat unclear - indicators should be given. If this is a small meeting for approximately 11 times 2 people the evaluation should be adequate as described. However, the impact of the meeting on the relevant stakeholders also needs evaluation.



34

Note




10

8

8

Comments

The organiser is experienced. Most important items seem to be adequately dealt with. Again, the standards of the planning are highly dependent on the number of participants. As it is not clear how the event is supposed to be outlined (will the participants be active in preparing documents, roundtables, working groups....) it is also difficult to fully understand the organisational needs. Financial curcuits are not addressed. The timetable is rather tight. Risk assessment should cover economical issues.

The applicant is experienced and the staff competent to conduct the tasks. Contacts with stakeholders would need to be further explained. Is it an 'invitation only' conference? This is not so clear.

The applicant only requests 28% co-funding. Other external funding is not described. Could there be conflicting interests? As the number of participants is not clear, the relevance of the total budget is difficult to assess.



26

60


The conference is not recommended for co-funding in its present form. The main reasons are the unclear relevance for the Work Plan 2008, the general lack of information given and the fact that the outlines of the meeting is unclear. Also the content would have to be presented in more detail to enable proper evaluation. The budget seems excessive and little information is given as to other sources of funding.




No

0

0.00





101,378.00

101378 Acronym: EuroDent Proposal number:


Priority area:

Action:


Duration:

European Dental Conference - Sofia



19/09/2008

4


Acronym:

Status:

Type:

Country:

Dental Practice VILEM Ltd.

VILEM

Private


Bulgaria


The general objective of the Conference is European added-value innovative solutions of some dental health problems at EU level and involvement of EU-wide range of stakeholders in the initiative through:

- presentation of the different European "schools" in the respective problem ares of dental medicine and comparison of their theses and achievements

- presentation of innovative solutions of the existing problems

- demonstration and simulation of new technologies in the respective dental health problem areas

- theoretical and practical input to dental medicine decision-making and problem-solution at EU level

- exchange of experience, ideas and good practices in the respective problem areas of dental medicine at EU level

- dissemination of "good European practices"





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipement




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

27 180

3 500

0

6 000

32 000

7 600

5 700

Incomes

81 980

40 500

30 000

11 480

0

81 980










Note

0

Comments

No Public Health relevance mentioned, it is a purely clinical (dental) project.

Out of scope






5

17

Note

6



7

5

5

6

Could be adequate for the type of problem they want to address but in any case it is not sufficient. Just associations mentioned, not really concrete.

The European dimension is very weak: the project covers central Europe. The new

EU MS are not really included.

The applicants describe something about evaluation and follow up but in a very limited way. Indicators are very simplistic.

Comments

The risk analysis is acceptable, but the timetable is too limited for such a conference targeting 800 participants and it is not detailed.

Good experience for conference organisation, but the competences of the staffs involved are not mentioned.

Completely underestimated for 800 persons with such a limited budget, except if they receive external funds not included in the budget. They might find sponsors but have to give at least details about further sources of funding.







17

34

No

0

0.00

It is not a public health conference, with no clear objectives except promotion of dental technologies.see conclusion


Operating grant proposals not retained for co-funding


Financial instrument: OPERATING GRANTS


101,079.00

Proposal number: 101079 Acronym: EURPhone

Title of the work programme:

Area of intervention:

Priority area:

Action:

European Promotion of Health Opportunities Now for Europe

Regions across the 27 EU states.




Acronym:

Status:

Country:

European Institute of Womens Health

EIWH

Private

Ireland

Problem assessment, stakeholders analysis and evidence base for the proposed work programme:

The inequality of women in health outcomes and access to health services, particularly prevention information means over 50% of the EU population with specific health needs carry the burden of informal health care provision at home and the community. Women generally live longer than men and their quality of life can be unsatisfactory. The incidence and prevalence of some diseases are higher in women or affect men and women differently. Our report 2006 demonstrated differences in health status as consequences of differences in opportunities and resources in all aspects of daily life, especially for the disadvantaged and minority groups. Women are diverse, even within their own group, access to health care health behaviors, health status, lifestyle choices, varies widely. Reducing barriers e.g. low education, language, cultural competence in health information and services is important in eliminating health inequalities. Providing accurate,culturally appropriate information for women is crucial to eliminate health inequalities. The EIWH EU Parliament Report

2007,shows women specific research and health information is needed to reduce gender health disparities in the EU. Public health service activities are limited and it is important that organisations in partnership with the public sector invest in coordinated information activities, sharing costs, experiences and targets involving women directly with best practice models reaching EU audiences with high potential for success and cost-effectiveness meeting the work plan objective:contribute to reducing health inequalities by providing health information, by and for all women, particularly disadvantaged minorities. Produce an open source health promotion model, distributed under a Creative

Commons licence with “some rights reserved” copyright. Generate health promotion templates, support information,image library,text and examples to be used and adopted by EU women, meeting local social, cultural and language needs.

Description of activities, tasks and responsibilities:

Inform network members, NGO's, other health organisations and the media about the the initiation of the activity. Develop a Web portal and

Wiki to collect, organise, store and disseminate the contents. Develop a database of EU health organisations, national agencies and regional women's groups, including women in business, rural and ethnic women's groups. Contact health providers for information and material. Contact other potential information providers including the corporate sector. Inform local women's groups (EU 27) of the potential and value of the work and its resources. Promote guidelines and assist in initiating positive women's health activity at all levels through local information days. Initiate processes for quality assurance, guidelines and support.





Budget

E1a - Staff

E2a - Travel costs and subsistence allowances

E3 - Equipment




E7 - Overheads

Expenditures

100 445

4 500

1 200

1 200

1 800

1 200

7 031



I3 - Income generated in relation with the applicant's activities


Total: 117 376

Incomes

70 426

46 950

0

0

117 376





Evaluation report

Award criteria

Criteria Block A: Policy & contextual relevance of the annual work programme proposed

(1) Consistency of the annual work programme with the second programme of Community action in the field of health and its annual work plan in terms of meeting the objectives and priorities

(2) Organisation's activities

(3) Pertinence of the geographical distribution of the

NGO or Specialised network

Note

6

3

3

Comments

There is consistency of the organisations' annual work programme with the second programme of Community action in the field of health in terms of meeting the objectives 'to promote health' and 'to reduce health inequalities' moreover the organisation is very active in the area of women's health which is also a priority in the aforementioned programme. Additionally they fully comply with the preference areas for funding namely 'public health capacity building'.

However both considerations relate to the overall activity of the organisation, the proposal defines a specific activity.

There is an acknowledgement of the contribution of the association to the work at European level because they can contribute to close the gap related to women data and information, however it is felt that the proposal is not described adequately.

The EIWH is an NGO with a European character but as described in the proposal, there is no evidence that the organisation has members in at least half of the Member States, with a balanced geographical coverage. Given the fact that this is a criteria for financing it should have been necessary to include it clearly in the proposal.


Criteria Block B: Quality of the annual work programme proposed

12

Note

(1) Purpose of the annual work programme

(2) Operation Framework



3

5

4

6

Comments

There is no evidence based thorough analysis of the inequality of women in health outcome and access to health services, just general statements. These should be evidence based sustained in order to allow more focused intervention on specific health problems and care access. Additionally the description does not relate to an annual work programme it is just one single activity.

Realistic and clear in terms of timetable, however unclear in terms of overall activity framework.

Only one sort of internal evaluation which focuses on progress is mentioned; it could have been interesting to have an external evaluation including impact indicators or a health impact assessment. The indicators are not oriented to the results or correlated with the objectives namely the reduction of inequalities.

Very well planned in terms of dissemination, but the standard is unsure. Measurable indicators are not mentioned. In principle it seems consistent but does not contain any measures or what they want to achieve. Standard dissemination practise but EU funding it is not explicitly mentioned


Criteria Block C: Management Quality

18

Note

(1) Planning of the annual work


4

2

Comments

From the proposal it is difficult to identify their work plan, their milestones and their tasks. In general it is unclear what they want to achieve and what their overall activities are. The timetable could be more elaborated but the risk management strategy is stated and it will be developed and implemented.

There are indirect hints as to their organisational capacity (an indirect structure is to be found in the budget) but the competency of staff, overall responsibilities etc. should have been explained in detail.





(4) Financial management (circuits)


4

The proposal is intense in relation to man days but still the requested staff cost are very high compared to the total expenditure.

Additionally there are items which are unclear, notably in relation to the tasks assigned to the technical position - 440 Euro as a daily rate

- and the organisation of the info days.

It could have been explained but since it was not requested in the form the panel marks by default.



5

15

45


The proposal as it is does not present a work programme but an specific task; it is seen to more fit for a call for proposals than for an operating grant. It is recommended to be re-worked into a call for proposals providing solid evidence and more detail in all items.A

portal can be bringing about useful results but should be underpinned by a comprehensive dissemination and communication strategy; as stated in the proposal is it unclear how it will reach the objectives and the target group.



