Calls for proposals 2008 guide

advertisement
EXECUTIVE AGENCY FOR HEALTH AND CONSUMERS
Scientific Unit
SECOND PROGRAMME OF COMMUNITY ACTION IN THE FIELD OF HEALTH
(2008-2013)
PROGRAMME COMMITTEE
24 JULY 2008
CALL FOR PROPOSALS 2008
VOLUME II
DRAFT
EXECUTIVE AGENCY FOR HEALTH AND CONSUMERS
Scientific Unit
TABLE OF CONTENT
• 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
Acronym:
IOGDIPT
Strand:
1. IMPROVE CITIZEN'S HEALTH SECURITY (HS-2008)
Action:
1.2 Improve citizens' safety
Title:
Iodine deficiency and gestational diabetes in pregnancy - Thyromobil study
Starting date:
01/10/2008
Duration:
24
Main partner name:
Uniwersytet Jagiellonski, Collegium Medicum
Acronym:
UJCM
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
Poland
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
Helsingin yliopisto
City
Country
UH
Helsinki
Finland
IENDB
BUCURESTI
Romania
UNIPEC
Pecs
Hungary
Pomorska Akademia Medyczna w Szczecinie
PAM
Szczecin
Poland
University College Dublin
UCD
Dublin 4
Ireland
University of Messina
UNIME
Messina
Italy
University of Pisa
UNIPI
Pisa
Italy
MUL
Lódz
Poland
INSTITUTE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY BUCURESTI
Pécsi Tudományegyetem Orvos- és Egészségtudományi
Koordinációs Központ Klinikai Központ, I. sz. Belgyógyászati Klinika
Uniwersytet Medyczny w Lodzi
8
6
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
1
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
241 972
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
356 460
E2a - Travel
56 600
E2b - Subsistence allowances
46 964
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
388 272
E5 - Subcontracting costs
0
E6 - Other costs
133 000
E7 - Overheads
85 627
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
654 445
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
241 972
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
412 478
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
2
1 308 895
1 308 895
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
Comments
4
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.
5
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
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.
5
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
6
The geographical coverage is good. More collaborating partners could be an asset.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
6
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
26
Note
(1) Evidence base
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
(4) Evaluation strategy
4
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.
4
The dissemination is merely scientific with standard peer review articles, presentations at
conferences, etc. This could be developed
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
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.
20
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
3
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
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.
3
(2) Organisational capacity
4
(3) Quality of partnership
3
(4) Communication strategy
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.
3
The communication strategy seems adequate from the limited information given with standard
publications. EU funding should be mentioned.
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
7
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.
Total criteria block C:
20
Overall appreciation Total:
66
Conclusion and
suggestions
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
4
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,098.00
Proposal number: 101098
Acronym:
THE POB
Strand:
1. IMPROVE CITIZEN'S HEALTH SECURITY (HS-2008)
Action:
1.2 Improve citizens' safety
Title:
TRAINING HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS IN BIOTERRORISM EVENTS
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
24
Main partner name:
HELLENIC CENTRE FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
Acronym:
HCDCP
Status:
Public
Type:
Governmental organisation
Country:
Greece
Associated partner(s) name
Medical University-Plovdiv
REGIONE DEL VENETO
Acronym
City
Country
MU-PV
Plovdiv
Bulgaria
REGVEN
Venezia
Italy
2
2
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
5
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
426 210
E2a - Travel
40 000
E2b - Subsistence allowances
6 368
E3 - Equipement
20 000
E4 - Consumables & supplies
29 216
E5 - Subcontracting costs
100 000
E6 - Other costs
110 000
E7 - Overheads
4 200
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
441 588
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
294 406
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
6
735 994
735 994
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
5
3
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
3
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
3
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
3
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
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.
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
(1) Evidence base
3
(2) Content specification
3
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.
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
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.
2
(4) Evaluation strategy
2
The evaluation strategy should be elaborated and indicators clearly defined for processes as well
as for the impact of the project.
2
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.
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
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.
12
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
7
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Note
3
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.
3
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.
2
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.
3
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
6
Total criteria block C:
17
Overall appreciation Total:
46
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
Comments
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.
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
8
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,099.00
Proposal number: 101099
Acronym:
PRAEGIS
Strand:
1. IMPROVE CITIZEN'S HEALTH SECURITY (HS-2008)
Action:
1.2 Improve citizens' safety
Title:
Pre-operative Risk Assessment among Elderly receiving selected Gastro-Intestinal Surgery
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Regione del Veneto
Acronym:
REGVEN
Status:
Public
Type:
Governmental organisation
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
MBAL Samokov EOOD
The Institute of Experimental and Clinical Medicine at Vilnius
University
Uniwersytet Jagiellonski Collegium Medicum
Acronym
City
Country
CNR-IN
Padova
Italy
MBAL
Samokov
Bulgaria
IECM VU
Vilnius
Lithuania
UJCM
KRAKÓW
Poland
4
4
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
9
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
297 397
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
314 905
E2a - Travel
15 600
E2b - Subsistence allowances
17 184
E3 - Equipement
14 700
E4 - Consumables & supplies
3 500
E5 - Subcontracting costs
30 000
E6 - Other costs
0
E7 - Overheads
48 528
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
444 417
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
297 397
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
0
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
10
741 814
741 814
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
4
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
4
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
4
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
5
A better spread through Europe would have been desirable to cover different health care systems
and regional differences.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
5
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.
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
22
Note
(1) Evidence base
4
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
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.
3
Since there are already knowledge in this area the project is not considered very innovative.
4
The evaluation strategy is only addressing the process, not the methods used. Indicators are not
sufficiently described.
(5) Dissemination strategy
4
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
The evidence base should be expanded. No real problem analysis is included.
There have already been a lot of studies in this field.
4
(4) Evaluation strategy
Total criteria block B:
Comments
The dissemination targets the adequate stakeholders – professional medics. Fairly standardised
but relevant.
19
Note
Comments
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.
4
The staff is competent and the internal work procedures adequately addressed.
3
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
11
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(4) Communication strategy
3
No specific comments.
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
8
The budget is reasonable and well balanced.
Total criteria block C:
21
Overall appreciation Total:
62
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
12
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,101.00
Proposal number: 101101
Acronym:
TORATIC
Strand:
1. IMPROVE CITIZEN'S HEALTH SECURITY (HS-2008)
Action:
1.1 Protect citizens against health threats
Title:
Toxicological Risk assessment of Deliberate releases or accidents with TICs
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
30
Main partner name:
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment
Acronym:
RIVM
Status:
Public
Type:
Governmental organisation
Country:
Netherlands
Associated partner(s) name
Bundesinstitut fuer Risikobewertung
Commission of the European Communities - Joint Research Centre
Acronym
City
Country
BfR
Berlin
Germany
JRC
Brussels
Belgium
CrisisTox
Gouda
Netherlands
European Virtual Institute for Integrated Risk Management
EU-VRi
Stuttgart
Germany
INSTITUT NATIONAL de l'ENVIRONNEMENT INDUSTRIEL et des
RISQUES
INERIS
Verneuil-en-Halatte
France
Karolinska Institute
KI
Stockholm
Sweden
Swedish Defense Research Institute
FOI
Umeå
Sweden
Technical University of Denmark
DTU
Lyngby
Denmark
CrisisTox Consult
TYöterveyslaitos (Finnish Institute of Occupational Health)
UK Health Protection Agency
FIOH
Helsinki
Finland
UK HPA
Chilton, Near Didcot
United Kingdom
10
8
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
13
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
8 932
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
1 369 547
E2a - Travel
149 400
E2b - Subsistence allowances
124 500
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
0
E6 - Other costs
153 000
E7 - Overheads
57 082
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
1 495 756
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
8 932
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
357 773
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
14
1 862 461
1 862 461
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
7
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
6
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
7
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
5
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.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
6
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.
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
31
Note
(1) Evidence base
4
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.
4
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
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.
5
Sustainability is not discussed, which would have been very relevant. Otherwise the
dissemination strategy is adequate for this kind of project.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Comments
21
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
3
Comments
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
15
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(2) Organisational capacity
4
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.
5
This is a very qualified partnership, but please see comments regarding broadening of the
network above. JRC could not participate as an associate partner.
3
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.
5
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.
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
20
Overall appreciation Total:
72
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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.
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
16
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,102.00
Proposal number: 101102
Acronym:
ABS Excellence
Strand:
1. IMPROVE CITIZEN'S HEALTH SECURITY (HS-2008)
Action:
1.2 Improve citizens' safety
Title:
European Network of Antibiotic Stewardship (ABS) Excellence
Starting date:
07/01/2009
Duration:
30
Main partner name:
ROLAND GAREIS CONSULTING GmbH
Acronym:
RGC
Status:
Private
Type:
Commercial organisation
Country:
Austria
Associated partner(s) name
ABS Group
Acronym
City
Country
ABS Group
Vienna
Austria
A.ö. Krankenhaus der Elisabethinen Linz
KHE
Linz
Austria
Baranya County Hospital, Pecs
BMK
Pecs
Hungary
Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital
CWZ
Nijmegen
Netherlands
European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases
ESCMID
Taufkirchen
Germany
Fundación para la Investigación Biomédica del Hospital Gregorio
Marañón
FIBHGM
Madrid
Spain
HI
Vilnius
Lithuania
NHH
Prague
Czech Republic
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
NKUA
Athens
Greece
National Centre for Infectious and Parasitic Diseases
NCIPD
Sofia
Bulgaria
National Medicines Institute
NMI
Warsaw
Poland
National Public Health Institute
KTL
Turku
Finland
Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital
PSCUH
Riga
Latvia
Romanian railway University Hospital iasi, Romania/ Romanian
Railway Outpatient Clinic Suceava
RRUH
Suceava
Romania
St. Elizabeth Univ. College
Bratislava
Slovakia
Università degli Studi di Verona
UNIVR
Verona
Italy
Universitätsklinikum Freiburg
UKFR
Freiburg
Germany
ULB
Brussels
Belgium
University Medical Centre Ljubljana
UMCL
LJUBLJANA
Slovenia
University of Rijeka, Faculty of Medicine
URSM
Rijeka
Croatia
Institute of Hygiene
Na Homolce Hospital
St. Elizabeth University College of Public Health & Social Sciences
Universite Libre de Bruxelles - Hopital Erasme
20
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
18
17
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Executive summary:
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
Expenditures
E1a - Staff (public officials)
181 100
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
840 185
E2a - Travel
240 600
E2b - Subsistence allowances
218 800
E3 - Equipement
14 000
E4 - Consumables & supplies
105 000
E5 - Subcontracting costs
646 600
E6 - Other costs
259 000
E7 - Overheads
175 341
Incomes
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
1 608 374
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
181 100
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
891 152
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
18
2 680 626
2 680 626
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
4
3
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
7
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.
6
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?
23
Note
Comments
3
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.
3
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.
3
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.
3
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).
5
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).
(2) Content specification
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
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.
3
(1) Evidence base
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
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.
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.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Comments
17
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
19
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Note
3
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.
3
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.
3
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.
3
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.
2
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…)
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
14
Overall appreciation Total:
54
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
Comments
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
20
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,185.00
Proposal number: 101185
Acronym:
EUTAP
Strand:
1. IMPROVE CITIZEN'S HEALTH SECURITY (HS-2008)
Action:
1.2 Improve citizens' safety
Title:
European Telemedicine Association Project
Starting date:
01/12/2008
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
CEFOP Conimbriga_Centro de Formação de Professores e Professional de Conimbriga/LAC
Acronym:
CEFOP-LAC
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Portugal
Associated partner(s) name
Administração Central do Sistema de Saúde
Acronym
City
Country
ACSS
Lisboa
Portugal
Associação Saúde em Português
ASP
Coimbra
Portugal
Broadband Capital Ltd
BCL
Kingston Upon Hull
United Kingdom
ISTITUTO NAZIONALE DI RIPOSO E CURA PER ANZIANI V. E. II
INRCA
Ancona
Italy
Kingston University
KUUK
Kingston-upon-Thames
United Kingdom
Salford Primary Care Trust
Staffordshire University
University of Plymouth Higher Education Corporation
SPCT
Salford
United Kingdom
STAFORD
Staffordshire
United Kingdom
UPLY
Plymouth
United Kingdom
8
3
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
21
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
E1a - Staff (public officials)
10 000
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
247 800
E2a - Travel
48 000
E2b - Subsistence allowances
79 792
E3 - Equipement
195 000
E4 - Consumables & supplies
35 500
E5 - Subcontracting costs
110 000
E6 - Other costs
243 908
E7 - Overheads
30 000
Incomes
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
590 000
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
10 000
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
400 000
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
22
1 000 000
1 000 000
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
Comments
3
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
3
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
2
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
2
2
Note
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.
2
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
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.
(4) Evaluation strategy
1
(5) Dissemination strategy
3
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Comments
2
(2) Content specification
Total criteria block B:
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
(1) Evidence base
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
The meaning of geographical coverage seems not understood by the applicants. The project
involves only 3 countries with 9 partners.
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.
10
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
2
Comments
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
23
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(2) Organisational capacity
2
(3) Quality of partnership
2
(4) Communication strategy
3
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
4
Total criteria block C:
13
Overall appreciation Total:
35
Conclusion and
suggestions
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.
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
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
24
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,186.00
Proposal number: 101186
Acronym:
Strand:
1. IMPROVE CITIZEN'S HEALTH SECURITY (HS-2008)
Action:
1.1 Protect citizens against health threats
Title:
Counselors without Frontiers
Starting date:
29/03/2008
Duration:
24
Main partner name:
GREEK ASSOCIATON OF COUNSELING
Acronym:
GAC
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Greece
Associated partner(s) name
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI
LONDON SCHOOL OF COUNCELING AND PSYCHOTHERAPY
PREPOS prevenire e possibile
CwF
Acronym
City
Country
AUTH
THESSALONIKI
Greece
LSCP
LONDON
United Kingdom
PREPOS
LUCCA
Italy
3
3
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
25
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
160 460
E2a - Travel
31 240
E2b - Subsistence allowances
50 340
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
7 200
E5 - Subcontracting costs
24 000
E6 - Other costs
134 210
E7 - Overheads
0
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
244 470
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
162 980
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
26
407 450
407 450
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
4
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
3
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
3
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
3
The geographical coverage of the project is very limited. Partners from more countries would
have been an asset.
3
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.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
16
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
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.
3
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.
2
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
The evaluation strategy is quite good. The indicators need further elaboration
2
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
14
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Comments
2
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.
3
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
27
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(3) Quality of partnership
2
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.
2
The channels for communication looks adequate. Target groups would need further description.
Communication - both internal and external - could be further developed.
5
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.
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
14
Overall appreciation Total:
44
Conclusion and
suggestions
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.
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
28
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,284.00
Proposal number: 101284
Acronym:
Follow-up HPV vaccination
Strand:
1. IMPROVE CITIZEN'S HEALTH SECURITY (HS-2008)
Action:
1.1 Protect citizens against health threats
Title:
Follow-up of HPV vaccination and vaccination policy recommendations
Starting date:
01/10/2008
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Technical University of Munich
Acronym:
TUM
Status:
Public
Type:
Governmental organisation
Country:
Germany
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
Center for Social Advancement, Disease Prevention and Medical
Research Panagia Philanthropini
Panagia
Chalkidiki
Greece
Radboud University Nijmegen - Medical Centre
Nijmegen
Nijmegen
Netherlands
2
2
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
29
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
585 720
E2a - Travel
9 000
E2b - Subsistence allowances
1 722
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
0
E6 - Other costs
0
E7 - Overheads
40 999
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
382 464
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
254 977
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
30
637 441
637 441
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
6
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.
4
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.
4
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
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.
3
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
Comments
3
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.
3
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
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.
6
The evaluation strategy as described is sound and developed with the collaboration of the
associated partners who a research centres.
3
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.
(2) Content specification
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
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.
3
(1) Evidence base
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
18
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
31
2008-07-09 19:10
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Note
Comments
3
The planning and organisation seems good, but inadequate for the timeframe of the research
proposed.
3
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.
3
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.
3
No communication strategy, list of activities without definition of channels
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
6
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.