Maximum percent to be cofinanced:

No

0

0.00


101081




101,081.00

Acronym: EUROTHAL Proposal number:



Priority area:

Action:

Programme for the Control and Management of Thalassaemias and Other Haemoglobinopathies in

Europe

Europe-wide (2009 - Cyprus, Bulgaria, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, Italy, Romania,

Sweden, UK)




Acronym:

Status:

Country:

Thalassaemia International Federation

TIF

Private

Cyprus


Main objective: To promote optimal services for patients with haemoglobin (Hb) disorders and reduce inequalities in access to appropriate care across Europe through improving community awareness, educating health professionals and empowering patients and their families.

Thalassaemia and sickle cell disease – referred to below as Hb disorders – are hereditary red blood cell disorders that lead to poor quality of life and early death if not diagnosed early and managed appropriately. An estimated 7% of the global population carries an abnormal Hb gene. Successful control and patients’ quality of life rely on nationally supported control programmes (prevention and multidisciplinary management). Hb disorder genes are highly prevalent in Africa, Asia, Middle East, South America, West Pacific and in Europe around the

Mediterranean Basin. In the rest of Europe, extensive migration from affected regions has introduced the genes into the populations, and their prevalence continues to increase. Awareness-raising, promotion of equal access to care, and integration into national policies are urgently required.

The status of Hb disorders and the situation of patients vary greatly between European countries, which can be broadly divided as follows:

1. Countries with carrier rates of 6-19% in the indigenous population, where successful control programmes are long-established and can serve as models (e.g. Greece, Cyprus); 2. Other European countries where Hb disorders were introduced through immigration. Appropriate services exist, or are being developed, but their take-up is uneven - hampered by lack of awareness, geographical dispersion and cultural/language barriers.

TIF’s work will (1) extend the knowledge gained in experienced countries to other European countries; (2) help improve the capacity of health professionals to manage Hb disorders at local level; and (3) extend TIF’s international patient support network by creating a pan-European network of Hb associations.


1. Translation of existing educational materials into EU/minority languages (OBJ 1–4). Subcontracted.

2. Organisation of local/regional workshops and pan-European conference for health professionals and patient groups (OBJ 1–5).

Scientists, project officers

3. Delegation visits to (i) encourage formation of patient associations and establish partnerships with national health authorities (NHA); (ii) follow-up to support existing patient associations and monitor progress of NHA activities (OBJ 5,6) Scientists, Board members, project officers

4. Proactive collaboration activities with relevant European organisations and decision-making bodies to integrate Hb disorders into their agendas and activities (OBJ 6). Board members, project officers

5. Continuing collaboration with WHO on implementation of resolutions on Hb disorders and development of expert groups (OBJ 3).

Scientists, Project coordinator

6. Establishing registry of infections in thalassaemia (OBJ 4)





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipment




E7 - Overheads

Expenditures

67 000

21 901

0

0

72 000

69 000

0





Total: 229 901

Incomes

137 940

46 961

7 000

38 000

229 901






Award criteria




Note

8

7

Comments

The annual work programme is well in line with the Health Promotion

- and to some extent the Health Information - objectives of the Health

Programme.

The work programme does not target any of the specific priorities of the 2008 Work Plan, but is covered by the objectives 2.6 Actions on rare diseases and 3.1 Exchange of knowledge and best practice.

The actions described are part of the continuous work aiming at better care and quality of life for Thalassaemia patients. It fits at least two of the objectives of the Work Plan 2008 although they do not target any of the specific priorities.

The activities could possibly have been described in greater detail

(given the limited space in the application form) and in relation to other activities of the organisation, especially those already co-funded by the Commission.





4

19

Note

(1) Purpose of the annual work programme 7

The coverage of the organisation is relevant but could possibly be extended also to other relevant countries. Collaboration with WHO is an asset.

Comments

The objectives, including promotion of optimal services for patients and reduce inequalities in access to care, are clearly described. It is however difficult to determine it the objective will be effective for achieving results as there is no information on previous success and little evidence for the effectiveness of the activities.

The objective on community awareness is not taken into account in the description of target groups or in the dissemination plan.

The planned register should be considered taking other registries into account to avoid overlap.



6

6

The activities mainly comprise collaboration and visits to/organisation of workshops. The timetable is reasonable and activities and tasks clearly described. Organisational aspects including responsibilities should have been better described. The description of the organisation in relation to other networks with similar objectives in this area should also be further detailed.

The evaluation strategy is mainly focussed on a questionnaire.

Indicators for effectiveness and impact should be developed and included in systematic evaluations. Evaluation by an external body should be considered.

The effectiveness of the excessive travelling should be evaluated.




7

26

Note

This is fairly well described but should be reviewed to target all stakeholder groups, including the broad risk group and the

‘community’ as specified in the objectives.

Comments








7

The number of collaborate meetings may be too high to be relevant during 2009.

Timetable, deliverables and milestones are well described and the risk analysis adequate although the suggested counteractions are not always so clear.




7

6

3

23

68

The organisation is experienced with high competency of the staff.

Internal communication could have been better described and monitoring and supervision needs to be addressed.

The budget posts for subcontracting and ‘other costs’ are very large and constitute more than 50 % of the budget. It is not clear what this is supposed to cover. Apart from this the budget seems relevant.

Reporting procedures and controls are not described. Otherwise fairly standardised routines.


The operating grant is recommended for co-funding since it is in line with the intentions in the Health Programme and is covered by the objective on Rare Diseases in the Work plan 2008. It does however not target any of the specific priorities.

The organisation has a proven track record and a good geographical coverage. The work plan of the applicant is well developed but could in part have been more explicit. Also the relation of EUROTHAL and other network in this field should be better described.

Main points for improvement are the evaluation strategy, which needs to be considerably elaborated and should include evaluation by an external body. Also the dissemination strategy should be revised so to more specifically target relevant stakeholder groups, including the broarder risk groups.

Internal responsibilities, roles and routines for follow-up should be better addressed. As regards financial issues the budget needs revision as costs for subcontracting and ‘other costs’ seem excessive. Care should be taken to ensure complementarity of the operating grant in relation to other EC funded activities in which the organisation takes part to avoid overlap and double financing.

•Review the dissemination strategy to encertain coverage of the target groups.

•Integrate evaluation, monitoring and supervision into the annual work plan.

•Clarify budget imbalance related to subcontracting and ‘other costs’.

•Put mechanisms in place to separate funds for different

EC-financed actions.




No

0

0.00


101133




101,133.00

Acronym: EDOB Proposal number:



Priority area:

Action:

European Dementia Observatory

European Union and Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey




Acronym:

Status:

Country:

Alzheimer Europe

AE

Private

Luxembourg


Alzheimer Europe has estimated the number of people with dementia in the European Union to be 6.1 million and the Dementia in Europe

Yearbooks of the organisation published in the framework of the EuroCoDe project have highlighted the differences across Member States as regards the social support provided, the reimbursement systems of anti-dementia medicines and the organisation of home care.

The EuroCoDe project will also result in an inventory and scientific ranking of different preventative approaches in the field of Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia.

Similarly, the Alzheimer Europe Lawnet projects resulted in the production of national reports describing the legal protection and rights of people with dementia in the then 15 Member States of the European Union. This information needs updating and would serve as a basis for an exchange of best practices for promoting a legal rights based approach to dementia and for combating social exclusion. Work in this field will pay close attention to the activities of the Council of Europe (Alzheimer Europe enjoys consultative status).

Information on the rarer forms of dementia was collected by Alzheimer Europe in its 2002 European project and the organisation can draws on the scientific advice from a wide network of experts.

In all its work, Alzheimer Europe will be able to draw on the knowledge and expertise of representatives of its 31 national member organisations from 26 European countries, as well as that of medical, scientific, legal and ethics experts of its Expert Advisory Panel.

Finally, Alzheimer Europe coordinated the EuroCoDe project and was able to develop a wider European network involving other European stakeholders in the dementia field, such as the European Association of Geriatric Psychiatry, the European Federation of Neurological

Societies, the European Alzheimer's Disease Consortium, the Interdem network and the International Association of Gerontology -

European Region.

Description of activities, tasks and responsibilities: in 2009, with the support of the European Commission, Alzheimer Europe intends to disseminate the work of its EuroCoDe project and to continue reviewing and updating the various guideline databases established in the framework of the project. In particular, the organisation will continue to include information on new guidelines for psycho-social interventions and for the diagnosis and treatment of dementia and keep updated the reports on the social support systems in 31 European countries in order to keep an up-to-date resource for the European

Commission, national policy makers and the wider research community. Priority will also be given to updating the information on preventative strategies in the Alzheimer's field.

Alzheimer Europe will also carry out an inventory of the legal protection of people unable to consent in the different Member States of the

European Union and include the results in the "2009 Dementia in Europe Yearbook".