Total criteria block C:
18
Overall appreciation Total:
56
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
32
2008-07-09 19:10
HP project proposals
not retained for co-funding
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,054.00
Proposal number: 101054
Acronym:
DSP
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
Best Practices in prevention of depression and suicide in Europe
Starting date:
01/02/2009
Duration:
12
Main partner name:
Vlaams Agentschap Zorg en Gezondheid
Acronym:
VAZG
Status:
Public
Type:
Governmental organisation
Country:
Belgium
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
Go For Happiness - Ga voor Geluk vzw
GFH
Gooik
Belgium
Mental Health Europe - Santé Mentale Europe AISLB
MHE
Brussels
Belgium
MAMK/MUAS
Mikkeli
Finland
NASP
Stockholm
Sweden
REGVEN
Venezia
Italy
BICRA
Brussels
Belgium
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
4
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
1
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
196 350
E2a - Travel
22 200
E2b - Subsistence allowances
18 274
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
0
E6 - Other costs
0
E7 - Overheads
13 720
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
150 544
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
100 000
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
2
250 544
250 544
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
2
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.
2
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.
1
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.
2
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.
1
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.
(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)
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
8
Note
(1) Evidence base
Comments
1
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.
1
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.
1
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
3
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(4) Evaluation strategy
0
(5) Dissemination strategy
2
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
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
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Comments
1
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.
0
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.
1
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.
1
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.
3
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
6
Overall appreciation Total:
19
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
4
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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.
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
5
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,056.00
Proposal number: 101056
Acronym:
ProHealthyLifeStyle-SusDev
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.1 Preparation of initiatives to increase healthy life years across the life cycle and tackle health inequalities
Title:
Promotion of Social Construction of Healthy Lifestyles with a Sustainable Development
Starting date:
19/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Familles du Monde
Acronym:
FaMiDo
Status:
Public
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Belgium
Associated partner(s) name
Cellule Environnement de la Ville de Mouscron (B)
Acronym
City
Country
Cellule Environnement
Mouscron
Belgium
UNED
Madrid
Spain
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
2
2
Executive summary:
"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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
6
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
E1a - Staff (public officials)
193 105
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
475 500
E2a - Travel
30 800
E2b - Subsistence allowances
22 344
E3 - Equipement
16 000
E4 - Consumables & supplies
52 460
E5 - Subcontracting costs
3 000
E6 - Other costs
74 800
E7 - Overheads
60 759
Incomes
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
557 247
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
193 105
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
0
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
178 416
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
7
928 768
928 768
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
5
The proposal does not address directly the specific priorities of the Health Programme, nor the
WP 2008.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
4
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
2
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
3
Limited to two countries (BE and ES), results could have some relevance to other countries. The
target population is well described.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
5
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.
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
19
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
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.
3
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
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.
3
It is not clear how the results would be disseminated in Europe, only local target activities. No
clear plan of dissemination of results.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Comments
15
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
2
Comments
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
8
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(2) Organisational capacity
3
The network was considered small, and should have sufficient capacity to perform the expected
tasks.
2
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.
3
Considered general, with some description of the actions proposed.
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
8
The budget was considered realistic, some discrepancies of the salary level of the Spanish
university graduates was identified by the panel.
Total criteria block C:
18
Overall appreciation Total:
52
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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.
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
9
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,057.00
Proposal number: 101057
Acronym:
IMPACT
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.4 Addiction prevention
Title:
Implementation of networkmanagement for the development of local alcohol prevention strategies
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Rhineland Regional Council
Acronym:
LVR
Status:
Public
Type:
Governmental organisation
Country:
Germany
Associated partner(s) name
Caritasverband der Stadt Duisburg
Acronym
City
Country
CVDU
Duisburg
Germany
Deutscher Orden, Kinder- und Jugendhilfe
KiJuDO
Bonn
Germany
Dipartimento dei Servizi della Direzione Sanitaria
ASSL10
San Donà di Piave
Italy
Metropolitan Association for Sustainable Development Brasov
AMB
Brasov
Romania
SIA "Dzives Energija"
DzE
Riga
Latvia
Siauliai City Municipality
SCM
Siauliai
Lithuania
Stadt Mönchengladbach
MG
Mönchengladbach
Germany
Verein für Jugendhilfe Böblingen e.V.
VFJ
Heilbronn
Germany
8
5
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
10
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
423 760
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
425 340
E2a - Travel
75 600
E2b - Subsistence allowances
46 008
E3 - Equipement
4 000
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
258 000
E6 - Other costs
40 000
E7 - Overheads
88 280
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
710 152
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
423 760
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
227 076
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
11
1 360 988
1 360 988
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
(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
Comments
5
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.
4
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.
4
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'.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
2
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.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
2
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
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
(1) Evidence base
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
12
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(2) Content specification
3
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
3
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'.
2
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.
4
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.
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
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.
15
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
2
Comments
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??)
(2) Organisational capacity
3
(3) Quality of partnership
3
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.
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.
(4) Communication strategy
3
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
13
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
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.
Total criteria block C:
17
Overall appreciation Total:
49
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
14
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,065.00
Proposal number: 101065
Acronym:
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.4 Addiction prevention
Title:
European Cities That Care: E.C.T.C – Is it Easy?
Starting date:
26/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Co.Ge.S. Società Cooperativa Sociale
Acronym:
Coges
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
ECTC
Acronym
City
Country
Center for Dependency Disorders
Stad
Stockholm
Sweden
City of Solna
Solna
Solna
Sweden
Diputaciò de Barcelona
Diba
Barcelona
Spain
PsyVT
Veliko Tarnovo
Bulgaria
HK
Huddinge
Sweden
KOMBI
Berlin
Germany
Budapest
Budapest
Hungary
NAA
Bucarest
Romania
Regione del Veneto
Veneto
Venezia
Italy
Unidade Municipal de Atencion a Drogodependentes, Concello de
Santiago de Compostela
Umad
Santiago de Compostela
Spain
Valmiera
Valmiera
Latvia
YOPIC
Berlin
Germany
Zeit!Raum
Wien
Austria
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
Valmiera City Counsil
YOPIC - e. Verein
Zeit!Raum - Verein fur Soziokulturelle Arbeit - Wien
13
9
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
15
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
726 753
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
272 376
E2a - Travel
39 515
E2b - Subsistence allowances
71 677
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
19 750
E5 - Subcontracting costs
102 500
E6 - Other costs
18 900
E7 - Overheads
41 500
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
526 318
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
726 753
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
39 900
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
16
1 292 971
1 292 971
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
5
5
4
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.
4
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
4
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?
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
22
Note
(1) Evidence base
Comments
3
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)
3
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
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.
2
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?
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
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.
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Comments
(4) Evaluation strategy
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
17
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(5) Dissemination strategy
4
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
14
Note
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.
4
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.
3
The quality of partnerships seems relevant and sound but they should have expanded on
collaborating partners
3
Visibility of EU co-funding not clear. In the kick off meeting the involvement of EU networks
(aforementioned) would be appreciated.
6
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.
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
20
Overall appreciation Total:
56
Conclusion and
suggestions
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
Comments
4
(2) Organisational capacity
Recommended for funding:
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.
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
18
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,066.00
Proposal number: 101066
Acronym:
PEER-Drive Clean II
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.4 Addiction prevention
Title:
Peer education to prevent the hazards of alcohol and drug use, with special attention to road safety
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
SPI Forschung gGmbH / MISTEL
Acronym:
MISTEL/SPI
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Germany
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
Avenir Sante
Lyon
France
EDEX-Educational Excellence Cooperation Ltd -University of
Nicosia
UNic
Nicosia
Cyprus
Faculdade de Motricidade Humana
FMH
Oeiras
Portugal
Bruxelles
Belgium
Association Avenir Sante France
Fondation Tanguy Moreau de Melen Responsible Young Drivers Responsible Young Drivers (BE)
Sencura Forum
Hellenic Research and Educational Institute “Panos Mylonas”
RSI “Panos Mylonas”
Athens
Greece
SZMI
Budapest
Hungary
IREFREA-España
Palma de Mallorca
Spain
Knappenhof
Reichenau/Rax
Austria
LASER EUROPE
SAINT MICHEL CEDEX
France
LWL
Münster
Germany
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
Liikluskoolitajate Liit MTÜ (The Association of Traffic Educators)
LKL
Tallinn
Estonia
Open Youth
Sofia
Bulgaria
Responsible Young Drivers (LU)
Dudelange
Luxembourg
RU
London
United Kingdom
Federation of association
City: Katowice
Poland
THBB
Berlin
Germany
Totaltext
Ede
Netherlands
Univerza v Ljubljani
Ljubljana
Slovenia
Villa Renata
Lido di Venezia (VE)
Italy
Open Youth
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
Univerza v Ljubljani
Villa Renata Società Cooperativa Sociale
19
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
17
19
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Executive summary:
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
Expenditures
E1a - Staff (public officials)
128 560
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
1 172 810
E2a - Travel
207 000
E2b - Subsistence allowances
159 600
E3 - Equipement
21 000
E4 - Consumables & supplies
78 000
E5 - Subcontracting costs
209 300
E6 - Other costs
191 200
E7 - Overheads
151 713
Incomes
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
1 377 677
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
128 560
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
0
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
812 946
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
20
2 319 183
2 319 183
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
4
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
4
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
4
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
4
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
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
(1) Evidence base
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
21
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(2) Content specification
3
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.
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
2
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.
2
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.
2
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.
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
11
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
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.
3
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.
2
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.
2
Communication through other networks should be better explored. Among target groups media
have a potential that could be used.
3
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
13
Overall appreciation Total:
44
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Comments
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
No
0
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
22
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
23
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,068.00
Proposal number: 101068
Acronym:
HEALTHY-SNACKS
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
Reformulation of manufactured snacks based on new nutritional approaches to reduce overweight and obesity
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF RESEARCH
Acronym:
CNR
Status:
Public
Type:
International public organisation
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
MARTIN LUTHER UNIVERSITY
MLU
HALLE/SAALE
Germany
Széchenyi Scientific Society
SSS
Budapest
Hungary
UNIVERSITY OF CRETE
UoC
HERAKLION, CRETE
Greece
UNIVERSITY OF MILAN
IFGCB
MILAN
Italy
4
4
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
24
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
E1a - Staff (public officials)
783 846
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
226 440
E2a - Travel
43 200
E2b - Subsistence allowances
53 550
E3 - Equipement
112 000
E4 - Consumables & supplies
215 000
E5 - Subcontracting costs
380 000
E6 - Other costs
2 500
E7 - Overheads
127 155
Incomes
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
1 159 845
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
783 846
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
0
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
25
1 943 691
1 943 691
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
2
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
2
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.
1
The social, cultural and political context has not been addressed.
Ethical issues around taking blood samples from children have not been discussed.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
9
Note
(1) Evidence base
2
(2) Content specification
2
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
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.
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.
1
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.
(5) Dissemination strategy
2
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
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.
1
(4) Evaluation strategy
Total criteria block B:
Comments
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.
8
Note
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
Comments
26
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
2
The partners seem to have worked together before.
3
The consortium seems capable to carry out the tasks foreseen.
2
The partnership needs to be expanded to include public health specialists, industry, marketing
specialist etc.
2
Internal and external communication should have been discussed in more depth.
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
3
The subcontracting seems too high. Adding a company (SME) to the partnership would seem
more appropriate.
Total criteria block C:
12
Overall appreciation Total:
29
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
Conclusion and
suggestions
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
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
27
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,073.00
Proposal number: 101073
Acronym:
EURIDICE
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.1 Preparation of initiatives to increase healthy life years across the life cycle and tackle health inequalities
Title:
EURopean Initiative against Diabetes Inequalities in Care
Starting date:
01/09/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Helsingin yliopisto
Acronym:
UH
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
Finland
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
AUCHE
Sofia
Bulgaria
Associação Protectora dos Diabéticos de Portugal
APDP
Lisbon
Portugal
Clinical Center of Endocrinology Medical University, Sofia
CCE
Sofia
Bulgaria
CMNS
Santa Maria Imbaro (Ch)
Italy
GDC
Duesseldorf
Germany
Doc International SIA
DOCINT
Riga
Latvia
FUNDACIÓN PARA LA INVESTIGACION BIOMEDICA. HOSPITAL
UNIVERSITARIO. LA PAZ
FIBHULP
Madrid
Spain
IDIAP Jordi Gol
Barcelona
Spain
Alexandrov University Hospital, Clinic of Endocrinology
Consorzio Mario Negri Sud
DEUTSCHE DIABETES FORSCHUNGS-GESELLSCHAFT e.V.
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
KTL
Helsinki
Finland
LUCHE
Lund
Sweden
TUD
Dresden
Germany
NKUA
Athens
Greece
PMU Salzburg
Salzburg
Austria
Peninsula Medical School
PMS
Exeter
United Kingdom
The Jagiellonian University Medical College
UJCM
Krakow
Poland
The University of Edinburgh
UEDIN
Edinburgh
United Kingdom
UNIFOB AS
UNIFOB
Bergen
Norway
Universitetet i Oslo
UiO
Oslo
Norway
University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
UHL
Leicester
United Kingdom
Vestische Hospital for children and adolescents, University of
Witten/Herdecke
VKJK
Datteln
Germany
Vlaamse Diabetes Vereniging vzw
VDV
Gent
Belgium
21
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
14
28
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Executive summary:
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
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
685 210
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
747 720
E2a - Travel
95 983
E2b - Subsistence allowances
75 591
E3 - Equipement
24 000
E4 - Consumables & supplies
85 000
E5 - Subcontracting costs
0
E6 - Other costs
115 000
E7 - Overheads
127 983
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
1 155 474
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
685 210
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
115 803
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
29
1 956 487
1 956 487
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
6
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
8
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
6
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
8
The geographic coverage is excellent, covering the whole Europe.
6
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.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
34
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
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.
4
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.
3
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.
3
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
4
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Comments
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
Comments
30
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
4
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.
5
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.
4
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.
4
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.
7
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?
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
24
Overall appreciation Total:
75
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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?
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
31
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,074.00
Proposal number: 101074
Acronym:
RHYME
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.2 Reduction of health inequalities between EU regions
Title:
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH FOR YOUNG MIGRANTS IN EUROPE
Starting date:
01/03/2009
Duration:
30
Main partner name:
International Organization for Migration
Acronym:
IOM
Status:
Public
Type:
International public organisation
Country:
Belgium
Associated partner(s) name
Ethno-Medizinisches Zentrum e.V.
United Nations Population Fund
Acronym
City
Country
EMZ
Hannover
Germany
UNFPA
Sofia
Bulgaria
University of Ghent
ICRH
Ghent
Belgium
University of Porto (Universidade do Porto)
FMUP
Porto
Portugal
4
4
Executive summary:
General Objectives:
Improving sexual and reproductive health and HIV prevention among young people from migrant communities in Europe
Strategic relevance and contribution to the programme:
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
32
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
1 176 970
E2a - Travel
87 370
E2b - Subsistence allowances
75 420
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
3 100
E5 - Subcontracting costs
433 750
E6 - Other costs
133 610
E7 - Overheads
133 713
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
1 635 147
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
408 786
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
33
2 043 933
2 043 933
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
5
3
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
4
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
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.
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.
6
4
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.
22
Note
Comments
2
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.
3
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' !
(2) Content specification
4
(4) Evaluation strategy
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
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.
5
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.
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
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 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?
(1) Evidence base
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
18
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
34
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Note
4
(2) Organisational capacity
Comments
The planning of the activities is adequate, however no clear milestones were presented.
5
The responsibilities and tasks are not well described, but the organisations involved have
previous experience with EC projects.
5
Sufficiently presented, with involvement of public health authorities.
4
Considered too general, missing details in how it will be implemented. The use of different modes
of communication was considered effective (meetings, brochures, website).
5
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.
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
23
Overall appreciation Total:
63
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
35
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,077.00
Proposal number: 101077
Acronym:
Road to life
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.4 Addiction prevention
Title:
Road to life - Implementing solutions to fight alcohol misuse and addiction among young people and to prevent
road injuries
Starting date:
02/01/2009
Duration:
18
Main partner name:
MOVIMENTO CONSUMATORI
Acronym:
MC
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
CSMD
Rome
Italy
Green Meridian
GM
Jurmala
Latvia
Lithuanian AIDS center/Lietuvos AIDS centras
LAC
Vilnius
Lithuania
MoDiak
DIAKOPTO
Greece
TUD
Dresden
Germany
Consumedia
¿¿¿¿S ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ (¿¿¿¿S ¿¿¿¿¿S - ¿¿¿¿F¿¿¿¿¿ ¿¿¿¿¿¿S
¿¿¿¿¿¿S – ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿)
Technische Universität Dresden
5
5
Executive summary:
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
36
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
43 784
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
236 955
E2a - Travel
15 250
E2b - Subsistence allowances
18 504
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
100 080
E6 - Other costs
36 882
E7 - Overheads
31 585
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
289 824
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
43 784
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
149 432
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
37
483 040
483 040
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
3
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
3
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
2
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
3
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
2
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
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.
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
(1) Evidence base
Comments
2
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.
3
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) Content specification
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
38
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
2
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.
3
Evaluation, quantitative and qualitative is foreseen, external and internal. The evaluation is based
on process indicators, outcomes indicators are missing.
3
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.
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
13
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Comments
3
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.
2
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.
2
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.
3
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.
6
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
16
Overall appreciation Total:
42
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
39
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
40
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,084.00
Proposal number: 101084
Acronym:
EURO-PID-REG
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.6 Action on rare diseases
Title:
The ESID Registry for Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
UNIVERSITAETSKLINIKUM FREIBURG
Acronym:
UKL-FR
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
Germany
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA SANTE ET DE LA RECHERCHE
MEDICALE (INSERM)
INSERM
Paris
France
INTERNATIONAL NURSES GROUP IN IMMUNODEFICIENCY
INGID
Surrey
United Kingdom
KAROLINSKA INSTITUTET
KI
Stockholm
Sweden
MASARYK UNIVERSITY
MU
Brno
Czech Republic
MHH
Hannover
Germany
PIA
London
United Kingdom
UNIBS
Brescia
Italy
Sapienza
Roma
Italy
UCL
London
United Kingdom
MEDIZINISCHE HOCHSCHULE HANNOVER
The Primary Immunodeficiency Association
UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI BRESCIA
UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA "LA SAPIENZA"
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON
9
6
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
41
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
3 493 030
E2a - Travel
131 000
E2b - Subsistence allowances
61 500
E3 - Equipement
9 000
E4 - Consumables & supplies
25 400
E5 - Subcontracting costs
0
E6 - Other costs
21 500
E7 - Overheads
261 896
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
2 388 484
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
775 000
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
839 842
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
42
4 003 326
4 003 326
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
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).
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
5
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
7
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.
5
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
5
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
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
(1) Evidence base
5
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
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.
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
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.
3
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.
3
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) Evaluation strategy
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
43
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(5) Dissemination strategy
4
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
18
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
3
(2) Organisational capacity
4
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.
3
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.
6
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.
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
20
Overall appreciation Total:
65
Conclusion and
suggestions
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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.
4
(4) Communication strategy
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Comments
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.
(3) Quality of partnership
Recommended for funding:
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.
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
44
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,108.00
Proposal number: 101108
Acronym:
ENQ's YP
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.4 Addiction prevention
Title:
European Network of Quitlines; Innovation and Best Practice in Youth Tobacco Prevention and Cessation
Starting date:
01/04/2009
Duration:
24
Main partner name:
QUIT
Acronym:
QUIT
Status:
Public
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
United Kingdom
Associated partner(s) name
IT: NO DATA
Acronym
City
Country
IT: NO DATA
IT: NO DATA
IT: NO DATA
1
1
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
45
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
97 098
E2a - Travel
27 600
E2b - Subsistence allowances
6 342
E3 - Equipement
2 600
E4 - Consumables & supplies
18 000
E5 - Subcontracting costs
0
E6 - Other costs
151 067
E7 - Overheads
21 189
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
194 337
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
129 559
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
46
323 896
323 896
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
7
The project targets smoking prevention and cessation in youth, which is a priority under the
workplan 2008.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
5
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?
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
5
No complementarities to pubic health policies described, even though it is complementary with
EU youth tobacco control strategy. Transferability and sustainability not described.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
6
No associated partners, but impact can be achieved through collaborating partners. Those could
have been associated partners, to make a stronger network.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
5
28
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
4
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
Need of peer involvement is a long known concept, not new.
A similar guide is presently being developed at national in the UK.
3
Chosen indicators are not enough to well evaluate the project in the end.
More information about the external evaluator needed.
4
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.
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
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.
17
Note
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
Comments
47
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
3
(2) Organisational capacity
Milestones are not marked.
There is a need to describe the experts who will develop the guide and their tasks.
3
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.
3
No associated partners. No guarantee of involvement of collaborating partners, even though tasks
for them are planned.
4
Missing information about communication with other organizations in the same field (ENSP, HELP
campaign, GlobalLink).
EU funding will be made visible.
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
7
Budget overall ok for project grant, QUIT brings own resources. However, other partners are not
remunerated for their work.
Total criteria block C:
20
Overall appreciation Total:
65
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
Conclusion and
suggestions
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.
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
48
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,110.00
Proposal number: 101110
Acronym:
TAP
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.4 Addiction prevention
Title:
Tobacco Control against Poverty
Starting date:
01/02/2009
Duration:
18
Main partner name:
International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease
Acronym:
IUATLD
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
France
Associated partner(s) name
European Respiratory Society
Acronym
City
Country
ERS
Brussels
Belgium
1
1
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
49
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
194 103
E2a - Travel
27 000
E2b - Subsistence allowances
29 934
E3 - Equipement
1 800
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
180 778
E6 - Other costs
168 020
E7 - Overheads
42 114
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
386 249
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
257 500
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
50
643 749
643 749
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
4
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
3
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
3
The added value is mainly based on capacity building of CSO. It also contributes to FCTC
implementation.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
2
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.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
4
The project is appropriate in terms of the social, cultural and political context.
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
16
Note
(1) Evidence base
4
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.
5
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
3
(4) Evaluation strategy
4
(5) Dissemination strategy
5
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Comments
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
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Comments
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.
3
Management structure is adequate with a steering committee. International communication is
assured. No details given regarding monitoring and decision making.
(2) Organisational capacity
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
51
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(3) Quality of partnership
4
There is only 1 associated partner, but collaborating partners are added.
(4) Communication strategy
4
The communication strategy is adequate for the project.
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
6
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.
Total criteria block C:
20
Overall appreciation Total:
57
Conclusion and
suggestions
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.
The assessment of part A (policy) by a SANCO official (29 points) was presented to the external
evaluators.
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.
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
52
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,111.00
Proposal number: 101111
Acronym:
ReClaim
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
Recovery Enabling Cooperative Learning and Inclusion Management
Starting date:
01/09/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
University of Hertfordshire Higher Education Corporation
Acronym:
UH
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
United Kingdom
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
ASS n.1 Triestina
Trieste
Italy
Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Universidade Nova de Lisboa
FCML-UNL
Lisboa
Portugal
Global Initiative on Psychiatry - Sofia
GIP-Sofia
Sofia
Bulgaria
PRU
Vordingborg
Denmark
Azienda per i Servizi Sanitari n.1 Triestina
Psychiatric Research Unit, Region Sealand, Denmark
4
4
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
53
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
652 620
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
862 410
E2a - Travel
147 736
E2b - Subsistence allowances
72 139
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
1 743
E5 - Subcontracting costs
23 536
E6 - Other costs
97 770
E7 - Overheads
130 041
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
847 588
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
652 620
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
487 787
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
54
1 987 995
1 987 995
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
5
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.
4
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.
3
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.
4
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.
3
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
Comments
19
Note
(1) Evidence base
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
55
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
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.
2
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.
2
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.
2
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.
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
11
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Comments
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.
2
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.
2
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
56
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(4) Communication strategy
2
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
4
Total criteria block C:
12
Overall appreciation Total:
42
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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.
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.
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
57
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,113.00
Proposal number: 101113
Acronym:
TESS
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.1 Preparation of initiatives to increase healthy life years across the life cycle and tackle health inequalities
Title:
Trans European ServiceS
Starting date:
20/10/2008
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
MIT MOVIMENTO D'IDENTITA' TRANSESSUALE
Acronym:
MIT
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
AIDS COALITION TO UNLEASH POWER - A PASE - HELLAS
CABIRIA
Acronym
City
Country
ACTUP
Athens
Greece
CABIRIA
Lyon
France
COMITATO PER I DIRITTI CIVILI DELLE PROSTITUTE
CDCP ONLUS
Pordenone
Italy
FORUM INTERKULTURALITAT
INTERFORUM
Linz
Austria
NOVA
Trani
Italy
PASTT
Paris
France
NOVA ONLUS - CONSORZIO DI COOPERATIVE SOCIALI
PASTT (Prevention, action, Santé, Travail pour Transgeneres)
6
4
Executive summary:
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
58
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
717 300
E2a - Travel
33 960
E2b - Subsistence allowances
47 510
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
25 000
E5 - Subcontracting costs
112 000
E6 - Other costs
0
E7 - Overheads
34 230
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
582 000
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
388 000
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
59
970 000
970 000
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
Comments
6
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.
4
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
3
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
3
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.
6
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
22
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
(2) Content specification
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
60
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
4
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.
3
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.
3
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.
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
16
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
2
(2) Organisational capacity
3
(3) Quality of partnership
Comments
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.
3
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.
3
The communication strategy is very simple; many channels of communication will be used to
reach the stakeholders.
6
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.
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
17
Overall appreciation Total:
55
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
61
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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.
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
62
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,115.00
Proposal number: 101115
Acronym:
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.4 Addiction prevention
Title:
European Parents and Children Against Smoking
Starting date:
15/10/2008
Duration:
30
Main partner name:
Movimento Italiano Genitori in sigla Moige-Onlus
Acronym:
MOIGE
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
CONFEDERACION ESPAÑOLA DE CENTROS DE ENSEÑANZA
Istituto Superiore di Sanità
Acronym
City
Country
CECE
Madrid
Spain
ISS
Rome
Italy
ROM
Bucharest
Romania
INCHES
Ellecom
Netherlands
OUDERS & COO
Driebergen
Netherlands
Romtens Foundation
Stichting International Network on Children's Health and
Environment
Vereniging voor Ouders, Christelijk Onderwijs en Opvoeding
EPACAS
5
4
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
63
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
46 000
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
552 970
E2a - Travel
10 500
E2b - Subsistence allowances
14 580
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
22 050
E6 - Other costs
103 685
E7 - Overheads
51 032
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
480 490
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
46 000
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
274 327
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
64
800 817
800 817
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
7
The project generally fits with the PHP and more specifically with the WP2008. Youth is a priority.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
3
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.
4
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
3
Geographic coverage limited due to low number of countries participating.
Northern Europe is not represented.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
6
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
23
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
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.
4
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
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.
4
There is no indicator regarding the European strategy (which is to be developed), other indicators
are not specific. External evaluation is lacking.
4
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Comments
19
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
3
Comments
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
65
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(2) Organisational capacity
3
(3) Quality of partnership
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.
3
There are not many partners, but responsibilities and roles are assigned. Work-packages are well
distributed between the partners.
3
It is described, internal and external. The communication with target groups needs to be
improved. EU-co-funding could have been described more explicitly.
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
6
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.
Total criteria block C:
18
Overall appreciation Total:
60
(4) Communication strategy
Conclusion and
suggestions
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
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
66
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,116.00
Proposal number: 101116
Acronym:
SA-FORUM
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.2 Reduction of health inequalities between EU regions
Title:
“SOFIA - ATHENS FORUM FOR HEALTH” - UNITED TO TACKLE HEALTH INEQUALITIES
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
24
Main partner name:
Sofia Municipality
Acronym:
SM
Status:
Public
Type:
Governmental organisation
Country:
Bulgaria
Associated partner(s) name
Municipality of Athens Development Agency S.A
Acronym
City
Country
AEDA
Athens
Greece
1
1
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
67
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
E1a - Staff (public officials)
53 800
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
60 925
E2a - Travel
29 000
E2b - Subsistence allowances
82 695
E3 - Equipement
18 400
E4 - Consumables & supplies
10 080
E5 - Subcontracting costs
108 600
E6 - Other costs
100 000
E7 - Overheads
32 445
Incomes
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
396 756
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
53 800
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
6 714
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
68
495 945
457 270
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
6
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.
5
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).
5
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.
4
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.
6
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
26
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
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
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.
3
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.
(4) Evaluation strategy
4
(5) Dissemination strategy
3
Total criteria block B:
Comments
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.
16
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
69
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Comments
3
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.
3
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
3
(4) Communication strategy
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.
3
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.
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
6
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.
Total criteria block C:
18
Overall appreciation Total:
60
Conclusion and
suggestions
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.
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
70
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,117.00
Proposal number: 101117
Acronym:
Food and Tool
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
Food and Tool - Preventing overweight and physical inactivity among young people through education and new
technologies
Starting date:
15/09/2008
Duration:
18
Main partner name:
University SAPIENZA of Rome
Acronym:
USR
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
Health and Social Development Foundation
New Dimension
Semmelweis University Budapest, Faculty of Health Sciences,
Dietetic and Nutrition Sciences Department
TILS S.p.A.
Acronym
City
Country
HESED
Sofia
Bulgaria
ND
Rome
Italy
SUDIET
Budapest.
Hungary
TILS
Rome
Italy
4
3
Executive summary:
“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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
71
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
103 805
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
300 810
E2a - Travel
10 400
E2b - Subsistence allowances
8 800
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
24 500
E6 - Other costs
46 500
E7 - Overheads
33 800
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
309 343
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
103 805
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
115 467
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
72
528 615
528 615
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
Comments
6
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
5
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
4
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
4
A good try by involving new MS, but very regional proposal, limited geographical distribution of
the tasks and unbalanced budget towards the Italian partners.
3
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.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
22
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
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.
2
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
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
3
Total criteria block B:
Comments
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.
13
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
73
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
4
(2) Organisational capacity
4
(3) Quality of partnership
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).
3
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.
4
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.
6
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.
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
21
Overall appreciation Total:
56
Conclusion and
suggestions
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.
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
74
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,118.00
Proposal number: 101118
Acronym:
MEDPED.EU
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.1 Preparation of initiatives to increase healthy life years across the life cycle and tackle health inequalities
Title:
Development and implementation of a microarray for the genetic diagnosis of Familial Hypercholesterolemia in
Europe
Starting date:
01/12/2008
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Academic Medical Centre at the University of Amsterdam
Acronym:
AMC
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
Netherlands
Associated partner(s) name
Fundación Hipercolesterolemia Familiar
PROGENIKA BIOPHARMA SA
Acronym
City
Country
FHF
Madrid
Spain
PROGENIKA
Derio, Vizcaya
Spain
Rikshospitalet HF University Hospital
RH HF
Oslo
Norway
University of Genoa
UniGE
GENOA
Italy
UNIMORE
MODENA
Italy
UNIVERSITY OF MODENA AND REGGIO EMILIA
5
3
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
75
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
E1a - Staff (public officials)
169 950
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
259 200
E2a - Travel
15 600
E2b - Subsistence allowances
6 589
E3 - Equipement
45 000
E4 - Consumables & supplies
431 000
E5 - Subcontracting costs
20 000
E6 - Other costs
7 500
E7 - Overheads
57 281
Incomes
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
577 021
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
169 950
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
265 149
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
76
1 012 120
1 012 120
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
1
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
1
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
5
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
5
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?
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
5
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.
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
17
Note
(1) Evidence base
5
(2) Content specification
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.
4
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
4
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.
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.
(4) Evaluation strategy
4
(5) Dissemination strategy
4
Total criteria block B:
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.
21
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
77
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Note
Comments
4
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.
4
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
3
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.
(4) Communication strategy
3
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
5
Total criteria block C:
19
Overall appreciation Total:
57
Conclusion and
suggestions
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.
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
78
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,120.00
Proposal number: 101120
Acronym:
SEXCARE
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
Raising Public Sexual Health Awareness through Innovative Technologies
Starting date:
03/11/2008
Duration:
24
Main partner name:
VELTI ANONYMH ETAIPEIA ¿PO¿ONTON ¿OGISMIKOY & SYNAFON ¿PO¿ONTON & Y¿HPESION
Acronym:
VELTI S.A.
Status:
Public
Type:
Commercial organisation
Country:
Greece
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
Velti Ltd.
Sofia
Bulgaria
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI
AUTH
THESSALONIKI
Greece
Bulgarian Association for Sexual Medicine
BASM
Sofia
Bulgaria
Psicho-Preventiv Bt.
PP Bt.
Budapest
Hungary
SC REVIMED SRL
TIMISOARA
Romania
¿¿¿¿¿ ¿¿¿¿ (¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ ¿ ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿)
SOCIETATE COMERCIALA REVIMED SRL
5
4
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
79
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
471 000
E2a - Travel
15 900
E2b - Subsistence allowances
12 876
E3 - Equipement
147 900
E4 - Consumables & supplies
15 900
E5 - Subcontracting costs
51 100
E6 - Other costs
4 660
E7 - Overheads
15 248
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
440 749
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
293 835
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
80
734 584
734 584
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
6
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.
3
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.
4
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.
4
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.
4
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
21
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
(2) Content specification
3
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
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.
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
81
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(4) Evaluation strategy
4
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.
6
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?
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
19
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Comments
3
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.
4
The project team was considered qualified, with clear responsibilities and sharing of tasks.
Internal communication channels are not clearly specified.
3
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 .
2
The channels of communication are not existent; the EU co funding visibility is not mentioned.