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipment




E7 - Overheads

Expenditures

95 500

56 000

0

3 000

8 400

25 000

13 150





Total: 201 050

Incomes

120 630

78 420

2 000

0

201 050






Award criteria














21

Note


Note

8

8

Comments

The organization's work plan and area of activity are generally very consistent with several objectives and priorities of the second programme of Community action in the field of health.

The focus of the proposed annual work programme is mostly on different activities encompassing "information exchange on mental health" –however, more details should have been provided

There is consistency of the proposed work programme with priority

"3.3 Exchange knowledge and best practice of exchange". However, more details should be provided and Alzheimer Europe must not only base its submission on past activities, but on concrete objectives and well planned activities for the future.

The proposal lists many activities which are relevant with the 2008 work plan, but it remains short on details. This makes the identification of the specific areas of work and their relevance to the programme difficult.

It is all about exchanges, meetings, reports, but a well structured, comprehensive work plan is not evident

Very comprehensive, since the whole of the EU is more or less covered

5

21

Note

7

5

3

6

Comments

Different activities of the organization are listed –whether ongoing or past ones. There is however, a lack of structure and one cannot understand how the different aspects of the work come together.

There is also a clear danger of overlap with existing projects, whereby the annual programme of activity undertakes dissemination tasks related to specific, otherwise funded activities.

Planned activities are just a list of bullet points-very insufficient.

There is a lack of information on how the organization carries out its activities – no clear tasks and responsibilities. Staff members are very few (1 FT/ 1 part time), whereas staff costs are very important: therefore, it is not clear who makes the decisions and who manages the operations of the organization

Evaluation activities are included, but no strategy: what will be evaluated and how will it be evaluated. No external evaluation of activities mentioned- two advisor groups, both internal and no indicators

As above, items/ means of dissemination are provided (Web, yearbook, publications), but no framework/ strategy for dissemination activities. There is also a mix up between communication–dissemination activities.

6

Comments

Only some deliverables and tasks are mentioned. Overall description very superficial: calendar of actions is not sufficient. Important discrepancy between the proposed activities and the required funding: the funding is very important, while the activities are very briefly and insufficiently described.








3

3

There is very limited information to be able to judge on organizational capacity; mentioning former activities is not enough.

Information on staffing, decision making process, tasks and responsibilities are not provided/ described. Statutes do not replace the operational framework and activities which should have been written in the proposal form

The budget is overestimated and not justified, unless expenditure relates to the board or other ad hoc activities. It really requires guesswork from the evaluators

Apart from the numbers, no information has been provided in the application on financial management



1

13

55


The organization's area of activity is very important in terms of PH priorities and certainly consistent with several objectives and priorities of the second programme of Community action in the field of health. However, the proposers have not taken care to describe:

(a) a coherent and structured set of proposed activities;

(b) a well structured organizational and operational framework;

(b) a convincing set of management qualities

Past activities by themselves are not sufficient to ensure funding for the future and, although we strongly encourage Alzheimer Europe to resubmit next year, they should integrate the above before applying




No

0

0.00


101144




101,144.00

Acronym: EUPHA Four Pillars Proposal number:



Priority area:

Action:

The EUPHA - Four pillars transformation programme

Europe-wide, covering 23 EU states and 11 other European countries




Acronym:

Status:

Country:

European Public Health Association

EUPHA

Private

Netherlands


Problem assessment

EUPHA is the leading European representative of public health researchers and practitioners, through its annual scientific conferences, publishing the bi-monthly Journal, 16 thematic sections linking researchers and practitioners directly, and the representative structure of member associations. EUPHA aims to assist member associations in developing their European perspective, to express and provide authoritative advice and response on European public health issues, and to develop its four core activities (Four Pillars: research, training, practice and policy) through existing organisational structures.

Stakeholder analysis

EUPHA includes 41 national public health associations ('member associations') in 32 countries across Europe; a network of 12,000 public health specialists, practitioners and researchers, who are themselves in contact with national, regional and local authorities, civil society organisations, universities, public health agencies – and the public.

Evidence base

EUPHA members work within a strong ‘knowledge environment’. Member associations are national leaders in promoting and undertaking research at national and international levels, in support activities such as publishing journals and reports, holding conferences and topic workshops, and promoting international exchange. EUPHA's organisational development will be based on change management, working with member associations, draw on experience from Europe-wide setting, and promote the growing commitment to a Europe-wide Health

Strategy.


EUPHA office will: organise visits of senior EUPHA officials (leading public health experts from 15 countries) to national member associations to present EUPHA Four Pillars. Valid methodologies will be used to collect comparative information to map national activities and understand support needs, discuss European activities, review sustainability and identify national contact points who will coordinate with the Four Pillar Leads.

EUPHA office will also: improve the EUPHA website and communications; improve inter-organisational alliances at European level; market the changes through a dissemination and communication strategy; and develop an improved subscription cost-based for future sustainability.

Two sub-contracts will be responsible for (a) the information matrix - to develop, gather, analyse and report on the mapping and needs assessment (b) evaluation (to include formative, process and outcome measures) and reporting.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipment




E7 - Overheads

Expenditures

140 700

121 943

0

20 000

33 908

74 900

27 037





Total: 418 488

Incomes

185 000

63 000

90 488

80 000

418 488






Award criteria






Note

5

5

5

Comments

The content of the proposal by EUPHA is consistent in terms of meeting the objectives and priorities. The key areas are in promoting health, support for capacity building, reducing inequalities, improve mental health, sexual health,... It would also be consistent with the objective of the Public Health programme of disseminating knowledge. EUPHA also works as partner in several EU projects.

However the organisation has too many and very general objectives.

The approach to all these topics is very general.

Exchange of information and knowledge is part of the work plan

2008. With certain limitations, the proposal is consistent and reach out, to meet the objectives and priorities set in the 2008 WP.

However the activities are not clearly indicated and seem to be very broad and generic.

EUPHA has 4 pillars: Research, training, practice and policy through which the organization wants to assist members associations, expresses and provides authoritative advice and response on

European public health issues. In these terms EUPHA covers some priorities set in the WP 2008. However there are too many activities and they are not detailed enough to make an assessment.

The organization activities should have been explained more clearly.

The network includes almost all countries in Europe, so there is a very good geographical coverage. EUPHA has a wide range of partners through the EU. It plans to work with national member associations in their own language



15

Note




6

5

6

Comments

The EUPHA objectives to engage national public health associations in dialogue, to promote understanding and collaboration of PH, to collect information on a systematic and comparable way, seem to be fine, but not concrete enough. There is no sufficient evidence base and it could be questionable.

The activities are described in a very general way. It is necessary to have more information in order to assess the possible suitability for achieving results e.g. it is not clear what kind of information is to be seeked, or how the sustainability of the national contact point is ensured.

The descriptions of the tasks, responsibilities and timetable are too broad, not specific enough.

The activities are set in a very general way, but seem to be realistic and feasible.

However it is not clear what/to whom/how responsibilities are distributed and what are the relationships with NGO's, etc

The timetable seems to be very ambitious, a very short time is planned for many activities.

The internal evaluation will assess the achievement of set milestones and targets through national contact points.

The external evaluation is described very generally: e-mail survey, interview of staff, examination of future plans,… It is not enough to give such a general information, it is necessary to give more details and explain the process of evaluation in a specific way. Clear indicators linked with the objectives should be provided. The indicators should be related to the process, the quality of the deliverables and the impact.






6

The strategy of dissemination is not clearly stated. There is no stakeholders analysis and therefore the dissemination audiences are not identified.

The principal means of dissemination are the annual conference and the webpage.

The description is too general with no specific activities and timetable.



23

Note



5

6

Comments

There is a calendar of actions. However it is too broad, without specific details of milestones and deliverables. The deliverables are not clear; they seem to be only reports.

The timetable is quite short, for so many activities.

Risk analysis is poorly described. The risk of not gathering good and enough information is not addressed.

The decision making process should be described.

The monitoring and the supervision need to be clarified.

The organizational capacities are not clearly defined: it is necessary to provide more information about the management structure. It is not clear who is responsible for what, or the competence of the staff, what the monitoring process is, or how the process will be supervised.

The organizations will subcontract the work with two part time

Scientifics, who also travel in the member states. The distribution of tasks should be explained.

As well it is not reliable to count on national officers, stating that their organizations will pay.





5

3

19

57

The budget seems to be realistic for the initial setting up of the 4 pillars, but it is not balanced

The staff cost seems to be very high, compared to subcontractors, mainly taking into account the tasks that will be subcontracted. The

'other costs' should be explained in a more transparent way.

Travel costs are too high and it should be reduced. The objectives and the purpose of the two meetings on February and June are not clear.

The circuits are not specifically set out, nor are the controls, but mentioned. Therefore financial management seems to be adequate.


The entire proposal has great potential, since it has a view on public health activities in different countries from a common framework.