6
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%.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
18
Overall appreciation Total:
58
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
82
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,121.00
Proposal number: 101121
Acronym:
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
S.M.I.L.E.
Title:
Stop children's Malnutrition get Informed, Learn, Exercise.
Starting date:
01/11/2008
Duration:
12
Main partner name:
Northern Greece Physical Education Teachers Association
Acronym:
E.G.V.E.
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Greece
Associated partner(s) name
Bulgarian National Consumers Association
Cyprus Association of Physical Education and Sports Science
Acronym
City
Country
BNCA
Sofia
Bulgaria
PASYPEFAA
Limassol
Cyprus
2
2
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
83
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
64 500
E2a - Travel
11 500
E2b - Subsistence allowances
12 008
E3 - Equipement
24 600
E4 - Consumables & supplies
166 500
E5 - Subcontracting costs
0
E6 - Other costs
4 000
E7 - Overheads
18 900
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
167 000
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
135 008
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
84
302 008
302 008
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
6
The project is in line with the PHP and the WP2008 as it addressed the promotion of a healthy
diet for children.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
4
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
2
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
2
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
3
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
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
(1) Evidence base
Comments
2
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.
2
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
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.
1
(4) Evaluation strategy
2
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).
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
85
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(5) Dissemination strategy
3
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
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
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Comments
1
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.
2
The consortium would benefit from including health promotion, nutrition, and behavioural sciences
experts. Consider also to have someone with experience in managing European projects.
2
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.
3
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.
4
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
12
Overall appreciation Total:
39
Conclusion and
suggestions
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.
The assessment of part A (policy) by a SANCO official (22 points) was presented to the external
evaluators.
see conclusions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
86
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,135.00
Proposal number: 101135
Acronym:
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.4 Addiction prevention
Title:
Strengthening Tobacco Policy at the Workplace
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Instytut Medycyny Pracy im. prof. J. Nofera
Acronym:
NIOM
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
Poland
Associated partner(s) name
BUSY BEE
Acronym
City
Country
Institute of Preventive Medicine, Environmental and Occupational
Health
PROLEPSIS
Kastri, Athens
Greece
Klinicni center Ljubljana, Klinicni inštitut za medicino dela, prometa
in športa
UMCLJ
Ljubljana
Slovenia
RSU
Riga
Latvia
Rigas Stradina universitates Darba un vides veselibas instituts
3
3
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
87
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
384 820
E2a - Travel
28 800
E2b - Subsistence allowances
19 920
E3 - Equipement
13 600
E4 - Consumables & supplies
6 000
E5 - Subcontracting costs
160 000
E6 - Other costs
46 950
E7 - Overheads
46 208
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
423 780
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
282 518
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
88
706 298
706 298
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
Comments
7
The project fits generally with the priorities of the WP 2008, tobacco control strategies in the
workplace are a specific priority.
4
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
3
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
3
Limited to 4 MS. This is a weak point of the proposal.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
6
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
23
Note
(1) Evidence base
2
(2) Content specification
2
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
2
(4) Evaluation strategy
4
(5) Dissemination strategy
2
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
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.
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.
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.
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
Comments
89
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
3
(2) Organisational capacity
3
(3) Quality of partnership
3
(4) Communication strategy
3
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
5
Total criteria block C:
17
Overall appreciation Total:
52
Conclusion and
suggestions
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.
The project is not recommended for funding.
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.
The assessment of part A (policy) by a SANCO official (21 points) was presented to the external
evaluators.
See conclusions.
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
90
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,153.00
Proposal number: 101153
Acronym:
Orlando
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
Reception and health care of immigrants with high risks of psychiatric complications.
Starting date:
01/10/2008
Duration:
18
Main partner name:
Consorzio MedICare
Acronym:
MedICare
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
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
Univerza v Ljubljani
Vilnius Center for Psychosocial Rehabilitation
Acronym
City
Country
AIGIS
Vottem
Belgium
AUPI
Rome
Italy
HSACOMO
Como
Italy
Ulss 18 Rovigo
Rovigo
Italy
CJD Frechen
Frenchen
Germany
INTRAS
Valladolid
Spain
IFES
Valencia
Spain
UL
Ljubljana
Slovenia
VCPSR
Vilnius
Lithuania
9
6
Executive summary:
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, ...)
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
91
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
E1a - Staff (public officials)
64 050
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
150 450
E2a - Travel
36 900
E2b - Subsistence allowances
33 720
E3 - Equipement
13 700
E4 - Consumables & supplies
11 000
E5 - Subcontracting costs
7 000
E6 - Other costs
39 000
E7 - Overheads
24 100
Incomes
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
226 360
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
64 050
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
0
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
92
379 920
290 410
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
5
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.
5
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.
4
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.
5
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
3
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
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
(1) Evidence base
Comments
3
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.
2
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.
4
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
93
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(4) Evaluation strategy
4
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.
3
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.
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
16
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
2
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.
3
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.
3
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.
3
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.
5
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
16
Overall appreciation Total:
54
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
Comments
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
94
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,154.00
Proposal number: 101154
Acronym:
E4H
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
Eating for healthy life. Promotion of healthy eating habits across life span
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
The Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine
Acronym:
NIOM
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
Poland
Associated partner(s) name
Agenzia Regionale Prevenzione Ambiente Dell' Emilia-Romagna
Azienda Unita Sanitaria Locale di Modena
Acronym
City
Country
ARPA ER
Modena
Italy
Azienda USL
Modena
Italy
: Institute of Preventive Medicine, Environmental and Occupational
Health
Prolepsis
Kastri, Athens
Greece
Lund University
ULUND
Lund
Sweden
AHE
Lodz
Poland
The Academy of Humanities and Economics in Lodz
5
4
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
95
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
E1a - Staff (public officials)
149 800
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
720 460
E2a - Travel
40 160
E2b - Subsistence allowances
78 828
E3 - Equipement
69 500
E4 - Consumables & supplies
21 200
E5 - Subcontracting costs
13 900
E6 - Other costs
85 000
E7 - Overheads
82 517
Incomes
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
713 214
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
149 800
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
398 351
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
96
1 261 365
1 261 365
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
3
The project does not clearly match the WP2008 priorities. It seems more like a research project.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
4
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
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
3
The proposal highlights diagnosis and useful comparisons of guidelines but these in themselves
are not an adequate public health focus.
4
The consortium is limited to 4 MS. A North – South difference is looked at, but an East-West
dimension is lacking.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
4
18
Note
(1) Evidence base
4
(2) Content specification
4
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
4
(4) Evaluation strategy
2
(5) Dissemination strategy
3
Total criteria block B:
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.
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.
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.
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.
17
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
97
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
3
(2) Organisational capacity
3
(3) Quality of partnership
4
(4) Communication strategy
3
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
7
Total criteria block C:
20
Overall appreciation Total:
55
Conclusion and
suggestions
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.
The project is not recommended for funding.
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
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
98
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,160.00
Proposal number: 101160
Acronym:
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.6 Action on rare diseases
Title:
European Meningitis Information and Support Initiative
Starting date:
01/11/2008
Duration:
24
Main partner name:
Meningitis Trust Limited
Acronym:
TMT
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
United Kingdom
Associated partner(s) name
Galliard Healthcare Communications
EMISI
Acronym
City
Country
GHC
London
United Kingdom
1
1
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
99
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
484 268
E2a - Travel
40 349
E2b - Subsistence allowances
24 743
E3 - Equipement
2 000
E4 - Consumables & supplies
6 435
E5 - Subcontracting costs
119 517
E6 - Other costs
163 738
E7 - Overheads
16 583
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
684 566
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
147 338
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
25 729
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
100
857 633
857 633
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
7
6
5
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
2
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
4
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.
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
Comments
3
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.
3
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).
3
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.
4
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.
4
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.
(2) Content specification
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
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.
24
(1) Evidence base
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
17
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
101
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Note
Comments
4
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.
4
No specific comment: the applicant is a specialized organization in the field of the project.
2
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.
4
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.
3
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
17
Overall appreciation Total:
58
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
102
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,164.00
Proposal number: 101164
Acronym:
EUROHHT
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.6 Action on rare diseases
Title:
Improving information, diagnosis and management of Haemorrhagic Hereditary Telangiectasia (HHT) in Europe
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas, Research Council of Spain (CSIC)
Acronym:
HHTSUNIT
Status:
Public
Type:
Governmental organisation
Country:
Spain
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
Academisch Ziekenhuis Leiden, Acting under the name of Leiden
University Medical Centre
LUMC
Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris
APHP
Boulogne-Billancourt Cedex
France
FRHHTLY
LYON
France
HHTOUHdk
Odense
Denmark
French HHT reference center
HHT center Odense University Hospital
HHT ITALIAN REFERENCE CENTER
Leiden
Netherlands
HHTITUNIT
CREMA, PAVIA
Italy
HHTIC London
LONDON
United Kingdom
BMPHHT
Grenoble fedex 9
France
INTERDEPARTMENTAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY AND
RESEARCH OF HHT - UNIVERSITY OF BARI
HHTS.UN.IT
BARI
Italy
Kliniken der Stadt Köln gGmbH
HHTGER_A
Köln
Germany
HHTNOR
Oslo
Norway
USAL
SALAMANCA
Spain
HHT-UNEW
NEWCASTLE
United Kingdom
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
INSERM
Rikshospitalet Oslo
Salamanca Spanish Physiopathology unit
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
12
8
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
103
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
1 494 412
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
580 632
E2a - Travel
214 200
E2b - Subsistence allowances
117 500
E3 - Equipement
26 610
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
91 461
E6 - Other costs
53 000
E7 - Overheads
180 443
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
1 263 846
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
1 494 412
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
0
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
104
2 758 258
2 758 258
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
7
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
7
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.
7
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)
7
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
6
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
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
34
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
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.
3
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
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.
4
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?)
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
(4) Evaluation strategy
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
105
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(5) Dissemination strategy
3
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
18
Note
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.
4
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.
(3) Quality of partnership
3
(4) Communication strategy
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
2
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 criteria block C:
15
Overall appreciation Total:
67
Conclusion and
suggestions
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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.
3
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Comments
3
(2) Organisational capacity
Recommended for funding:
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).
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
106
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,167.00
Proposal number: 101167
Acronym:
W.I.P. on the road
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.5 Improve the quality of physical environment and reduce accidents and injuries
Title:
WORKERS INJURIES PREVENTION on the road.
A gender specific prevention programme of Road Traffic Accidents for Workers
Starting date:
01/02/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
S.& T. società cooperativa
Acronym:
S.&T.
Status:
Private
Type:
Commercial organisation
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
Consepi
Susa (TO)
Italy
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health
FIOH
Helsinki
Finland
Fondation Tanguy Moreau de Melen Responsible Young Drivers –
Secura Forum
RYD
Brussels
Belgium
Société Anonyme Centre de Formation pour Conducteurs
CFC
Colmar-Berg
Luxembourg
Test & Training International Planning and Service GmbH
TTI
Teesdorf bei Baden
Austria
Test & Training Safety Centre Sp. z o. o.
TTSC
Pobiedziska
Poland
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents
RoSPA
Birmingham
United Kingdom
Universitat de Valencia, DATS (Development and Advising in Traffic
and Road Safety)
UVEG
Valencia
Spain
University of Turin
TORINO
Italy
Consepi S.p.a
University of Turin
9
8
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
107
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
353 965
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
542 114
E2a - Travel
49 100
E2b - Subsistence allowances
62 513
E3 - Equipement
3 500
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
149 600
E6 - Other costs
526 959
E7 - Overheads
112 100
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
1 008 731
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
353 965
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
437 155
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
108
1 799 851
1 799 851
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
4
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
5
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
5
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
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.
Note
Comments
4
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.
4
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
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.
3
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.
(2) Content specification
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
5
Total criteria block B:
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.
19
(1) Evidence base
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
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.
The dissemination strategy which is crucial in this project seems to have been properly planned
and is well integrated in the project.
19
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
109
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
3
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
4
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.
4
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.
4
The communication strategy is well explained, but expensive.
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
6
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.
Total criteria block C:
21
Overall appreciation Total:
59
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
110
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,178.00
Proposal number: 101178
Acronym:
PeerHealthEd
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.2 Reduction of health inequalities between EU regions
Title:
Peer Health Educator Curriculum for Migrant Health
Starting date:
01/11/2008
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Verein für Opfer von Gewalt und Menschenrechtsverletzungen - OMEGA Gesundheitsstelle
Acronym:
OMEGA
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Austria
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
International Medical Program, Centre for Teaching and Research in
Disaster Medicine
IMP
Linköping
Sweden
Kendro Merimnas Oikoyenias kai Pediou
KMOP
Athens
Greece
L´ ASSOCIACIO CEPS PER A LA CREATIO D´ESTUDIS I
PROJECTES SOZIALES
CEPS
Barcelona
Spain
Organizace pro pomec uprchlikum
OPU
Prague
Czech Republic
4
4
Executive summary:
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.
.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
111
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
371 244
E2a - Travel
18 000
E2b - Subsistence allowances
12 810
E3 - Equipement
3 000
E4 - Consumables & supplies
3 000
E5 - Subcontracting costs
31 100
E6 - Other costs
8 500
E7 - Overheads
25 800
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
282 232
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
191 222
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
112
473 454
473 454
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
3
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
4
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
4
Some potential added value, however narrow geographical coverage inhibits the European
applicability.
4
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).
4
Relevant social, cultural and political context, but considered generic based on the organisation's
experience of work with refugees and migrants.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
19
Note
(1) Evidence base
4
Very general description, without provision of data based on a situation analysis, not on the
effectiveness of the interventions proposed.
3
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
3
(4) Evaluation strategy
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
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
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).
4
Although considered well written, it did not include a stakeholder analysis and the assessment of
their needs, it relies on the network of partners.
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Comments
18
Note
Comments
2
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.
4
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
113
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(3) Quality of partnership
3
Concerns were presented on the mutual confidence within the partnership, and questions were
raised on the involvement of public authorities.
3
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.
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
7
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.
Total criteria block C:
19
Overall appreciation Total:
56
(4) Communication strategy
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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.
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
114
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,182.00
Proposal number: 101182
Acronym:
TAG Inequal
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.2 Reduction of health inequalities between EU regions
Title:
Tackling gender inequalities in health and health behaviour through exchange of European expertise
Starting date:
15/01/2009
Duration:
30
Main partner name:
Technische Universität Dresden
Acronym:
TUD
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
Germany
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
Prolepsis
Kastri, Athens
Greece
National Institute for Health Development
NIHD
Tallinn
Estonia
Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine
NIOM
Lodz
Poland
REFORM
Oslo
Norway
Institute of Preventive Medicine, Environmental and Occupational
Health
REFORM - Resource Centre for Men
4
4
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
115
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
E1a - Staff (public officials)
122 800
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
574 180
E2a - Travel
73 500
E2b - Subsistence allowances
62 500
E3 - Equipement
11 560
E4 - Consumables & supplies
27 080
E5 - Subcontracting costs
171 120
E6 - Other costs
283 650
E7 - Overheads
91 150
Incomes
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
850 000
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
122 800
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
444 740
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
116
1 417 540
1 417 540
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
7
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
5
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
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.
6
4
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.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
5
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
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.
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
Total criteria block A:
Comments
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
(1) Evidence base
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
117
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
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.
3
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.
5
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.
4
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.
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
20
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Comments
3
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.
3
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.
3
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.
4
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.
5
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
18
Overall appreciation Total:
65
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
118
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Conclusion and
suggestions
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.
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
119
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,201.00
Proposal number: 101201
Acronym:
IMHCY
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
IMPROVING THE MENTAL HEALTH OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH IN EUROPE
Starting date:
01/06/2009
Duration:
31
Main partner name:
Confederación Española de Agrupaciones de Familiares y Personas con Enfermedad Mental
Acronym:
FEAFES
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Spain
Associated partner(s) name
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
Acronym
City
Country
AEIPS
Lisbon
Portugal
CIBERSAM
Madrid
Spain
EUFAMI
Leuven
Belgium
KMOP
Athens
Greece
Mental Health Europe – Santé Mentale Europe aisbl
MHE-SME
Brussels
Belgium
PRO MENTE: KINDER JUGEND FAMILIE
PMKIJUFA
Klagenfurt
Austria
RLMH
Bucharest
Romania
SI
DUBLIN
Ireland
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
SDC
Edinburgh
United Kingdom
SSP&MH
Athens
Greece
ACFMH
RZESZÓW
Poland
UNIVDUN
DUNDEE
United Kingdom
12
9
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
120
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
20 000
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
278 709
E2a - Travel
28 200
E2b - Subsistence allowances
40 876
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
4 100
E5 - Subcontracting costs
20 000
E6 - Other costs
160 100
E7 - Overheads
36 109
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
352 856
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
20 000
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
215 238
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
121
588 094
588 094
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
6
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.