However similar "ideas" already exist in the EU arena. The proposal is too general, with no clear purpose. It is not clear how the 4 pillars of activities are communicated and integrated. Public Health needs no more isolated initiatives, but rather integrated/horizontal approaches in its areas of work.

The specific objectives should be better defined. It is necessary as well that the activities, deliverables, responsibilities and aims of the organization are described in a very practical and concrete way.

The dissemination and the evaluation strategy should be improved.

Risk analysis is poorly described.

The budget should be balanced and the staff and travel cost reduced.

The Evaluation Committee agrees with the recommendation of the peer review panel not to co-fund this proposal and sees part of the purpose of this request covered by the funding of the EUPHA

Conference




No

0

0.00


101157




101,157.00

Acronym: Potential-NHBD-Europe Proposal number:



Priority area:

Action:

Measuring the potential for NHBD & assessing Critical Care Staff's attitudes to NHBD in Europe

Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Israel, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia,

Sweden, Tunisia, Switzerland




Acronym:

Status:

Country:

Donor Action Foundation

DA

Private

Belgium


In Europe, over 4,000 patients with end-stage organ failure die each year whilst waiting for a transplant that could have saved their life, grim figures that result from a chronic organ shortage because of an inefficient use of the potential for donation from deceased donors in too many EU member states.

The cornerstone of the Donor Action (DA) Foundation' Program, a non-profit organization founded to alleviate organ shortage and active in several EU member states, is its Diagnostic Review Methodology. This web-based tool and database allows for measuring strengths and weaknesses of the donation process in Critical Care Units (CCU) of donor hospitals. Over 75 articles reporting on the application and impact of DA's methodology have been published in peer-reviewed medical journals worldwide.

Whilst the DA Program has been used successfully in over 500 hospitals globally to measure the potential for heart-beating (HB), brain-dead donors, it's currently developing also a non-heart-beating donor (NHBD) pathway of its Medical Record Review (MRR) methodology. There is increasing evidence about NHBDs' organs to be suitable for transplantation of kidneys, livers, pancreases and lungs, with long-term successful outcomes. However, little information is available about the potential for donation from this category of donors.

Moreover, in the few countries and limited number of hospitals that have started implementing NHBD policies so far, a lack of support from

CCU staff was felt to be a bottleneck to further expand such programs. DA's Hospital Attitude Survey (HAS) methodology in the past has proved to be an excellent tool to assess CCU staff's support for different types of donation, skills and comfort levels with donation related tasks and need for further education.


Envisaged activities, tasks & responsibilities:

1. Adapt NHBD MRR algorithm and HAS survey draft (DA Management)

2. Apply adaptations to DA System Database software (DA Management)

3. Implement new MRR and HAS version, supported by hands-on training in all cooperating countries, regions, hospitals (DA Management)

4. Enter MRR and HAS data in database (DA users in pilot centers)

5. Monitor data entry of potential NHBD cases and HAS surveys (DA Management)

6. Analyze results, assess potential for NHBD and evaluate situation with hospitals involved (DA Management together with DA users)

7. On request: assist hospitals with implementing NHBD process improvement measures (DA Management)

8. Collect legal framework data, plus national/institutional NHBD guidelines for consultation by interested users (DA Management)

9. Disseminate data analysis results, publish in peer-reviewed medical journals, present at national/international conferences (DA

Management and DA users)





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipment




E7 - Overheads

Expenditures

86 950

20 500

0

17 000

0

55 800

0





Total: 180 250

Incomes

100 000

30 750

17 500

32 000

180 250






Award criteria



Note

8

Comments

The work programme of the DA will measure the potential for non-heart-beating donation (NHBD) and assess the critical care staff’s attitudes to NHBD in Europe. The programme is well in line with the Health Programme, in particular with the objective concerning Increasing citizens’ security, which covers safety and availability of human substances, including organs for donation.

However, given their ethical sensitivity the promotion of NHBD is not is not one of the main objectives for the Commission.

The proposal is covered by the priority 3.2.2.2 where organ availability is mentioned, but it does not fit any of the priority objectives for 2008, nor a priority pinpointing operating grants. There is also some connections to the Health Information strand.

(2) Organisation's activities 7

Since many years, the DA has profiled itself as the only international organisation with activities in 10 European countries. DA has organised multiple international, national and regional training courses to familiarize users with its methodology. DA has been able to increase donation rates with 50 to 70% in hospitals, regions and countries that have implemented the DA methodology

Based on a rigorous review of current and past performance of individual Critical Care Units (CCU), the programme aims at quality improvements in the Organ donation process through training and continuous monitoring. The activities are thus in line with the Work

Plan objective of increasing organ availability (although this is not a specific priority in 2008).



4

Good, covering and working in a good sample of MS. They have also included some neighbouring countries which is essential regarding export and import of organ. The representation of member states could possibly have been higher (less than half of EU27).



19

Note





8

8

8

7

Comments

The objectives are clearly described and should be possible to reach. The evidence base is fairly solid. Developments in the screening of seriously ill patients and changes in intensive-care practices may lead to fewer patients dying in an intensive care unit and meeting the criteria for determination of brain death. For this reason it is important to consider donations from non-heart-beating donors (NHBD). The organisation has previously shown its capacity in increasing organ availability by activities targeting intensive care.

The project is an extension of old activities. The DA management is doing almost everything. More tasks might be allocated to other people? Timeline is optimistic with a lot of planned activities – but still realistic.

The applicant will evaluate both the process and the effects of the activities work with reasonable indicators. However, the indicators should be further elaborated. They should ideally also include indicators for long term follow-ups of the impact of this work.

The dissemination addresses only medical journals and conferences. It ought to be more public and the ethical aspects should be better taken into account. Although not mentioned this might be covered by other activities undertaken by the network?







31

Note




8

8

8

Comments

The planning is relevant and well described and the timetable reasonable

This is a very competent organisation with vast experience, and the organisation is clearly described. Some tasks may be possible to reallocate to members of the network instead of concentrating so much to the managing director.

The budget is very realistic with regards to the ambitious work plan.

Several volunteers must be involved in the various countries although this is not well described.




3

27

77

Not described in any detail.


This proposal describes clear and achievable objectives and activities in an area with relevance for the Health Programme and the Work Plan 2008. The geographical coverage is representative and the organisation has long experience in promoting activities in the MS. The level of competence is high and the managerial systems well described.

The activities described constitute important steps to clarify if it is possible to use NHB-donors in a more extensive way than at present. These activities should also address and analyse the ethical aspects, as well as the quality of the donated organ.

The proposal is recommended for cofounding.

-Evaluation strategy needs to be further elaborated

-Representation from more MS in the network should be considered

-A wider dissemination should be considered

The Evaluation Committee checked the membership of the orgaisation and found less than 50% of the Member States represented and considers therefore the proposal as non-eligible




No

0

0.00


101177




101,177.00

Acronym: HCPC-Europe Proposal number:



Priority area:

Action:

Healthcare Compliance Packaging Council of Europe

The whole area of the European Community




Acronym:

Status:

Country:

Healthcare Compliance Packaging Council of Europe

HCPC-Europe

Private

Belgium


Proper patient compliance promises the best possible outcome of the treatment provided. By contrast, poor compliance prejudices a favourable outcome and at worst can be harmful to the patient. In addition, there can be significant cost implications if medication is wasted or the patient requires additional treatment due to poor compliance.

HCPC-Europe's stakeholder analysis: please see Powerpoint file attached.

Evidence base for the proposed work programme are studies such as "Reminder packaging for improving adherence to self-administered long-term medications"; Heneghan CJ, Glasziou P, Perera R; Cochrane, as well as the study carried out by the University of Vienna

(Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift (2007) 157/11-12: 271-278; "Einfluß der Medikamentenverpackung auf die Compliance bei älteren selbständig lebenden Patienten"; Rudolf Schoberberger, Katharina Klik, Tassilo Korab, Michael Kunze; - financed by HCPC-Europe


The mission of HCPC-Europe is to assist and to educate the healthcare sector in the improvement of patient compliance through the use of packaging solutions. To achieve its goal, HCPC-Europe's activities include the promoting of an understanding of the importnace of patient compliance actually carried out; ongoing 3 articles per year min.; 2 presentations at conferences; website update quarterly. Gathering and disseminating information about patient compliance, particularly as it relates to packaging, put abstracts of relevant studies on website (pilot polling 2008).

HCPC-Europe is the sole body to unite the expertise of the pharmaceutical industry, healthcare providers, patient organizations, packaging machine manufacturers and packaging material suppliers with regards to packaging/packaging technology and patient adherence to medicinal therapy. Based on the concentrated expertise of all members, HCPC-Europe is best placed to foster patients adherence by improved packaging design.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipment




E7 - Overheads

Expenditures

65 000

10 000

1 500

1 500

8 500

0

6 000





Total: 92 500

Incomes

92 500

63 000

0

0

155 500






Award criteria








Note

4

3

2

9

Note

Comments

The organization's annual work programme is relevant for the PHP as it aims at building capacity in civil society for developing patient compliance, which is a public health concern, even though it is not specifically mentioned in the 2008 WP.

However, the specific focus on patient compliance related to the packaging of pharmaceutical products is restricted and therefore consistency is limited

Organization's activities as proposed in the submission are only narrowly consistent with the 2008 WP priorities, as they are not really public health focused, although they may have indirect implications for public health; furthermore, there are doubts as to the general eligibility of the applicant, especially as regards existing industry funding

It can be supposed that the proposed coverage is pertinent, but applicant fails to provide concrete information on this point: which EU countries? EU-wide?





3

2

2

2

Comments

Evidence is cited to support the projected objective, i.e. improve patient compliance (specific publication); also the organization's annual programme covers a variety of target groups. However, serious doubts remain on eligibility of proposed activities, due to the nature of the organization

A list of organizations which are targeted by the operations is mentioned, while planned activities are also cited. But the level of information on the operational framework could have been more detailed, in terms of tasks and specific responsibilities

Adherence is the only indicator, while there is no mention of internal/ external evaluation of the organization's activities.

As above, items/ means of dissemination are provided (Web, articles, annual conference) publications), but no framework/ strategy for dissemination activities.



9

Note




1

1

2

Comments

Overall description is very superficial – calendar of actions is not sufficient. No real deliverables or milestones are mentioned. No risk analysis is provided

There is very limited information to be able to judge on organizational capacity; the management structure isn't appropriate for the proposed tasks. Statutes do not replace the operational framework and activities which should have been written in the proposal form

The description is unclear on how resources are going to be used; staff costs and travel budget not justified by level of activities


0

Apart from the numbers, no information has been provided on financial management in the application. Even though there is no dedicated space for it, the organization could have provided relevant information, documents

Total criteria block C: 4







Patient compliance is an important area for public health and for policy initiatives, but in the area of compliance for packaging there is no rationale for funding through the public health programme: the proposed activities are too narrow to have impact in terms of public health. There are also serious doubts on the eligibility of the applicant.The Evaluation Committee endorses the recommendation not to co-fund this application




No

0

0.00


101193




101,193.00

Acronym: Transfusion Medicine education Proposal number:


European harmonisation of Transfusion Medicine education in Europe and neighbouring regions


Priority area:

Action:

Courses foreseen in 2008 in Macedonia (Skopje), Portugal (Lisboa) and Syria (Damascus, ATMC course), hopefully in Ukraine (Kyiv) and Libya.

Faculty and participants from most European countries, from Middle East and Northern Africa.




Acronym:

Status:

Country:

ESTM - European School of Transfusion Medicine (Scuola Europea di Medicina Trasfusionale)

ESTM

Private

Italy


Transfusion Medicine is still at a relatively poor level in many European countries, where clinical transfusion practice is frequently suboptimal. Education is therefore a great challenge.

The ESTM has for 16 years been organising 76 residential courses in all areas of Transfusion Medicine, and has developed several other educational initiatives. Courses have been run in 27 European countries, increasingly in Eastern Europe, and even outside Europe (Israel,

Argentina, Brazil). 112 coordinators and more than 550 teachers have been involved, from 32 European countries. Participants, from 40

European countries, represent more than 2.900.

A number of participants from other Continents has increasingly attended ESTM courses, accredited by the Royal College of Physicians

(RCP) of London since 1995, and by the European Haematology Association (EHA/ECAH) since 2003. The ESTM has developed a large network of expert lecturers and is generally agreed to merit a high reputation.

The ESTM educational activity is entirely based on absolutely voluntary contributions of all its stakeholders:

8 members of Council of Administration (3 Italians, 2 Spanish, 1 British, 1 German, 1 Romanian); 31 members of the Scientific Committee, from 20 countries (16 EU, 3 non-EU European, and Israel); 3 members of the Scientific Committee’s Chair (from Norway, Great Britain and

Czech Republic); 8 members of the Advisory Committee (from 5 European countries).

Relevant national differences still exist in different areas of Europe, waiting for a common European solution.

Within this frame, the activities of the ESTM in the last few years have been oriented towards the critical relevance of the contribution of clinical medicine to blood safety.

The ESTM experience has allowed to fully appreciate that “transfusing medical science into medical practice” is the real present challenge of Transfusion Medicine all over Europe, and should be felt as a common responsibility for every European specialist.






6th “Balkan-European” course on “The quality of clinical transfusion practice in Europe: a basic step to haemovigilance and blood safety”, in

Skopje (S. Bakalova, M. Blagoevska, J. Barbara).

5th “Iberian” course on ”Emerging controversies and problems in Transfusion Medicine”, in Lisboa (G. De Sousa, C. Martin Vega, A.

Sousa, E. Muniz).

"Satellite Symposium" (jointly with Open Medical Institute) on “The contribution of Clinical Medicine to blood safety”, in Kyiv (W. Mayr, U.

Rossi, with local clinical and transfusion experts).

Participation in the Steering Group of the ATMC and in the course on “Safety, quality, and training in Transfusion Medicine”, in Damascus.

Implementation of the triennial programme of development of Transfusion Medicine in Albania (I. Qendro, U. Rossi).

Cooperation with the NESA for the meeting in Napoli (M. Stark).

Possible course in Libya on “prevention and treatment of thalassaemia and sickle-cell diseases” (G. Gabra, D. Sondag, B. Ayoub, U.

Rossi).

Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipment




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

29 963

45 600

3 500

5 000

0

9 395

6 542

100 000

Incomes

80 000

10 000

4 000

6 000

100 000






Award criteria






Note

8

8

Comments

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the community actions on blood and blood components. ESTM:s objective to share knowledge on transfusion medicines fits with the priorities Health information and Capacity building. The Annual Work Programme for

2008 is not described in any detail. It will however partly include activities targeting areas outside Europe and its closest neighbouring countries. The proposal provides contributions to: Improving the health of European citizens by reducing health inequalities, and

Building capacity for development and implementation of effective public health policies. The proposal is also well in line with the objective 3.2.2 (Improve citicens' safety) but does not specifically adhere to any of the detailed priorities of the Work Plan of 2008.

The activities are not described in enough detail, but apart from what is mentioned above they also meet with the 2008 objectives regarding health information and knowledge, and have a link also with the priority action “promote health”, but more at the margin (e.g.

education of donors meaning in practice recommendations for healthier behaviours).

3

ESTM covers all the EU Member States, with a particular focus on the new member states in need of upgrading and developing their transfusion capacities and performance. Candidate countries and neighbourhood countries are also targeted, what can contribute to facilitate the application of EU standards for transfusion in there.

The activities described in the proposal are however targeting countries mainly in the Southern and Eastern Europe, neighbouring countries and countries outside of Europe.



19

Note


Comments

The activities are not described in sufficient detail (apart from giving courses and arranging/taking part in conferences), but a list of objectives is given. It is likely that the educational activities undertaken with participants from EU countries will contribute to a higher level of safety in transfusion medicine and contribute to the objectives of the organisation. The effects and results are however difficult to evaluate and no information on the effectiveness of the education is given.

The evidence base for the activities is thus not given, and evidence based medicine, which should be an important issue in this context is not mentioned



7

6

The planned activities for 2008 are outlined but for 2009 they are very sketchy.

They ought to be more clearly focussed on quality and safety for patients, but the content of the courses/conferences is not well described.

Indicators are given, but more precise indicators would make it easier to evaluate the results of the courses. There are no impact indicators or any attempt to evaluate how the activities contribute to improve the situation/safety issues in transfusion medicine.






6

This is not sufficiently clear in the application. Although a wide range of possibilities for communication of the courses are given it is not really a strategy. Possibly the courses are well-known enough to attract participants.



26

Note

(1) Planning of the annual work 6

Comments

The educational activities are described but the timetable and milestones are not very clear from the application. There is no real risk analysis. This should have been far better detailed.



6

6

The management structure is unclear and not well described (lacking in detail). But the organisation has been giving courses for many years and must be expected to have the capacity to do that also for the time period relevant for the application.

The budget includes vast cost for travelling due to the location of the courses and other activities. Otherwise reasonable. Staff costs are low as teachers work on a voluntary basis. 80 % co-funding requested.

There is very little information to find on these issues.




3

21

66


The activities described would be highly relevant for the Health

Programme if they more clearly targeted EU countries and candidate countries. To increase blood safety in other parts of the world does not really contribute to the public health within the EU, since blood from these countries are not used in the EU. The situation would be different for safety of tissues and cells, where import from other countries is a highly relevant issue.

Thus, this initiative – which certainly is valuable - should be funded by other means.