5
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.
4
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.
4
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.
3
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
22
Note
(1) Evidence base
Comments
3
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.
3
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.
2
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
122
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(4) Evaluation strategy
1
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.
2
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.
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
11
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
2
(2) Organisational capacity
2
(3) Quality of partnership
Comments
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.
3
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.
3
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.
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
7
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 criteria block C:
17
Overall appreciation Total:
50
(4) Communication strategy
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
123
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,207.00
Proposal number: 101207
Acronym:
RADONGAL
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.5 Improve the quality of physical environment and reduce accidents and injuries
Title:
RESIDENTIAL RADON IN GALICIA (N.W. SPAIN) AND NORTH OF PORTUGAL.
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
UNIVERSIDADE DE SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA
Acronym:
USC
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
Spain
Associated partner(s) name
ADMIMISTRACÂO REGIONAL DE SAÚDE DO NORTE,
INSTITUTO PUBLICO.
Acronym
City
Country
ARSN-IP
PORTO
Portugal
1
1
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
124
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
419 534
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
267 960
E2a - Travel
102 500
E2b - Subsistence allowances
42 575
E3 - Equipement
47 821
E4 - Consumables & supplies
47 972
E5 - Subcontracting costs
0
E6 - Other costs
49 299
E7 - Overheads
68 408
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
626 535
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
419 534
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
0
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
125
1 046 069
1 046 069
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
7
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.
5
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.
3
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.
3
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
4
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
Comments
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
(1) Evidence base
Comments
The project contributes with a measurement program. This is of course good but probably not
enough to get action.
4
This is more a management programme the actual outcome raises some questions. The
effectiveness of intervention measures should be discussed.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
3
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.
3
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
(4) Evaluation strategy
4
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
126
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(5) Dissemination strategy
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
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
18
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
3
Comments
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
3
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.
2
Although highly competent, the scope is limited and the relations with the other EU stakeholders
should be developed.
2
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.
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
6
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 criteria block C:
16
Overall appreciation Total:
56
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
127
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,209.00
Proposal number: 101209
Acronym:
HELPA
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
HEalthy Lifestyle Pathways for Adolescents
Starting date:
05/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres - Landsbond van de Onafhankelijke Ziekenfondsen
Acronym:
MLOZ
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Belgium
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
Applied Logic Laboratory
ALL
Budapest
Hungary
Brand New Day
BND
Herent
Belgium
Centre d'Excellence en Technologies de l'Information et de la
Communication
CETIC
Charleroi
Belgium
DOXYS S.A.
DOXYS
European Food Information Council aisbl
Grez-Doiceau
Belgium
EUFIC
Brussels
Belgium
Facultés Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix
FUNDP - CITA
Namur
Belgium
Facultés Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix
FUNDP - CRID
Namur
Belgium
Hamburg University of Applied Sciences - Hochschule für
Angewandte Wissenschaften Hamburg
HAW Hamburg
Hamburg
Germany
Info Multi Services (Studio le Caillou)
IMS
Paris
France
KI
Stockholm
Sweden
OWM CZ
Tilburg
Netherlands
REF
Stovolos
Cyprus
The University of Leeds
Leeds
United Kingdom
UNIZAR
Zaragoza
Spain
UL2
Lille
France
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
9
128
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Executive summary:
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
Expenditures
E1a - Staff (public officials)
190 008
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
3 149 321
E2a - Travel
119 350
E2b - Subsistence allowances
108 000
E3 - Equipement
34 500
E4 - Consumables & supplies
24 400
E5 - Subcontracting costs
84 900
E6 - Other costs
73 197
E7 - Overheads
264 859
Incomes
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
3 086 822
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
190 008
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
771 705
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
129
4 048 535
4 048 535
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
6
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
5
The involvement of the health insurance sector is a strategic plus, but unfortunately only in one
country.
5
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.
4
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.
4
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
(1) Evidence base
Comments
2
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.
4
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
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?
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
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
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
Comments
(4) Evaluation strategy
3
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
130
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(5) Dissemination strategy
5
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
The users are involved in the dissemination, which is a plus.
One skilled, experienced partner is especially charged with dissemination.
Multiple channels are used.
18
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Comments
4
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.
4
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.
4
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.
4
The communication strategy seems adequate.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
5
Total criteria block C:
21
Overall appreciation Total:
63
Conclusion and
suggestions
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.
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 assessment of part A (policy) by a SANCO official (17 + 4 points) was presented to the
external evaluators.
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.
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
131
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,217.00
Proposal number: 101217
Acronym:
CEMI
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.1 Preparation of initiatives to increase healthy life years across the life cycle and tackle health inequalities
Title:
”Citizens’ Empowerment monitoring and improvement”
Starting date:
01/10/2008
Duration:
24
Main partner name:
Laziosanità Agenzia di Sanità Pubblica (Public Health Agency of Lazio Region)
Acronym:
ASP
Status:
Public
Type:
Governmental organisation
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
Forschungsinstitut des Wiener Roten Kreuzes
FRK
Vienna
Austria
Institut für Soziale Infrastruktur, Dr. Karin Stiehr und Dr. Hannelore
Jani GbR
ISIS
Frankfurt am Main
Germany
2
2
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
132
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
320 000
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
97 750
E2a - Travel
19 300
E2b - Subsistence allowances
16 952
E3 - Equipement
5 700
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
294 200
E6 - Other costs
225 140
E7 - Overheads
65 000
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
625 742
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
320 000
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
98 300
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
133
1 044 042
1 044 042
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
Comments
7
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.
6
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
5
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
4
The project is limited to organisations in Italy, Germany and Austria. Especially with regard to
migrants other MS should be involved.
4
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
26
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
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.
3
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).
3
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.
4
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
(4) Evaluation strategy
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
134
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(5) Dissemination strategy
3
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
16
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
3
3
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.
2
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.
3
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.
5
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.
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
16
Overall appreciation Total:
58
Conclusion and
suggestions
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
Comments
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
Recommended for funding:
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.
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
135
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,220.00
Proposal number: 101220
Acronym:
COMSTRUC
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.2 Reduction of health inequalities between EU regions
Title:
Cooperation mechanism for the effective use of structural funds for health
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Maastricht University
Acronym:
UM
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
Netherlands
Associated partner(s) name
ASSEMBLEE DES REGIONS D'EUROPE
Acronym
City
Country
ARE
Strasbourg
France
EUROPEAN HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
EHMA
Dublin
Ireland
European Health Property Network
EuHPN
Utrecht
Netherlands
Faculty of Public Health, Medical University - Sofia
FPH
Sofia
Bulgaria
Gesundheitsmanagement Burger-Wieland OG
GM
Vienna
Austria
HEALTH CLUSTERNET
HCN
Peebles
United Kingdom
LIGA.NRW
Bielefeld
Germany
REGVEN
Venezia
Italy
Landesinstitut für Gesundheit und Arbeit des Landes
Nordrhein-Westfalen
REGIONE DEL VENETO
8
8
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
136
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
290 155
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
1 059 780
E2a - Travel
46 327
E2b - Subsistence allowances
50 688
E3 - Equipement
8 100
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
10 000
E6 - Other costs
292 000
E7 - Overheads
122 981
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
1 118 869
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
290 155
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
471 007
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
137
1 880 031
1 880 031
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
4
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
4
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
3
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.
6
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.
4
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
21
Note
(1) Evidence base
Comments
3
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
3
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.
2
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.
3
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
(4) Evaluation strategy
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
138
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(5) Dissemination strategy
4
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
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
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Comments
3
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.
2
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
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
4
(4) Communication strategy
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.
3
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.
6
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).
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
18
Overall appreciation Total:
54
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
139
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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€
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
140
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,221.00
Proposal number: 101221
Acronym:
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
Fight to Obesity
Starting date:
19/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
CONSIGLIO NAZIONALE DELLE RICERCHE
Acronym:
CNR UPFC
Status:
Public
Type:
Governmental organisation
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
CITTA' DI GRUGLIASCO
Fig.O.
Acronym
City
Country
GRUGLIASCO
Grugliasco (Torino)
Italy
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
CNR-IRPPS
Roma
Italy
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
CNR-ISA
Avellino
Italy
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
CNR - ISOF
Bologna
Italy
EMA
Bruxelles
Belgium
FIMP
Roma
Italy
European Medical Association
Federrazione Italiana Medici Pediatri
4
2
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
141
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
E1a - Staff (public officials)
1 906 540
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
866 800
E2a - Travel
126 600
E2b - Subsistence allowances
122 360
E3 - Equipement
17 000
E4 - Consumables & supplies
3 500
E5 - Subcontracting costs
438 200
E6 - Other costs
66 500
E7 - Overheads
234 500
Incomes
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
1 875 460
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
1 906 540
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
0
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
142
3 782 000
3 782 000
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
6
The proposal addresses a priority of the WP2008, namely obesity prevention in children at local
level.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
3
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).
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
2
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
1
Only one country involved.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
3
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.
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
15
Note
(1) Evidence base
2
(2) Content specification
3
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
1
(4) Evaluation strategy
1
(5) Dissemination strategy
2
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
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.
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.
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.
9
Note
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
Comments
143
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
3
(2) Organisational capacity
3
(3) Quality of partnership
2
(4) Communication strategy
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.
3
The communication strategy has not clearly been defined.
EU co-funding needs to be made visible.
5
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.
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
16
Overall appreciation Total:
40
Conclusion and
suggestions
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
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
144
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,225.00
Proposal number: 101225
Acronym:
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.6 Action on rare diseases
Title:
RARE DISEASES REGISTER
Starting date:
01/10/2008
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Consorzio FOR.COM. Formazione per la Comunicazione
Acronym:
FOR.COM.
Status:
Public
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
Associazione “Naufraghi della vita” Onlus
ClinPol Research Sp. z o.o
Acronym
City
Country
NA.VI.ONLUS
Rome
Italy
ClinPol
Sopot
Poland
EMA
Bruxelles
Belgium
MOLDIAGN-UNIBONN
Bonn
Germany
UCP
Rio de Mouro
Portugal
EUROPEAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University of Bonn
RA.RE.
Universidade Católica Portuguesa
5
5
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
145
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
447 956
E2a - Travel
29 400
E2b - Subsistence allowances
24 216
E3 - Equipement
20 367
E4 - Consumables & supplies
4 200
E5 - Subcontracting costs
56 600
E6 - Other costs
49 470
E7 - Overheads
44 251
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
405 875
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
270 585
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
146
676 460
676 460
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
4
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
5
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.
5
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
5
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
3
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?
22
Note
(1) Evidence base
Comments
4
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.
2
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.
3
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
147
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(4) Evaluation strategy
3
(5) Dissemination strategy
4
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
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
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
3
Comments
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
4
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.
3
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.
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
3
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
7
Total criteria block C:
20
Overall appreciation Total:
58
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
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.
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
148
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
149
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,226.00
Proposal number: 101226
Acronym:
HIV WORK
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
HIV as a workplace issue
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
24
Main partner name:
HELLENIC CENTRE FOR DISEASES CONTROL AND PREVENTION
Acronym:
HCDCP
Status:
Public
Type:
Governmental organisation
Country:
Greece
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
Aids Coalition to Unleash Power ¿¿¿S¿ HELLAS
ACT UP
ATHENS
Greece
Associazione Nazionale Lotta AIDS - sez.Lombardia
ANLAIDS
MILAN
Italy
CMT
Nicosia
Cyprus
Medical University-Plovdiv
MU-PV
Plovdic
Bulgaria
Sex Education Foundation
SEA
Budapest
Hungary
UNIPG
Perugia
Italy
CMT PROOPTIKI LTD CYPRUS
UNIVERSITA DI PERUGIA
6
5
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
150
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
388 250
E2a - Travel
13 800
E2b - Subsistence allowances
11 054
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
110 000
E6 - Other costs
125 225
E7 - Overheads
45 378
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
416 223
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
277 484
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
151
693 707
693 707
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
5
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.
4
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.
4
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.
4
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
3
Note
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.
3
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.
(4) Evaluation strategy
5
(5) Dissemination strategy
4
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Comments
3
(2) Content specification
Total criteria block B:
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
(1) Evidence base
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
Comments
152
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
2
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
3
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
3
The role of the partners is not well defined.
4
It was considered well described, including the use of the website and production of brochures,
but not sufficiently targeted.
4
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
16
Overall appreciation Total:
53
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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.
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
153
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,229.00
Proposal number: 101229
Acronym:
KoPAM
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.4 Addiction prevention
Title:
Promoting Knowledge and Prevention on Alcohol Misuse among Elderly People
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
30
Main partner name:
CONSORZIO FRA COOPERATIVE SOCIALI ELPENDU' S.c.r.l.
Acronym:
ELPENDU'
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
DIPARTIMENTO DI PSICOLOGIA, UNIVERSITA' DEGLI STUDI DI
BARI
PSICOUNIBA
BARI
Italy
ESCOOP
Mola di Bari (BA)
Italy
KTUAS
Kemi
Finland
MAJAK o. z.
Zlaté Moravce
Slovakia
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
SCF
Strasbourg
France
Raahe Health Area
Raahe
Finland
LCSE
Strasbourg
France
UMR7043 Laboratoire Cultures et Sociétés en Europe
7
4
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
154
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
E1a - Staff (public officials)
190 000
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
311 600
E2a - Travel
56 000
E2b - Subsistence allowances
61 200
E3 - Equipement
37 850
E4 - Consumables & supplies
34 200
E5 - Subcontracting costs
207 200
E6 - Other costs
54 000
E7 - Overheads
47 950
Incomes
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
600 000
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
190 000
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
210 000
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
155
1 000 000
1 000 000
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
5
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.
4
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
3
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
4
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
4
The project acknowledges cultural and others differences and foresees to be country tailored.
However, no actions are foreseen to cope with the different contexts.
Note
Comments
2
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.
3
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.
(2) Content specification
3
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.
(4) Evaluation strategy
2
Evaluation plan exists pre and post implementation assessment foreseen however the applicant
do not specify how the data will be collected.
3
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.
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
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.
20
(1) Evidence base
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
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
13
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
156
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Comments
3
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.
2
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?
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
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'.
3
Potentials for synergy and complementarily are not investigated.
(4) Communication strategy
3
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
5
Total criteria block C:
16
Overall appreciation Total:
49
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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.
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
157
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,232.00
Proposal number: 101232
Acronym:
PROHEALTH
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.1 Preparation of initiatives to increase healthy life years across the life cycle and tackle health inequalities
Title:
Promoting Health in All Policies - Capacity Building to Encourage Integration of Setting-oriented Health Promotion
Strategies
Starting date:
01/11/2008
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
BGZ Berliner Gesellschaft für internationale Zusammenarbeit mbH
Acronym:
BGZ
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Germany
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
AdL
Palermo
Italy
ARRISCA
PONTA DELGADA
Portugal
BSPH
Berlin
Germany
BA Fhain-Kbrg
Berlin
Germany
DRS
Angra do Heroísmo
Portugal
Gesundheit Berlin e.V., Landesarbeitsgemeinschaft für
Gesundheitsförderung
GesBln
Berlin
Germany
Helmut Schmidt-Universität Hamburg
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
HSU HH
Hamburg
Germany
Italia Lavoro Sicilia Spa / Italy Work Sicily joint-stock company
ILS
Palermo
Italy
Mainstreaming Agenda
MA
Palermo
Italy
Marselisborg Centret - Center for Folkesundhed / Region
Midtrjylland
MC
Århus
Denmark
Országos Egészségfejlesztési Intézet (National Institute for Health
Development)
OEFI / NIHD
Budapest
Hungary
Senatsverwaltung für Gesundheit, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz
des Landes Berlin
SenGUV
Berlin
Germany
Statni zdravotni ustav (The National Institute of Public Health)
SZU/NIPH
Prague
Czech Republic
TG
Silkeborg
Denmark
TU, FZSP
Trnava
Slovakia
U.Aç
Ponta Delgada
Portugal
ZEBRA
Graz
Austria
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
8
158
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Executive summary:
"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
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
404 906
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
646 795
E2a - Travel
37 360
E2b - Subsistence allowances
60 866
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
1 920
E5 - Subcontracting costs
55 880
E6 - Other costs
43 100
E7 - Overheads
87 558
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
803 032
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
404 906
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
130 447
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
159
1 338 385
1 338 385
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
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.
3
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.
3
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.
6
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
3
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of 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
(1) Evidence base
3
(2) Content specification
2
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
160
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(4) Evaluation strategy
4
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.
3
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.
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
14
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
3
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.
3
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.
3
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
3
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
6
Total criteria block C:
18
Overall appreciation Total:
51
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Comments
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.
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
161
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
162
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,234.00
Proposal number: 101234
Acronym:
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
Teaching an Active and Healthy Lifestyle
Starting date:
01/09/2008
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Hanzehogeschool Groningen
Acronym:
HG
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
Netherlands
Associated partner(s) name
TAHL
Acronym
City
Country
HAAGA-HELIA University of Applied Sciences
HH
Vierumäki
Finland
Katholieke Hogeschool Leuven
KHL
Leuven
Belgium
Universidade do Porto
UP
Porto
Portugal
University of Worcester
UW
Worcester
United Kingdom
4
4
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
163
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
1 610 400
E2a - Travel
26 500
E2b - Subsistence allowances
53 760
E3 - Equipement
8 000
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
90 000
E6 - Other costs
15 000
E7 - Overheads
126 254
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
1 157 947
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
771 967
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
164
1 929 914
1 929 914
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
6
The project fits with the WP2008 as it looks at life-skills training in primary schools.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
4
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
3
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
3
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.
3
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.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
19
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
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.
3
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
3
(4) Evaluation strategy
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
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)
3
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.
4
Many tools and channels have been mentioned, but it seems passive with regard to the aim to
disseminating the tool-kit widely.
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Comments
16
Note
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
Comments
165
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
3
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.
4
Good demonstration of capacity to deliver.
2
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.
3
The channels are adequate.
4
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?
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
16
Overall appreciation Total:
51
Conclusion and
suggestions
The project is not recommended for funding.
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.
The assessment of part A (policy) by a SANCO official (23 + 4 points) was presented to the
external evaluators.
see conclusions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
166
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,240.00
Proposal number: 101240
Acronym:
SCOP.PE
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
Sustain Child Obesity Prevention through Policy and Education
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
24
Main partner name:
P.A.U. EDUCATION S.L.
Acronym:
P.A.U.
Status:
Private
Type:
Commercial organisation
Country:
Spain
Associated partner(s) name
ABCittà società cooperativa sociale ONLUS
Hungarian Association of Healthy Cities
Acronym
City
Country
ABC
Milan
Italy
HAHC
Pécs
Hungary
School of Education, University of Aarhus
DPU
Copenhagen NV
Denmark
University of Hull
UHull
Hull
United Kingdom
4
4
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
167
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
105 600
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
1 102 679
E2a - Travel
44 500
E2b - Subsistence allowances
28 768
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
57 800
E6 - Other costs
136 230
E7 - Overheads
103 288
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
947 317
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
105 600
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
525 948
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
168
1 578 865
1 578 865
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
7
6
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
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.
5
5
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.
5
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?
28
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
(2) Content specification
4
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
This project is in line with the WP2008 – looking at childhood obesity prevention and schools, a
specific priority.
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Comments
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).
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
169
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(4) Evaluation strategy
3
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.
5
The dissemination is well planned.
Could be done in a sequential manner and case studies added.
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
18
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
4
(2) Organisational capacity
The consortium seems capable to carry out this project.
Seek to include more partners.
3
The partners are presently collaborating in the SHAPE UP project, but could benefit from other
Eastern European partners.
The sharing of responsibilities is good.
(4) Communication strategy
3
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
3
Total criteria block C:
17
Overall appreciation Total:
62
Conclusion and
suggestions
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
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.
4
(3) Quality of partnership
Recommended for funding:
Comments
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.
The project is not recommended for funding.
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.
The assessment of part A (policy) by a SANCO official (22 + 4 points) was presented to the
external evaluators.
see conclusions
No
0
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
170
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
171
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,246.00
Proposal number: 101246
Acronym:
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.6 Action on rare diseases
Title:
European Network on Myasthenia Gravis
Starting date:
01/05/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta
Acronym:
INNCB
Status:
Public
Type:
Governmental organisation
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
EuroMG
Acronym
City
Country
Akademisch Ziekenhuis Leiden - Leids Universitair Medisch
Centrum
LUMC
Leiden
Netherlands
Asociatia Nationala Miastenia Gravis Romania
MG-R
Bucharest
Romania
Associazione Italiana Miastenia e Malattie Immunodegenerative Amici del Besta Onlus
AIM
Milano
Italy
Hellenic Pasteur Institute
HPI
¿thens
Greece
Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset
Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg
The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford
Ulleval University Hospital
KU
Stockholm
Sweden
UHEI
Heidelberg
Germany
UOXF.HM
Oxford
United Kingdom
UUS
Oslo
Norway
Université Paris-Sud XI
UPS
Orsay
France
Warszawski Uniwersytet Medyczny
WUM
Warsaw
Poland
10
10
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
172
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
443 206
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
494 786
E2a - Travel
65 600
E2b - Subsistence allowances
87 967
E3 - Equipement
3 000
E4 - Consumables & supplies
14 865
E5 - Subcontracting costs
0
E6 - Other costs
122 955
E7 - Overheads
86 261
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
778 000
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
443 206
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
97 434
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
173
1 318 640
1 318 640
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
7
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.
4
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
5
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
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.
6
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
Comments
2
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.
2
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.
(2) Content specification
2
(4) Evaluation strategy
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.
4
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.
3
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.
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
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.
7
(1) Evidence base
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
13
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
174
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
2
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.
3
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.
4
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
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
4
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
6
Total criteria block C:
19
Overall appreciation Total:
61
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
Comments
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.
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
175
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,252.00
Proposal number: 101252
Acronym:
EMPOWER
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.1 Preparation of initiatives to increase healthy life years across the life cycle and tackle health inequalities
Title:
Empowering young people for HIV prevention by expanding awareness, sex education, dialogue and services.
Starting date:
12/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
MARIE STOPES INTERNATIONAL
Acronym:
MSI
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
United Kingdom
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
DO
London
United Kingdom
FUNDATIA MARIE STOPES INTERNATIONAL ROMANIA
FMSIR
BUCHAREST
Romania
MARIE STOPES INTERNATIONAL BRUSSELS
MSIB
Brussels
Belgium
You Act
Utrecht
Netherlands
DESIGN OPTIONS
World Population Foundation
4
4
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
176
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
286 539
E2a - Travel
32 296
E2b - Subsistence allowances
30 772
E3 - Equipement
93 427
E4 - Consumables & supplies
104 208
E5 - Subcontracting costs
195 681
E6 - Other costs
303 581
E7 - Overheads
73 253
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
671 711
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
10 000
I4 - Income generated by the project
438 046
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
177
1 119 757
1 119 757
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
Comments
6
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
6
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
5
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.
4
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.
4
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
25
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
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?
3
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
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.
4
Generally well described, but only addressing qualitative indicators.
5
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
18
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
178
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
3
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).
4
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.
3
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?)
3
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.
5
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
18
Overall appreciation Total:
61
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Comments
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 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.
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 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.
No
0
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
179
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
180
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,258.00
Proposal number: 101258
Acronym:
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
Media and Mental Health In Europe
Starting date:
22/11/2008
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Università degli Studi di Cagliari
Acronym:
UNICA
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
MMHE
Acronym
City
Country
UEM
Cagliari
Italy
Center for Public Mental Health
CPMH
Gösing
Austria
Fondation d'entreprise MGEN pour la santé publique; EA 4069
Université René Descartes
FESP
Paris
France
Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattare Scientifico San Giovanni di
IRCCS Fatebenefratelli Brescia
Dio – Fatebenefratelli Brescia
Brescia
Italy
New University of Lisbon (Faculty of Medical Sciences)
Associazione Università Europea del Mediterraneo
NGO "Globali Iniciatyva Psichiarijoje" on Psychiatry-Vilnius
THE NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Unione Nazionale delle Associazioni per la Salute Mentale
FCM-UNL
Lisbon
Portugal
GIP-Vilnius
Vilnius
Lithuania
NIPH
Oslo
Norway
UNASAM
Bologna
Italy
8
6
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
181
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
302 000
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
462 000
E2a - Travel
45 000
E2b - Subsistence allowances
35 100
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
0
E6 - Other costs
0
E7 - Overheads
59 086
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
527 186
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
302 000
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
74 000
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
182
903 186
903 186
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
5
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
4
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
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.
4
5
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.
3
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.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
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.
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
Total criteria block A:
Comments
21
Note
(1) Evidence base
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
183
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
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.
3
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.
(4) Evaluation strategy
3
(5) Dissemination strategy
2
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
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
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
2
(2) Organisational capacity
2
(3) Quality of partnership
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.
2
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.
2
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
(4) Communication strategy
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
184
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
5
Total criteria block C:
13
Overall appreciation Total:
46
Conclusion and
suggestions
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.
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.
A Sanco evaluation form on policy relevance was presented to the evaluators.
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
185
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,259.00
Proposal number: 101259
Acronym:
ASMENT
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
Assessment of Educational Needs for Mental Health Planning
Starting date:
01/04/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
ŠENT - Slovenian Association for Mental Health
Acronym:
ŠENT
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Slovenia
Associated partner(s) name
Association Interrégionale de Guidance et de Santé asbl
Azienda per i Servizi Sanitari n. 1 “Triestina”
Acronym
City
Country
AIGS
Vottem
Belgium
A.S.S. n. 1
Trieste
Italy
BBU
Cluj-Napoca
Romania
Bedfordshire Centre for Mental Health Research in Association with
the University of Cambridge
BCMHR-CU
Bedford
United Kingdom
Ceska asociace pro psychicke zdravi/Czech Association for Mental
Health
CAMH
Praha
Czech Republic
IRES FVG
Udine
Italy
KUM
Kaunas
Lithuania
pmOÖ
Linz
Austria
PBI
Idrija
Slovenia
UL MF
Ljubljana
Slovenia
Babes-Bolyai University
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
8
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
186
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
619 419
E2a - Travel
48 400
E2b - Subsistence allowances
40 203
E3 - Equipement
15 000
E4 - Consumables & supplies
71 520
E5 - Subcontracting costs
33 000
E6 - Other costs
133 200
E7 - Overheads
67 234
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
616 782
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
411 194
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
187
1 027 976
1 027 976
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
4
2
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
3
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
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.
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.
4
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.
2
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) Evidence base
Comments
1
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.
2
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) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
(4) Evaluation strategy
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
188
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(5) Dissemination strategy
2
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
7
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
2
1
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.
1
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.
2
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.
3
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.
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
9
Overall appreciation Total:
31
Conclusion and
suggestions
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
Comments
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
Recommended for funding:
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.
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
189
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,260.00
Proposal number: 101260
Acronym:
Agrhealth
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.2 Reduction of health inequalities between EU regions
Title:
Occupational Health Surveillance in Agriculture and Fishery in the Enlarging European Union
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Università degli Studi di Milano
Acronym:
UNIMI
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
FIOH
Helsinki
Finland
Institute of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health of Riga
Stradins University
IOSEH
Riga
Latvia
Institute of Preventive Medicine, Environmental and Occupational
Health
Prolepsis
Athens
Greece
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health
National Institute of Public Health
NIPH
Praha 4
Czech Republic
Netherlands Center of Occupational Diseases, Academic Medical
Center Amsterdam
NCOD
Amsterdam
Netherlands
Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine
NIOM
Lodz
Poland
Spanish Institute of Rural Health
ISR
La Coruna
Spain
Technische Universität Dresden
TUD
Dresden
Germany
UNIMAN
Manchester
United Kingdom
UMFT
Timisoara
Romania
ZAPEOH
Zagreb
Croatia
WGAB
Wederslöf
Sweden
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
12
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
190
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
E1a - Staff (public officials)
626 810
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
480 665
E2a - Travel
114 700
E2b - Subsistence allowances
78 814
E3 - Equipement
8 400
E4 - Consumables & supplies
16 500
E5 - Subcontracting costs
6 400
E6 - Other costs
120 400
E7 - Overheads
96 600
Incomes
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
922 479
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
626 810
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
0
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
191
1 549 289
1 549 289
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
3
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.
5
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.
4
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.
7
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.
5
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
24
Note
(1) Evidence base
Comments
4
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.
4
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.
3
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.
3
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).
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
(4) Evaluation strategy
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
192
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(5) Dissemination strategy
3
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
17
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
3
4
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.
5
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.
4
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.
6
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.
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
22
Overall appreciation Total:
63
Conclusion and
suggestions
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
Comments
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
Recommended for funding:
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.
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
193
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,262.00
Proposal number: 101262
Acronym:
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
Model for improving children's healthy lifestyles
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
24
Main partner name:
Associazione Difesa Consumatori e Ambiente
Acronym:
ADICONSUM
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
Asociación de usuarios de bancos, cajas y seguros
Association of Polish Consumers
Bulgarian National Consumers Association
Institut National de la Consommation
MICHELLE
Acronym
City
Country
ADICAE
Zaragoza
Spain
SKP (APC)
Warsaw
Poland
BNCA
Sofia
Bulgaria
INC
PARIS
France
4
4
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
194
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
242 000
E2a - Travel
19 400
E2b - Subsistence allowances
13 300
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
0
E6 - Other costs
227 685
E7 - Overheads
35 164
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
322 528
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
215 021
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
195
537 549
537 549
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
Comments
4
The project fits into the PHP and the WP2008, but there is only a potential contribution.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
4
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
3
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
3
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
5
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
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.
19
Note
(1) Evidence base
2
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
The added value is judged to be low.
The consortium comes from the consumer movement; they seem to lack some knowledge of
public health.
Comments
Existing reviews on promoting healthy lifestyle for children not mentioned/referenced.
An analysis of key players should have been added.
2
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.
3
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.
2
Qualitative and quantitative methods have been described, but the aims of the evaluation are not
clear.
Indicators lack precision ("amount of literature").
2
Various, traditional channels are mentioned, but it lacks clarity and innovation.
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
11
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
2
Comments
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
196
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(2) Organisational capacity
2
Public health experts are lacking in the consortium.
An internal communication strategy has not been presented.
2
Public health partners are missing.
2
Good within the consortium, but no outreach to European consumer movement or to the public
health sector no described.
Target group definition missing.
5
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.
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
13
Overall appreciation Total:
43
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
197
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,264.00
Proposal number: 101264
Acronym:
PATHS TO HEALTH
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.4 Addiction prevention
Title:
ACCOMPANYING PATHS TO HEALTH FOR MINORS AND YOUNG PEOPLE
Starting date:
15/01/2009
Duration:
24
Main partner name:
CONSORZIO DI COOPERATIVE SOCIALI KAIROS
Acronym:
KAIROS
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
Asociación de Estudios Sociales e Intervención Socioeducativa
COMUNE DI TORINO
FUNDATIA DE VOLUNTARI SOMASCHI
Siawns Teg Limited
Acronym
City
Country
ESIE y GISDE
Sevilla
Spain
TURIN
TURIN
Italy
FUNDATIA
BAIA MARE
Romania
SIAWNS
Meifod Powys
United Kingdom
4
4
Executive summary:
"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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
198
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
E1a - Staff (public officials)
20 000
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
149 600
E2a - Travel
55 000
E2b - Subsistence allowances
36 000
E3 - Equipement
25 000
E4 - Consumables & supplies
55 000
E5 - Subcontracting costs
105 000
E6 - Other costs
121 000
E7 - Overheads
35 000
Incomes
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
360 000
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
20 000
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
221 600
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
199
601 600
601 600
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
5
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
4
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.
4
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.
4
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.
4
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
21
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
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.
2
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.
3
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.
3
The process of evaluation is confounded with the monitoring of the project. Additionally the
indicators are poorly defined.
3
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'.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Comments
14
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
200
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
2
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.
3
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.
3
Albeit limited in partnership, the organisations involved in the partnership have experience in
collaborating and seem qualified to implement the project activities.
3
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.
5
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
16
Overall appreciation Total:
51
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
Comments
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
201
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,265.00
Proposal number: 101265
Acronym:
WIN
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.5 Improve the quality of physical environment and reduce accidents and injuries
Title:
Window on Injuries - Comprehensive Injury Reporting for All EU Member States
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
24
Main partner name:
Kuratorium für Verkehrssicherheit
Acronym:
KfV
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Austria
Associated partner(s) name
Consumer Safety Institute
European Association for Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion
Acronym
City
Country
CSI
AMSTERDAM
Netherlands
EuroSafe
Amsterdam
Netherlands
Institut de veille sanitaire
InVS
Saint Maurice
France
Kansanterveyslaitos
KTL
Helsinki
Finland
SC PSYTEL
PSYTEL
Paris
France
Skadeforebyggende forum (Norwegian Safety Forum)
SF (NSF)
Oslo
Norway
SU
Swansea
United Kingdom
Syddansk Universitet
SDU
Copenhagen
Denmark
Universitatea Babes-Bolyai
UBB
Cluj-Napoca
Romania
UNIVERSITY OF NAVARRA
UNAV
Pamplona (NAVARRA)
Spain
Warszawski Uniwersytet Medyczny
MUW
Warsaw
Poland
Swansea University
11
9
Executive summary:
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
202
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
815 710
E2a - Travel
45 000
E2b - Subsistence allowances
27 000
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
0
E6 - Other costs
166 590
E7 - Overheads
73 200
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
676 500
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
451 000
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
203
1 127 500
1 127 500
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
8
The proposal addresses directly the PH programme and priority 3.3.5.2. of the WP 2008
7
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.