The Evaluation Committee endorses the recommendation not to co-fund this application




No

0

0.00


101197




101,197.00

Acronym: EU-Patient-VOX 2009 Proposal number:



Priority area:

Action:

Providing a strong and united patients’ voice to put patients at the centre of EU health care policy and programmes - 2009

The European Union Member States




Acronym:

Status:

Country:

EUROPEAN PATIENT'S FORUM

EPF

Private

Luxembourg


Patients are the most vulnerable stakeholders within the health sector: even though they have the most important stake and they are the ultimate beneficiaries of health services they often have very little control on factors affecting their health and quality of life such as: access to and quality of services; information; decision-making on treatment; safety. The opportunity for patients to have a say on all of these issues is not only a right, but also crucial for health care services and health outcomes because patients are best placed to express their needs and evaluate the care received.

EPF’s mission is “to provide a strong and united patients’ voice to put patients at the centre of EU health care policy and programmes”.

It is now universally recognized that patients’ organisations’ involvement in health policy processes should be given a high priority.

The EC Health Strategy White Paper clearly illustrates this: "A core value is Citizens' Empowerment. Health care is becoming increasingly patient centred and individualised, with the patient becoming an active subject rather than a mere object of health care." The Public Health

Programme documents a list of actions needed to implement its objectives, among which: "information and consultation on health and health-related matters at the Community level, involving all stakeholders such as patients organisations..." DG Research has explored this further through the “Fortune” project and other initiatives: TIDE, DECIDE, CIPAST and Science and society programme. Research on patient involvement particularly in UK (Commission for Patient & Public Involvement in Health) provides substantive evidence that patients' organisations' involvement contributes to an improvement in the quality of health care delivery.

Collectively, all of these developments illustrate the added value of supporting the EPF work programme that ensures a pro-active patients' united voice in EU health policy, programmes and projects.


CAPACITY BUILDING and GOVERNANCE:

•AGM and Policy Review with Members and Board meetings

•WG on ‘the Status of patients in the EU’ to prepare a pilot review and concept for an EU project

STRENGHTENING POLICY IMPACT:

•Contribution to EU Health Strategy, European Health Policy Forum and Commission WGs – e.g 'patient safety', 'health systems','health services', the 'e-health stakeholders group' and the editorial board of the EU Health Portal

•Further investment in post High-Level Pharmaceutical Forum work - ‘information to patients’, Health Literacy and Equity of Access

•Policy work with EU Council Presidencies and EP Groupings and MEPs

•Promotion of EPF Manifesto and the European Patients’ Rights Day

•Enhanced work with EMEA

PATIENT EVIDENCE BASE: Workshops on key EU health policy themes and responses

MEMBERSHIP and PARTNERSHIPS: membership growth; strong cooperation with all EU health stakeholders

COMMUNICATIONS:Website; EPF Mailing; Translation; Key Events





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipment




E7 - Overheads





Total:

Expenditures

168 900

176 768

4 000

4 000

25 000

49 300

29 958

457 926

Incomes

274 756

183 170

0

0

457 926






Award criteria






Note

8

7

5

Comments

The organisation is a patient umbrella organisation and focuses on strengthening and uniting patient voice in all health policies. It participates in a number of EU fora and projects, contributes to open consultations and debates and supports national organisations with similar objectives. Hence its area of work is consistent with the 2nd programme of Community action and its priorities.

For similar reasons the organisations ongoing work bears full relevance to the WP 2008 objectives and priorities.

The applicant provides only general level information and therefore, even though this in line with the typical requirements of the application form, description of activities is rather superficial in order to help the evaluators make a sound judgment.

As the proposal is recommended for funding, the panel recommends to the PHEA to discuss more at length the specific activities of the organizations' annual work plan, also in order to avoid duplication and possible double funding through co-funded projects of the same organization.

The NGO has a very good coverage 36 members and an estimated benefited population of 150 million citizens and as such it is fully representative of a good geographical distribution. Even though some aspects of the membership structure are unclear, there is EU wide area of activity.






20

Note

8

7

7

Comments

The objectives of the annual work is aimed to strength the capacity of EPF to represent the patients and their interests, by providing support to the internal governance, increasing the representativeness and partnership Although it is described in generic terms and is a bit vague, there are dates of delivery when possible and it seems overall realistic and sustainable.

Activities are not strictly defined per se but some information is provided in 4.6. On the basis of this information the operations framework is considered satisfactory.

There is a good analysis of expected outcomes as a result of sponsored activities. An evaluation strategy utilising existing and new (e.g. the Critical Friends) mechanisms is envisaged.

There is evidence that the NGO has a very active dissemination strategy utilising several means and channels.






9

31

Note

7

6

Comments

The objectives are realistic, even if a bit vague and appear as sustainable. The tasks reflect the vague objectives. Timetable is realistic; this is a single beneficiary and the tasks are assigned internally. The risk analysis is acceptable but it should be more detailed.

The organisation is running in stable mode and the processes are well established. The organisation has good links to other stakeholders and major players in the field. Again, information on organisational capacity is largely implicit in the proposal and the evaluators take it on a bona fide basis







7

3

Overall budget seems to have weak correlation to the organization's profile, since no core work, other than networking activities, albeit at a very high level is undertaken. Therefore the panel considers a co-funding to the level of 150.000€ sufficient. On the detailed budget, the travel and subsistence needs to be checked; also, the proposal should be checked against the risk of double funding, since the organization is a recurrent recipient of EC funding. The sustainability issue is not addressed, at least within the remit of this application.

Apart from the numbers, no information has been provided in the application on financial management. The annual financial audit provides however reassurance for a sound financial management.



23

74


The panel appreciates that the activities of the applicant organization focus on patient empowerment, which is a priority in the PHP 2008.

The proposal in itself and the information provided by the applicant, although limited, is with some small exceptions, at the same level of those of other applications for operating grants. However, while recommending it for funding the panel remains concerned by the issue that the applicant is in fact a lobbying mechanism and that it is largely funded by pharmaceutical companies.

On the level of funding, the panel recommends 150.000€, as the level of expenditure requested did not seem justified by the activities presented (see above, under budget). Also, should the NGO be co-funded it is important to obtain information on activities in a more auditable format.

the level of expenditure requested did not seem justified by the activities presented (see above, under budget). Also, should the

NGO be co-funded it is important to obtain information on activities in a more auditable format.

The Evaluation Committee is not convinced that with the high level of income it receives from industry, EPF cannot operate indepednetly from it and therefore considers the application as not eligible




No

0

0.00


101205




101,205.00

Acronym: Networking Self-Help in Europe Proposal number:


Improving networking and access to citizen friendly health information

Exchange knowledge and practises on self-help in Europe


Priority area:

Action:

National clearinghouses for self-help in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Great-Britain,

Greece, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Norway, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland plus Hungary and Poland




Acronym:

Status:

Country:

Deutsche Arbeitsgemeinschaft Selbsthilfegruppen e.V. c/o NAKOS

DAG SHG c/o NAKOS

Private

Germany


Self-help in groups is regarded as an important part of public health activity and as an important supplement to professional help. By exchanging information and experiences on illness and life circumstances self-help groups offer citizen-friendly knowledge not only for their members but also for others. Its significance is meeting each other face to face and forming communities with other people as opposed of being inpersonal cases which simply fit inflexible diagnostic categories. The field of self help groups and knowledge on successfull supporting mechanism is well established in Germany, Austria and Swizzerland. In Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finnland and Belgium (and

Liechtenstein) the development is well started, but, however in these countries the approach of clearinghouses still has potentials with regard to capacity building and further dissemination. In the remaining countries the professional support of self-help groups by clearinghouses which are not focusing on a single indiaction but on the broad range of themes (in Germany exist about 1.000 themes self-groups are dealing with) has just begun (e.g. Italy, Greece, Slovenia). To cover the need of exchange of know how, partners from several countries have a 20-year old tradition of bi-annual meetings, rather still missing a formalised form. Also partners are missing since years a plattform for countinous exchange. The exchange of standards of self-help support is further handicaped by lack of materials in a common language, e.g. in English, although such material partly exists. Our main objective is to improve networking between the institutions supporting self-help groups. Further we aim at making available information on self-help groups. Profiting from experiences in the countries with good developments, we aim at enabling citizens from more European countries to have access to health information from the perspective of other patients affected by the same illness.


To formalize and enhance the corporate identity and voice of about up to 20 networking institutions in Europe the „European Network of

Self-Help Support - ENSHS“ will be founded. The 10th Expert Meeting on Self-Help Support in Berlin will be organized. Further an

European website on self-help support will be implemented and launched. As technical means an easily running Content Management

System will enable each member of the European network to include information about self-help activities in their country. To close lacks of information on self-help groups and how to support them in clearinghouses standard materials will be translated into English. For all actions

NAKOS is responsible. An agency programming the website and a translator hired for translations will be instructed by the project leader.

The network partners will have to join the actions by giving feedback to the milesones, attend the telefone conferences and include information of their countries via CMS on the website.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipment




E7 - Overheads

Expenditures

115 553

5 000

0

0

28 500

0

10 434





Total: 159 487

Incomes

94 097

0

0

65 390

159 487






Award criteria



Note

6

Comments

The content of the proposal could be consistent with the objective of the Public Health programme of disseminating knowledge action 3.3,

Exchange knowledge and best practice.

The proposal could be pertinent with the WP, but not of special relevance for the health of Europeans. The claim of doing patience educations is not really consistent with the activities described, that seems to be only networking at very low scale, without scientific supervision.

As well the scale is very small and the organisation seems to be only established in Germany.




4

3

The NAKOS organization is well established in Germany and

NAKOS Orange addresses is a network which implies 50 organizations of self help listed. The capacity of connecting self help groups is not specifically listed as an activity and the claim of sharing best practices is not guarantee, since there is not scientific supervision. It seems to be a local organization and their activities are not specially detailed, so it is difficult to asses the pertinence of them.

The organization claims to be effective in 8 countries and with intention of start activities on 3 countries more. In the Europe of 27 and with the language barriers, especially important for patience associations, this network has not enough geographical distribution.



13

Note





5

5

4

5

Comments

The objectives are not well defined. There is a potential for success taking in count the experience of the organization

However there are doubts that these groups could share best practices, without scientific supervision. There are many self help groups of patients cooperating very well, so it is not clear the need of an extra international coordination.

In theory the operational framework looks proper. The calendar is coherent, but probably the time allocated to some activities is not sufficient.

The data protection issue is addressed; however there are ethical problems about these organizations sharing information/advice without medical advice. In some countries legal problems could be presented. The quality of the information should be assured.

Language problems are foreseen partially, with a translation to

English. Taking in count that these organisations are addressed to patients, not to the scientific community, it sounds insufficient.

External evaluation not defined and the internal is v traditional and describe in a very general way. There are not quantitative or qualitative indicators of the outcomes and the impact. Only some process indicators are mention: e.g. usage of the website, that is not really a good indicator, since it is easy to manipulate.

Risk analysis is very superficial, but address the big problem of this network: the language

The NAKOS organization has a network of other self help organizations in Europe. Ethical considerations are mentioned.

However there is not really a dissemination strategy that includes a stakeholder's analysis and tried to find the best channels to address them. The webpage is not enough.

As well the language issue is a big problem for dissemination.







19

Note





5

4

4

0

Comments

The calendar of activities and the timetable seems to be realistic, at least on a first step

The activities and the outcomes are not clearly related to the general objective.

No risk analysis is stated. There is only a general comment about the language problem.

The Nakos organization is experienced in this field, mainly in

Germany. There is no details regarding the internal structure of the organization and the competence of staff is not clearly stated. There is not scientific adviser

The decision making and the monitoring and supervision of the organization is not addressed

The budget could be adequate, however is poorly presented. There is not detail of other external resources. Translation costs are not included.

Subcontracting cost is not explained.

The men / months ratio is not clear. 1 staff 120 50% of the time. 120 what?

There is no information about financial circuits or responsibilities.

The controls or supervision of activities are not addressed.



13

45


The networking self help in Europe is an organization that intents to connect patients with self help groups, and with self help clearing houses to provide professional help and support to patients.

However the description of the activities is very general and it is difficult to asses if the objectives proposed could be achieved with the tasks envisaged.

The functions and operational activities of the organization are not well defined or described.

As well at this stage Nakos does not have an European dimension.

Mostly German language information. It is only foreseen a translation to English, without taking in count the enormous among of patients without English knowledge. In order to have European Dimension language barriers should be taken into consideration.

There is no scientific supervision. The scientific validity of the information provided by this Web site has to be asured.

The organization requesting the grant needs a wide European projection and assures the accessibility of the information through free means.

There are many self help groups of patients cooperating very well, so it is not clear the need of an extra international coordination.

There are several web pages for patients in Europe that could be used for the same purpose.

The Evaluation Committee found that insufficinet evidence that

NAKOS is a network representing organisations in more thna 50% of the EU Member States . It further endorses the appreciations by the peer reveiw panel not to co-fund this application




No

0

0.00


101244




101,244.00

Acronym: CCCBHS Proposal number:



Priority area:

Action:

WHO Collaborating Centre for Capacity Building in HIV Surveillance

International - focused on European countries, but also countries of Central Asia, Northern Africa and the Middle East




Acronym:

Status:

Country:

Medical School, University of Zagreb

MEF HR

Public

Croatia


The rising HIV epidemic presents a widely recognized threat to the health of European citizens. To launch an effective response, public health experts need high quality surveillance data on the nature and magnitude of the epidemic, its principal modes of transmission, and the size and types of the most at-risk populations. Unfortunately, as asserted consistently by HIV/AIDS experts, many European countries lack reliable data on the incidence and prevalence of HIV in the region and on the size, nature, and location of those infected and affected. This information gap impedes the design and management of effective intervention programs to combat and contain the disease and may also lull national leaders and policy makers into a false sense of security about the risk of HIV/AIDS in their countries. This overall lack of quality data has also become an important issue for countries that need to establish systems of evaluation of HIV prevention and control programs.

The mission of the WHO Collaborative Centre for HIV surveillance is to disseminate knowledge and best practice tools that will raise the capacity of countries to identify the scale and the distribution of HIV epidemics in their general populations and populations at risk, as well as to determine whether existing programmes for HIV prevention and control are effective. The work of the WHO Collaborating Centre for

Capacity Building in HIV Surveillance has been guided by its International Advisory Board. The work of the Centre is coordinated with

Eurohiv, European Centre for Disease Control, WHO, GTZ, UNAIDS, UNDP, countries and other stakeholders. The need for the centre's activities is best witnessed by the demand for its services; 203 participants from 38 countries of Europe, Central Asia, Africa and the Middle

East attended courses organized only in 2007.


Activities envisaged for 2009 include:

- developing training manuals for 2 new training courses: 1) Biological and HIV incidence based surveillance and 2) Data use and reporting

- holding 8 training courses in HIV surveillance: 1) HIV Surveillance in hard to reach populations, 2) Strengthening capacities for conducting national AIDS spending assessments and resource needs estimates, 3) Biological HIV surveillance and HIV incidence based surveillance, 4) Designing protocols for population based and clinic based HIV surveillance, 5) Monitoring and evaluation of national AIDS programmes, 6) Data use and report writing in HIV surveillance, 7) Respondent driven sampling and 8) Time location sampling

- assistance in surveillance projects as requested by network members

-generating research based evidence on the HIV epidemic and associated behavior among at risk groups

- exchange of knowledge and best practice meetings among countries and professionals, network members





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipment




E7 - Overheads

Expenditures

137 688

11 078

0

4 977

0

1 500

10 867





Total: 166 110

Incomes

98 005

26 540

41 565

0

166 110






Award criteria






Note

8

8

5

Comments

The project proposed by the Medical school, University of Zagreb,

Croatia aims to disseminate knowledge and best practices to raise the capacity of countries to improve surveillance of HIV. The dissemination of good practices (surveillance and monitoring) does not fit the WP 2008, and is under the mandate of the ECDC. The organisation did not present the annual work programme, more details will be appropriate. There were concerns about the eligibility of activities related to the research topics.

The university structure is expected to have a good organisation activity, and provided that there is no conflict between the teaching activities and the OG training programme, managerial problems are not expected.

In the past training activities, the participants came mostly from

Central eastern and South Eastern Europe. The centre operates a network of alumni partners that come from 18 MS. Nevertheless, the specific associated partners and collaborating partners for the project are not identified in the specific section. The area of intervention for the project is not well defined. Lack of demonstration that it only concerns European countries as the Centre's activities also include counties from other continents. Most of the activities have been done in collaboration with EUROHIV, ECDC, and the UK

HPA, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, WHO EURO but also

World Bank, US EMRO, and UNDP, UNAIDS and the University of

California.



21

Note


Comments

There was insufficient presentation of evidence for the action, and not reference to the known available data (background HIV situation). The support for research is not considered a priority.



7

7

(4) Dissemination strategy 7



28

Note

The activity plan was considered ambitious for one year; the tasks were not well described. However, there seems to have a good involvement of the alumni network, as they contribute as teachers.

The manual development seems less valuable, as there are several recognised sets of training material available. The use of the alumni fees was a reason of concern, and the WHO contribution, because there were doubts that this might be against the EU rules. The specific objectives 4 and 5 need to be further developed.

The evaluation strategy is not well planned, only process indicators are proposed for monitoring. The evaluation of the research activities or assistance for surveillance was not described. The risk analysis does not address remediation actions. The indicators can be better defined.

General description, not really a proper strategy of dissemination, based on the website use, conferences and through the network of collaborating partners.

Comments









7

7

7

The planning presents the activities, with no definition of milestones or development of a task description. The risk analysis was considered to focus on fund raising, can be improved to cover internal and external risks and propose remediation actions. The timetable was considered realistic but not sufficiently detailed.

There is a management structure, but no information available about the staff competence, the structure of decision making or the supervision of the activities. The University structure is expected to ensure a good management structure.