6
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.
6
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.
6
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
33
Note
(1) Evidence base
Comments
3
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.
2
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
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.
4
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
(4) Evaluation strategy
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
204
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(5) Dissemination strategy
5
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
17
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
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.
4
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.
4
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.
4
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.
8
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.
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
24
Overall appreciation Total:
74
Conclusion and
suggestions
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Comments
4
(2) Organisational capacity
Recommended for funding:
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.
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
205
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
206
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,269.00
Proposal number: 101269
Acronym:
HOMDISCARE
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.1 Preparation of initiatives to increase healthy life years across the life cycle and tackle health inequalities
Title:
Self-care processes implemented in personal assistance practice, comparative and methodology. Physical
disability user cases.
Starting date:
01/11/2008
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena
Acronym:
UPCT
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
Spain
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
AOZPO SR
Bratislava
Slovakia
AOPP
Bratislava
Slovakia
COCEMFE-CLM
Toledo
Spain
ISTI-CNR
Pisa
Italy
DPI Italia ONLUS
Lamezia Terme (CZ)
Italy
EASPD
Brussels
Belgium
RGR
Valencia
Spain
UCLM
Albacete
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
4
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
207
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
1 736 800
E2a - Travel
84 600
E2b - Subsistence allowances
53 000
E3 - Equipement
33 800
E4 - Consumables & supplies
26 000
E5 - Subcontracting costs
114 000
E6 - Other costs
6 000
E7 - Overheads
134 950
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
1 308 150
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
881 000
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
208
2 189 150
2 189 150
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
1
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.
2
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
5
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.
5
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.
5
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
18
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
(2) Content specification
4
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
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.
3
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.
4
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) Evaluation strategy
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
209
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(5) Dissemination strategy
4
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
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
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
4
(2) Organisational capacity
4
(3) Quality of partnership
Comments
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.
3
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.
3
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.
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
6
Total criteria block C:
20
Overall appreciation Total:
56
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
210
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Conclusion and
suggestions
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.
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
211
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,272.00
Proposal number: 101272
Acronym:
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.4 Addiction prevention
Title:
Study, Monitoring, Advice & Research Task on DRUGS
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
24
Main partner name:
AZIENDA UNITA’ SANITARIA LOCALE DI FORLI’
Acronym:
A.U.S.L. FORLI’
Status:
Public
Type:
Governmental organisation
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
NIVEL, Netherlands institute for health services research
S.M.A.R.T. DRUGS
Acronym
City
Country
NIVEL
Utrecht
Netherlands
Regione Emilia Romagna
RER
Bologna
Italy
Technische Universität Dresden
TUD
Dresden
Germany
University of Hertfordshire Higher Education Corporation
UH
Hatfield
United Kingdom
4
4
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
212
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
118 575
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
194 499
E2a - Travel
47 016
E2b - Subsistence allowances
29 391
E3 - Equipement
9 543
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
129 000
E6 - Other costs
110 743
E7 - Overheads
39 758
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
407 113
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
118 575
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
152 837
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
213
678 525
678 525
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
6
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).
4
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.
4
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.
6
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.
4
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
24
Note
(1) Evidence base
4
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
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.
3
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
Not very innovative as there are already projects dealing with the issue cooperation with other EU
activities should be examined.
3
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).
4
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.
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
214
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
17
Note
3
Based on the description, the actual implementation of the project could prove much more difficult
than expected.
4
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.
3
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.
3
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.
5
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
18
Overall appreciation Total:
59
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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).
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
215
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,273.00
Proposal number: 101273
Acronym:
PHYSICO
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
Physical comorbidity, poor health behavior and health promotion in psychiatric patients
Starting date:
01/07/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Università degli Studi di Verona
Acronym:
UNIVR
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
Centro De Rehabilitacion Psicosocial Ntra. Sra. Del Pilar
SALUD
Zaragoza
Spain
Hospital of Psychiatry Câmpulung Moldovenesc
SPCMCampulung Moldovenesc, Suceava County
Romania
Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology
IPiN
Warsaw
Poland
Medical University of Vienna
MUW
Vienna
Austria
University of Nicosia
UNIC
Nicosia
Cyprus
University of Ulm
UULM
Ulm
Germany
VU
Vilnius
Lithuania
Vilniaus Universitetas
7
7
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
216
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
389 852
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
434 806
E2a - Travel
28 800
E2b - Subsistence allowances
23 237
E3 - Equipement
29 600
E4 - Consumables & supplies
16 000
E5 - Subcontracting costs
0
E6 - Other costs
34 000
E7 - Overheads
66 939
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
613 941
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
389 852
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
19 442
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
217
1 023 234
1 023 235
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
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.
5
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).
3
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.
3
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.
2
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
17
Note
(1) Evidence base
Comments
2
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.
2
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.
2
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) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
218
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(4) Evaluation strategy
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.
2
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.
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
10
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
2
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.
3
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.
4
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.
2
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.
4
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
15
Overall appreciation Total:
42
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
Comments
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
219
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,274.00
Proposal number: 101274
Acronym:
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
Healthy Lifestyle Portal
Starting date:
01/10/2008
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Magyar Dietetikusok Országos Szövetsége
Acronym:
MDOSZ
Status:
Public
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Hungary
Associated partner(s) name
Zbornica nutricionistov in dietetikov Slovenije
HLP
Acronym
City
Country
ZNDS
Ljubljana
Slovenia
1
1
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
220
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
126 828
E2a - Travel
2 172
E2b - Subsistence allowances
7 374
E3 - Equipement
21 148
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
223 160
E6 - Other costs
45 100
E7 - Overheads
17 705
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
266 091
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
177 396
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
221
443 487
443 487
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
4
The proposal is related to the priorities of the PHP and the 2008WP.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
2
Many similar initiatives exist.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
1
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
1
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
2
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
Note
2
(2) Content specification
2
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
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.
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.
1
The evaluation only looks at the web-site. The road-show / conferences are not included.
The indicators are not relevant.
2
The stakeholders have not been identified ("professionals" too vague).
There seems to be confusion between project activities and dissemination of the project results.
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Comments
2
(4) Evaluation strategy
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
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
(1) Evidence base
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
The geographical coverage is limited to 2 countries.
Slovenia is identified as a partner but has no identified role or work in the workplan.
9
Note
2
Comments
The list of deliverables and the timetable is simple.
All tasks are carried out by the main partner.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
222
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(2) Organisational capacity
1
(3) Quality of partnership
2
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.
2
It is poorly developed. Distinction between internal and external communication needs to be
made. The target group have not been defined.
3
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.
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
10
Overall appreciation Total:
29
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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 project is not recommended for funding.
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.
The assessment of part A (policy) by a SANCO official (10 + 4 points) was presented to the
external evaluators.
see conclusions
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
223
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,275.00
Proposal number: 101275
Acronym:
ARTEMIDE
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.1 Preparation of initiatives to increase healthy life years across the life cycle and tackle health inequalities
Title:
INFECTION DURING PREGNANCY: EMERGING AND RE-EMERGING PATHOLOGIES PROJECT
EXPERIMENTING
Starting date:
01/12/2008
Duration:
24
Main partner name:
ASSOCIAZIONE ITALIANA STUDIO MALFORMAZIONI ONLUS
Acronym:
ASM
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
CENTRAL MANCHESTER +MANCHESTER CHILDREN'S
UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL NHS TRUST
CMMC
MANCHESTER
United Kingdom
DEZATA NA EVROPA - CHILDREN OF EUROPE
CHEU
SOFIA
Bulgaria
LSS
MILANO
Italy
THE O+G CLINIC
O+G CLINIC
MSIDA
Malta
TOR VERGATA UNIVERSITY OF ROME
TVU ROME
ROMA
Italy
UNIVERSITA' DELGI STUDI DI MILANO
UNIMI
MILANO
Italy
ZZV KOPER
KOPER
Slovenia
Laboratorio salute sociale
ZAVOD ZA ZDRAVSTVENO VARSTVO KOPER - REGIONAL
PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE OF KOPER
7
5
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
224
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
19 000
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
144 500
E2a - Travel
30 000
E2b - Subsistence allowances
44 334
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
15 400
E6 - Other costs
40 000
E7 - Overheads
20 140
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
187 038
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
19 000
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
107 336
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
225
313 374
313 374
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
6
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
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
4
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
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
4
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
4
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
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
5
23
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
3
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?
3
(4) Evaluation strategy
Total criteria block B:
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
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
Evaluation strategy is very poor / the prevention campaign comes too late for its impact to be
efficiently measured. Methodology is inadequate and indicators lacking
3
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.
(5) Dissemination strategy
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
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
15
Note
3
Comments
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
226
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(2) Organisational capacity
3
(3) Quality of partnership
4
(4) Communication strategy
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)
3
Weak: not clear what the strategy is about: diversity of target groups requires a coherent and
structure communication approach
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
6
The budget is very low for what the project aims to achieve; furthermore, it all 9almost) goes to
the main partner
Total criteria block C:
19
Overall appreciation Total:
57
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
227
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,283.00
Proposal number: 101283
Acronym:
BPS
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.1 Preparation of initiatives to increase healthy life years across the life cycle and tackle health inequalities
Title:
Bouge, une priorité pour ta santé.
Starting date:
01/06/2008
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Fédération nationale de la mutualité Française
Acronym:
FNMF
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
France
Associated partner(s) name
Union Nationale du Sport Scolaire
Acronym
City
Country
UNSS
Paris
France
1
1
Executive summary:
"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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
228
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
1 088 008
E2a - Travel
34 800
E2b - Subsistence allowances
37 670
E3 - Equipement
79 142
E4 - Consumables & supplies
2 254 928
E5 - Subcontracting costs
288 400
E6 - Other costs
344 300
E7 - Overheads
165 500
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
2 553 988
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
1 075 000
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
663 760
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
229
4 292 748
4 292 748
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
4
The proposal is generally in line with the priorities of the PHP, in that addresses PA promotion in
school children.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
3
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
2
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
1
The project is only carried out in France.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
3
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.
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
13
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
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.
2
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.
1
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.
1
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.
2
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Comments
9
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
2
Comments
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
230
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(2) Organisational capacity
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.
2
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.
2
The description of the internal and external communication is not sufficient, but some explications
have been given under dissemination.
2
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.
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
10
Overall appreciation Total:
32
Conclusion and
suggestions
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).
The assessment of part A (policy) by a SANCO official (12 + 4 points) was presented to the
external evaluators.
see conclusions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
231
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,285.00
Proposal number: 101285
Acronym:
PSYCHO Life
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
Procedure and Safety of Youth & Communication of Health and Orientation of Life
Starting date:
01/11/2008
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Istituto Statale d'Arte "E. Giannelli"
Acronym:
ISA - Parabita
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
Asl n. 4 L' Aquila
Associacao de Paralisia Cerebral de Coimbra
Centro Professionale di Formazione & Ricerca APULIA
Deutscher Paritätischer Wohlfahrtsverband
City
Country
Asl n. 4 L'Aquila
L'Aquila
Italy
APCC
Coimbra
Portugal
C.P.F. & R. APULIA
Parabita (LE)
Italy
Confao
Roma
Italy
Coop. Solidarietà
Parabita (LE)
Italy
Confao
Cooperativa Sociale "Solidarietà" a r.l.
Acronym
DER PARITÄTISCHE Baden-Württe Stuttgart
EUROPEAN CONSULTING BRUSSELS SPRL
Germany
ECBrussels
BRUSSELS
Belgium
IHI - Marco Paret
IHI
Nice
France
Institute of Family Relations
SSI
KAUNAS
Lithuania
Provincia di Lecce
Provincia di Lecce
Lecce
Italy
Assessorato Solidarietà
BARI
Italy
Assessorato Sanità
bari
Italy
SCO
London
United Kingdom
Total Target s.r.l.
Total Target
Parabita
Italy
Ufficio Scolastico Regionale per la Puglia
USR Puglia
Bari
Italy
Unesco
Haskovo
Bulgaria
Univ. Aquila
L'Aquila
Italy
Regione Puglia - Assessorato alla Solidarietà
Regione Puglia - Assessorato Politiche della Salute
S C de Maria Oxlade
Unesco Club
Università de l'Aquila
17
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
8
232
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Executive summary:
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
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
306 000
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
661 699
E2a - Travel
40 500
E2b - Subsistence allowances
14 490
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
0
E6 - Other costs
63 128
E7 - Overheads
69 383
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
693 120
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
306 000
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
156 080
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
233
1 155 200
1 155 200
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
3
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
2
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
1
It is not clear what this project can contribute to EU level policies, given the vague aims and
objectives and the limited geographical coverage.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
1
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.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
1
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.
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
8
Note
(1) Evidence base
1
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.
1
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
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.
1
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.
1
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Comments
5
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
1
Comments
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
234
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(2) Organisational capacity
2
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.
0
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.
1
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.
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
1
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,
Total criteria block C:
5
Overall appreciation Total:
18
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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.
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
235
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,286.00
Proposal number: 101286
Acronym:
Nesting
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.1 Preparation of initiatives to increase healthy life years across the life cycle and tackle health inequalities
Title:
Nesting: creating a healthy environment for babies
Starting date:
05/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Women in Europe for a Common Future
Acronym:
WECF
Status:
Public
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Netherlands
Associated partner(s) name
Baltijas Vides Forums
Clean up Greece
Acronym
City
Country
BEF LV
Riga
Latvia
CUG
Athens
Greece
EcoWorld-2007
Sofia
Bulgaria
BEF EE
Tallinn
Estonia
Nagycsaládosok Országos Egyesülete
NOE
Budapest
Hungary
Naturskyddsföreningen (Swedish Society for Nature Conservation)
SSNC
Göteborg
Sweden
SIE
Warszawa
Poland
BEF LT
Vilnius
Lithuania
WRC
London
United Kingdom
WECF France
ANNEMASSE (Cedex)
France
WECF DE
München
Germany
EcoWorld-2007 Association
MTÜ Balti Keskkonnafoorum (Baltic Environmental Forum Estonia)
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
11
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
236
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
466 182
E2a - Travel
78 508
E2b - Subsistence allowances
68 108
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
63 950
E5 - Subcontracting costs
150 020
E6 - Other costs
491 270
E7 - Overheads
92 258
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
846 170
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
564 126
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
237
1 410 296
1 410 296
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
Comments
6
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).
5
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
3
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
6
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.
4
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
24
Note
(1) Evidence base
2
(2) Content specification
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) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
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'
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
238
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(4) Evaluation strategy
3
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 ?
4
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.
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
14
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Comments
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.
2
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
Although very complex as 12 countries are involved, the management of the project largely
adequately. However the responsibilities are unclear.
3
Conference call meetings every 2 months by country and theme may be too short an interval with
limited added value
(3) Quality of partnership
Good relationship and complementarity between partners. However there is overrepresentation of
advocacy NGO's in the partnership.
2
Relationships with policy bodies at the European level need additional presentation and
explanation.
(4) Communication strategy
2
More effort should have been put on the external communication which is too policy advocacy
oriented.
4
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%).
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
13
Overall appreciation Total:
51
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
239
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,288.00
Proposal number: 101288
Acronym:
EDECEM
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.1 Preparation of initiatives to increase healthy life years across the life cycle and tackle health inequalities
Title:
Establishment and distribution of a European curriculum for postgraduate education Environmental Medicine for
physicians.
Starting date:
05/01/2009
Duration:
24
Main partner name:
European Academy for Environmental Medicine e.V.