There were concerns about the support received from WHO as collaborating centre and the student's fees, which should not be in contradiction to a not-for-profit activity principle. The budget was considered appropriate and relevant. There were doubts about the support to research activities.



5

26

75

Considered good based on the previous experience.


General concern about the eligibility of the organisation, which was not considered as an established network of experts, but a national

University. The research activities were not sufficiently explained.Recommended for funding, when the eligibility of the organisation is validated. The research activities were not sufficiently explained. There were concerns about the support received from

WHO as collaborating centre and the student's fees, which should not be in contradiction to a not-for-profit activity principle. The budget was considered appropriate and relevant. Another issue discussed was the risk of overlap, when the competence for support of surveillance and training activities on infectious diseases are part of the mandate of the ECDC.

The Evaluation Committee does not consider the formal organisational basis of a WHO Collaborating Center as meeting the requirements defined by the call of an organisation with registered

Members in more than 50% of the EU member States ; Support to

WHO is given via direct grant agreement




No

0

0.00


101245




101,245.00

Acronym: ICBPD Proposal number:



Priority area:

Action:

Integrated Capacity Building and Policy Development Work Programme

International including representation from Western Europe, Eastern Europe and other global regions with focus on increasing learning between countries and between regions. For list of countries see section 10 of this form.




Acronym:

Status:

Country:

International Alliance of Patients' Organizations

IAPO

Private

United Kingdom


IAPO is an international cross disease patients' organization representing patients' organizations globally and working towards patient-centred healthcare. Patients' organizations play a critical role in disseminating accessible information to patients about healthcare enabling them to better access effective care. They have the capacity to play a vital role in advocacy work towards improving and promoting health with the patients that they represent. However in order to achieve these goals patients' organizations need effective support. IAPO aims to provide its members with means to access and contribute to global policy debates on health and provides targeted capacity building support to assist patients' organizations to reach their potential in fully representing the patients that they work for.

This work programme is aimed at addressing the common need of patient groups for capacity building and policy support to enable them to play a meaningful role in partnering with the healthcare system to develop and deliver healthcare.

The programme is based on evidence of need from IAPO's member organizations gathered through regular consultations and the growing evidence that active involvement of patient groups in healthcare policy and of individual patients in their own healthcare is necessary to effectively address the burden of chronic diseases and ensure that patients receive access to appropriate health information and healthcare. Members responding to a consultation prioritised advocacy, fundraising and policy work as areas where they required support.

Over 80% of members stated that a twinning service and member only access to resources through the Patients Exchange would be very or quite useful. A pilot phase of the twinning project demonstrated commitment to the project and the benefits of mutual learning. IAPO members identified the importance of policy work to them with policy statements and exposure to policy making in their top three priorities.


The programme includes:

A twinning initiative to link groups of two or more organizations together on a particular area of work in order to share expertise and resources to increase their capacity and skills.

The development of IAPO's online service for patients' organizations comprising a resource library and an email listserv to increase the range of resources available; add a patient-centred healthcare section and build the capacity of organizations in developing regions such as eastern Europe to access tools.

Developing best practice tools and information to develop the knowledge and capacity of patient groups on policy issues relating to patient-centred healthcare through the development of an advocacy and communications toolkit; collection, documentation and dissemination of case studies and the development of a policy statement and guidelines on patient information.

IAPO staff and board will lead and implement the activities in close cooperation with IAPO members.





Budget

E1a - Staff


E3 - Equipment




E7 - Overheads

Expenditures

83 838

6 343

0

54 345

22 599

26 706

13 568





Total: 207 399

Incomes

124 439

82 960

0

0

207 399






Award criteria






Note

9

6

4

Comments

The activities and work programme of IAPO are fully consistent with the public health programme.

In particular, the general objectives and priorities in the areas 3. and

2. of the health programme are fully met: capacity building.

The activities and the work described by the applicant are responding to the objectives and priorities of the 2008 work plan. It is clearly presented under their mission.

However in some aspects the description of the organization's annual work programme is very general, e.g. the capacity building is not well explained.

The description responds to the priorities detailed in the 2008 WP, in particular as regards actions in order to promote and disseminate health information and knowledge.

Their programme includes twinning initiatives to link groups of 2 or more organizations together to share expertise. In view of these coordination activities, there is a need to improve and avoid duplication, in particular with other patient's organisations. As well the activities should be explained with more detail.

The responsibilities of IAPO members/staff are not well presented.

The geographical coverage is very good. It is balanced and all regions/areas are represented. There are 19+1 countries which could benefit and are indeed involved.

The target groups are defined and inclusive. However it is considered that the partnership is too heavy in the main partner side and it will be necessary to know the real involvement of other countries.



19

Note





5

6

3

5

Comments

The objectives of the organisation are clear.

The activities are not well described and there are not provided evidences to demonstrate the pertinence of the activities and their sustainability.

The member organizations of IAPO said the "work of IAPO is very useful", but the results are not well explained.

The calendar of action given covers the timeframe: tasks, planed activities. However more details are necessary, especially about the tasks envisaged. Timetable seems to be appropriate.

Relations with the European Patient's Forum are presented and it seems to have a good network activity.

The responsibilities are not well explained and the kind of partnership is not clear.

A real strategy of evaluation is not provided; there is a description of some activities in a very superficial way. As well the tools are not appropriate. A timeframe is lacking, there are not quality and quantitative indicators to asses the process, the deliverables and the impact.

The external evaluation is not mentioned.

No real strategy presented on dissemination, there are good communication activities presented: website, newsletter, presentations.

It seems to be a large network of members and partners, but the means and channels chosen to disseminate sound insufficient and not detailed. As well the sustainability of the activities is not described.







19

Note





5

5

5

2

Comments

Activities, milestones and deliverables are presented, but in a general way. It will be necessary to provide more details. Timetable has not been completed and the risk analysis is not addressing the principal problems that they could face.

The organization seems to have a historical track record and experience. The roles and responsibilities are described without details.

The information about the competence of the staff is taking for granted, because this information is lacking in the proposal

Decision making tools / approach not defined and the supervision activities are not clear either internal communication.

The budget seems to be overestimated, with a very high staff cost.

No participation in other actions, so staff will focus only on this work and their activities related to WP 2008.

The resources should be more efficiently allocated and it is necessary to find relevant synergies. The cost can be reduced by

40% on staff time. As well the cost on consumables and supplies should be reconsidered.

There is limited information on financial management. Under ethical aspects it is mentioned that procedures will follow good practice and that ethical, legal issues will be considered.



17

55


IAPO is an international cross disease patient's organization representing patient's organizations globally. However it is not clear the aims and activities of the organization.

The responsibilities are not well explained and the kind of partnership is not clear.

Real strategies of dissemination and evaluation are lacking. No clear financial circuits.

The risk analysis is not addressed. There is no information on the sustainability and impact of the action proposed.

The budget seems to be overestimated.




No

0

0.00


Calls for proposals 2008 guide

EXECUTIVE AGENCY FOR HEALTH AND CONSUMERS

S

ECOND

P

ROGRAMME OF

C

OMMUNITY

A

CTION IN THE

F

IELD OF

H

EALTH

PROGRAMME COMMITTEE

24 JULY 2008

CALL FOR PROPOSALS 2008

V OLUME II

DRAFT

EXECUTIVE AGENCY FOR HEALTH AND CONSUMERS

T ABLE OF C ONTENT

HS project proposals not retained for co-funding

HP project proposals not retained for co-funding

HI project proposals not retained for co-funding

Conference proposals not retained for co-funding

Operating grant proposals not retained for co-funding

HS project proposals not retained for co-funding

Proposal number: 101097

Acronym: IOGDIPT

Proposal number: 101098

Acronym: THE POB

Proposal number: 101099

Acronym: PRAEGIS

Proposal number: 101101

Acronym: TORATIC

Proposal number: 101102

Acronym: ABS Excellence

Proposal number: 101185

Acronym:

EUTAP

Proposal number: 101186

Acronym:

CwF

Proposal number: 101284

Acronym: Follow-up HPV vaccination

HP project proposals not retained for co-funding

Proposal number: 101054

Acronym: DSP

Proposal number: 101056

Acronym: ProHealthyLifeStyle-SusDev

Proposal number: 101057

Acronym: IMPACT

Proposal number: 101065

Acronym:

ECTC

Proposal number: 101066

Acronym: PEER-Drive Clean II

Proposal number: 101068

Acronym: HEALTHY-SNACKS

Proposal number: 101073

Acronym: EURIDICE

Proposal number: 101074

Acronym: RHYME

Proposal number: 101077

Acronym: Road to life

Proposal number: 101084

Acronym:

EURO-PID-REG

Proposal number: 101108

Acronym: ENQ's YP

Proposal number: 101110

Acronym: TAP

Proposal number: 101111

Acronym: ReClaim

Proposal number: 101113

Acronym: TESS

Proposal number: 101115

Acronym:

EPACAS

Proposal number: 101116