Acronym:
EUROPAEM
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Germany
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
Association luxembourgesoise de medecine de l'environnement
Almen
Beaufort
Luxembourg
British Society for Ecological Medicine
BSEM
London
United Kingdom
Bureau Medische Milieukunde
BMM
Ellecom
Netherlands
CLUB DE NEUROLOGIE DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT
CNE
Sarreguemines
France
Dr. Gerd Oberfeld
GO
Salzburg
Austria
Alborada
Brunete (Madrid)
Spain
IVZ RS
Ljubljana
Slovenia
IDEA
County Kildare
Ireland
KI
Stockholm
Sweden
Fundaciòn Alborada
Institute of Public Health of the Republic of Slovenia
Irish Doctors' Environmental Association
Karolinska Institute
Latvia Medical Association
LMA
Riga
Latvia
ms consult
Ry
Denmark
RM OMCEO
Roma
Italy
State General Laboratory
SGL
Nicosia
Cyprus
University of Tartu
UT
Tartu
Estonia
VASC
Vilnius
Lithuania
ms consult - INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH
Ordine Provinciale di Roma dei Medici-Chirurghi e degli Odontoiatri
VALSTYBINIS APLINKOS SVEIKATOS CENTRAS (STATE
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CENTRE)
15
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
15
240
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Executive summary:
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
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
135 947
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
590 670
E2a - Travel
67 432
E2b - Subsistence allowances
81 859
E3 - Equipement
2 700
E4 - Consumables & supplies
14 000
E5 - Subcontracting costs
0
E6 - Other costs
147 533
E7 - Overheads
72 801
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
623 933
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
135 947
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
353 062
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
241
1 112 942
1 112 942
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
4
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.
4
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
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.
4
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
3
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
2
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.
Note
Comments
2
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.
3
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.
(2) Content specification
2
(4) Evaluation strategy
2
(5) Dissemination strategy
3
Total criteria block B:
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.
17
(1) Evidence base
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
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.
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.
12
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
242
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
2
(2) Organisational capacity
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.
2
(3) Quality of partnership
2
(4) Communication strategy
The internal communication is reasonable. The decision making is linked to other project run by
the main partner, which might be a weakness.
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.
2
Quite a lot of different activities are mentioned such as meetings, videoconferences, and
workshops. As mentioned before, targeting the relevant authorities is missing.
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
5
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.
Total criteria block C:
13
Overall appreciation Total:
42
Conclusion and
suggestions
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
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
243
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,289.00
Proposal number: 101289
Acronym:
PETS&PEOPLE
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
People-with-disabilities Environmental Treatment Services & Protocols for European Overcoming Practices of
Limits and Exclusions
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Centro Servizi Agraria Veterinaria
Acronym:
Ce.S.A.V.
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
Azienda USL nr.2 Perugia
Acronym
City
Country
AUSL2-UCSM PG-PSG-AS
Perugia
Italy
Comitato Italiano Paralimpico
CIP
Perugia
Italy
Cooperativa il telaio
Ippogrifo
Civitella D'Arna (PG)
Italy
Fondazione Laboratorio per le Politiche Sociali
LABOS
Roma
Italy
GHISMO
Bettona
Italy
Ghismo onlus
Granaforma S.L.
GRANAFORMA
Granada
Spain
Katholieke Hogeschool Kempen
KHK
Geel
Belgium
Plant Research International
PRI
Wageningen
Netherlands
Scottish Agriculture College
SAC
Edimburgh
United Kingdom
Sligo srl
Trakia University
Università di Perugia Dipartimento di Scienze economico-estimative
e degli Alimenti
University of Szeged
SLIGO
Perugia
Italy
UNI-TRAKIA
Stara Zagora
Bulgaria
DSEEA
Perugia
Italy
UNI-SZEGED
Hódmezovásárhely
Hungary
13
7
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
244
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
304 000
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
232 000
E2a - Travel
38 000
E2b - Subsistence allowances
48 000
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
354 000
E6 - Other costs
169 500
E7 - Overheads
64 500
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
726 000
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
304 000
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
180 000
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
245
1 210 000
1 210 000
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
4
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
3
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
1
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
2
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.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
1
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.
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
11
Note
(1) Evidence base
2
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.
2
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
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.
2
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Comments
8
Note
2
Comments
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
246
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(2) Organisational capacity
2
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.
2
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.
2
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.
4
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.
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
12
Overall appreciation Total:
31
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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.
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
247
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,306.00
Proposal number: 101306
Acronym:
StrongMentalNet
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
Strengthening informal networks to promote mental health
Guidelines for training & practice of health & social care professionals
Starting date:
01/02/2009
Duration:
34
Main partner name:
Austrian Red Cross
Acronym:
ARC
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Austria
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
ERSI
Tallinn
Estonia
Forschungsinstitut des Wiener Roten Kreuzes
FRK
Vienna
Austria
Institute of Social & Preventive Medicine
ISPM
Athens
Greece
Jagiellonian University Medical College
JUMC
Krakow
Poland
STAKES
Helsinki
Finland
Estonian-Swedish Mental Helath and Suicidology Institute
National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health
Romtens Foundation
University of Kent
Work Research Centre Ltd.
ROM
Bucharest
Romania
UniKent
Canterbury
United Kingdom
WRC
Dublin
Ireland
8
8
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
248
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
832 046
E2a - Travel
30 800
E2b - Subsistence allowances
31 774
E3 - Equipement
2 200
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
97 400
E6 - Other costs
44 700
E7 - Overheads
72 720
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
666 983
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
444 657
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
249
1 111 640
1 111 640
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
Comments
6
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.
4
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.
3
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
5
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.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
3
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.
(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)
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
21
Note
(1) Evidence base
2
(2) Content specification
3
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
2
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.
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
250
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(4) Evaluation strategy
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.
2
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.
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
11
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
3
(2) Organisational capacity
Comments
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
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.
3
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.
2
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.
5
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.
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
16
Overall appreciation Total:
48
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
251
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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.
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
252
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,320.00
Proposal number: 101320
Acronym:
SPORT YOUR LIFE
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
ACTION PLAN AGAINST CHILDREN OBESITY IN EUROPE AND FOR THE PROMOTION OF SPORTS
Starting date:
01/10/2008
Duration:
24
Main partner name:
FEDERACIÓN ESPAÑOLA DE BALONCESTO
Acronym:
FEB
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Spain
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
COBO
BOLOGNA
Italy
Danish Gymnastik & Sports Associations
DGI
Hadsten
Denmark
Kendro Merimnas Oikoyennias kai Pediou
KMOP
Athens
Greece
Manchester City Council
MCC
Manchester
United Kingdom
Comune di Bologna
Municipality of Puerto Lumbreras
Municipality of Puerto Lumbrer
Puerto Lumbreras (Murcia)
Municipality of Veria
PARAGON EUROPE Ltd.
Verein zur Förderung des Technologietransfers an der Hochschule
Bremerhaven e. V.
Spain
VERIA
VERIA
Greece
PARAGON EUROPE Ltd.
Mosta
Malta
ttz Bremerhaven
Bremerhaven
Germany
8
7
Executive summary:
- 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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
253
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
60 600
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
254 850
E2a - Travel
31 200
E2b - Subsistence allowances
11 918
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
81 095
E5 - Subcontracting costs
8 000
E6 - Other costs
15 765
E7 - Overheads
18 150
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
258 629
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
60 600
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
173 489
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
254
481 578
492 718
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
5
The project is generally in line with the PHP and the priorities of the WP2008 as it aims at
promoting PA among youth.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
3
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
3
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
4
There are 7 countries involved from various parts of Europe. Adding a partner from Eastern
Europe would be good.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
4
Not clear how these issues will be addressed across countries or within groups in the countries,
so gender, age, ethnicity etc.
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
19
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
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.
3
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
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.
3
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.
3
The dissemination seems adequate to reach the target group, but the dissemination of the project
results should be described as well.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Comments
15
Note
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
Comments
255
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
2
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.
3
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
3
(4) Communication strategy
Little evidence of the quality of the partnership and past experiences between the partners.
The linked functions of the partners are not made clear.
3
The communication strategy seems to be carried-out by the main partner. More information is
needed.
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
6
The overall budget seems adequate for the project and is balanced between the partners.
Total criteria block C:
17
Overall appreciation Total:
51
Conclusion and
suggestions
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.
The assessment of part A (policy) by a SANCO official (19 + 4 points) was presented to the
external evaluators.
see conclusions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
256
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,357.00
Proposal number: 101357
Acronym:
MHEI
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
Strategies for the employment integration of persons with mental health disorders
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
PROVINCIA DI ROMA
Acronym:
PROVINCIA DI ROMA - DIP. LAV
Status:
Public
Type:
Governmental organisation
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
Fundaciòn INTRAS
Acronym
City
Country
INTRAS Foundation
Valladolid
Spain
OAKE-Europe
Manchester
United Kingdom
IPRS
ROME
Italy
REAKT
GOUDA
Netherlands
OAKE-Europe
PSYCHOANALITIC INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH
TRACK
4
4
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
257
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
95 000
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
591 290
E2a - Travel
40 800
E2b - Subsistence allowances
62 797
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
50 000
E6 - Other costs
17 250
E7 - Overheads
60 000
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
549 000
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
95 000
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
0
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
258
917 137
644 000
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
4
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.
4
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.
3
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.
2
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.
2
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
Comments
15
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
(2) Content specification
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
259
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
2
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.
4
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.
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
4
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
16
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Comments
3
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.
3
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.
2
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
3
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
5
Total criteria block C:
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.
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.
16
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
260
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Overall appreciation Total:
47
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
261
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,358.00
Proposal number: 101358
Acronym:
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
IN FOOD VERITAS
Starting date:
15/09/2008
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
PROVINCIA DI MACERATA
Acronym:
PROVMC
Status:
Public
Type:
Governmental organisation
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
InFoVer
Acronym
City
Country
PsyPro
Tolentino (MC)
Italy
COMTOL
Tolentino
Italy
TSL
Lemesos
Cyprus
HVEC
Uuemõisa
Estonia
IPSSART
Cingoli
Italy
Pirkanmaa Educational Consortium
Pirko
Tampere
Finland
“Virgil Madgearu” Economic College
CEVM
Ploiesti
Romania
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"
7
5
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
262
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
E1a - Staff (public officials)
Incomes
124 970
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
52 250
E2a - Travel
110 500
E2b - Subsistence allowances
134 000
E3 - Equipement
7 000
E4 - Consumables & supplies
50 000
E5 - Subcontracting costs
26 000
E6 - Other costs
25 500
E7 - Overheads
33 280
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
338 100
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
124 970
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
100 430
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
263
563 500
563 500
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
Comments
5
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.
3
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
3
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
4
The consortium includes partners from 5 countries covering Eastern, Southern and Northern
Europe, which seems adequate.
3
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
18
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
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.
2
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.
2
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
264
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(4) Evaluation strategy
3
(5) Dissemination strategy
4
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
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.
14
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Comments
2
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.
2
The management structure seems appropriate.
However, the roles of the 2nd and the 5th associated partner have not been identified.
3
The project consortium has a good mixture of compentencies.
3
Internal communication has been described.
It is unclear how the communication with the peer-educators will be carried out – via teachers or
directly?
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
6
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).
Total criteria block C:
16
Overall appreciation Total:
48
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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.
The assessment of part A (policy) by a SANCO official (21 + 4 points) was presented to the
external evaluators.
see conclusions
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
265
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,359.00
Proposal number: 101359
Acronym:
IINTEGRA-MENT
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
Integrated approach to improve social inclusion of people with mental problems
Starting date:
15/01/2009
Duration:
32
Main partner name:
Regione Abruzzo
Acronym:
RA
Status:
Public
Type:
Governmental organisation
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
AGENCE NATIONALE DE L’ACCUEIL DES ETRANGERS ET DES
MIGRATIONS
ANAEM
Paris
France
Birmingham City University
BCU
Birmingham
United Kingdom
Human Health Design, Institut für die Optimierung von
Gesundheitssystemen
HHD
Wien
Austria
Medical University of Varna
MUV
Varna
Bulgaria
Therapeutische Frauenberatung e.V.
UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DELL’AQUILA
Viešoji istaiga “MTVC”
TFB
Göttingen
Germany
UNIVAQ
L'Aquila
Italy
MTVC
Vilnius
Lithuania
7
7
Executive summary:
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
266
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
E1a - Staff (public officials)
481 740
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
257 840
E2a - Travel
35 800
E2b - Subsistence allowances
29 400
E3 - Equipement
2 800
E4 - Consumables & supplies
27 000
E5 - Subcontracting costs
96 640
E6 - Other costs
83 000
E7 - Overheads
62 350
Incomes
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
594 830
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
481 740
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
0
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
267
1 076 570
1 076 570
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
6
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.
2
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
2
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
Total criteria block A:
3
3
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
(1) Evidence base
Comments
2
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.
1
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.
1
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
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.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
Comments
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
268
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(4) Evaluation strategy
1
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.
2
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.
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
7
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
1
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.
1
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.
1
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.
1
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.
5
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
9
Overall appreciation Total:
32
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
Comments
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
269
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,360.00
Proposal number: 101360
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.4 Addiction prevention
Acronym:
ANNA
Addictions News - Network for Adolescents
Title:
Starting date:
01/10/2008
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Azienda Sanitaria Locale Napoli 5
Acronym:
ASL NA 5
Status:
Public
Type:
Governmental organisation
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
Associação para o Desenvolvimento de Figueira
Acronym
City
Country
ADF
Figueira - Penafiel
Portugal
Association for the Social Support of Youth
ARSIS
Thessaloniki
Greece
Canterbury Christ Church University
CCCU
Canterbury, Kent
United Kingdom
Coordinamento Nazionale Comunità di Accoglienza
CNCA
Rome
Italy
FT
Rosiori (Oradea)
Romania
MUV
Varna
Bulgaria
Fundatia Tiabari
Medical University of Varna
6
6
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
270
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
293 580
E2a - Travel
43 680
E2b - Subsistence allowances
47 799
E3 - Equipement
4 000
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
4 000
E6 - Other costs
17 700
E7 - Overheads
18 683
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
249 000
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
180 442
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
271
429 442
429 442
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
Comments
6
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.
6
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
6
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
5
6 countries participating, geographical coverage not wide, the collaborating partners are from IT
and PT only.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
6
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
29
Note
(1) Evidence base
4
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
4
4
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.
4
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.
5
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.
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
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) Evaluation strategy
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Comments
21
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
3
Comments
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!
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
272
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(2) Organisational capacity
2
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.
3
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.
3
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.
6
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'
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
17
Overall appreciation Total:
67
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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'
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
273
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,361.00
Proposal number: 101361
Acronym:
Pro-Mental - HealthY-Europe
Strand:
2. PROMOTE HEALTH (HP-2008)
Action:
2.3 Improving mental health and healthier living
Title:
IICT Friendly Tools for developing Mental Health Promotion and reducing the stigma and exclusion
Starting date:
05/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
UNIVERSITATEA TRANSILVANIA BRASOV
Acronym:
UTBv
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
Romania
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
DSNP
BARI
Italy
Escuela Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud. Universidad de
Almería
UAL
Almería
Spain
EUROPEAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
EMA
BRUSSELS
Belgium
Høgskolen i Nord-Trøndelag
HiNT
Steinkjer
Norway
Prolepsis
Kastri, Athens
Greece
Jyvaskyla University of Applied Sciences
JUAS
Jyväskylä
Finland
Università degli Studi di Perugia
UNIPG
Perugia
Italy
UPATRAS
Patras
Greece
SZTE
SZEGED
Hungary
Dipartimento di Scienze Neurologiche e Psichiatriche
Institute of Preventive Medicine, Environmental and Occupational
Health
University of Patras
UNIVERSITY of SZEGED
9
7
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
274
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
168 780
E2a - Travel
37 440
E2b - Subsistence allowances
44 620
E3 - Equipement
28 500
E4 - Consumables & supplies
2 807
E5 - Subcontracting costs
0
E6 - Other costs
26 553
E7 - Overheads
21 300
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
198 000
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
132 000
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
275
330 000
330 000
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
5
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
4
4
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.
6
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.
3
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
(1) Evidence base
Comments
3
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.
3
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
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.
2
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Comments
(4) Evaluation strategy
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
276
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(5) Dissemination strategy
4
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
14
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Comments
3
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.
2
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.
3
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.
3
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.
6
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
17
Overall appreciation Total:
53
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
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.
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.
No
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
277
2008-07-09 19:11
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
278
2008-07-09 19:11
HI project proposals
not retained for co-funding
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,058.00
Proposal number: 101058
Acronym:
EUROMEDDEVSTAT
Strand:
3. GENERATE AND DISSEMINATE HEALTH INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE (HI-2008)
Action:
3.2 Development of mechanisms for analysis and dissemination
Title:
EUROpean MEDical DEVice STATistics
Starting date:
02/03/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Medical University Innsbruck
Acronym:
MUI
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
Austria
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
Institut für Epidemiologie
IET
Innsbruck
Austria
Regione Emilia-Romagna Direzione Generale Sanità e Politiche
Sociali
RER
Bologna
Italy
Romanian Arthoplasty Register, Registrul National de
Endoprotesare
RNE
Bucuresti
Romania
Slovakian Arthroplasty Register
SAR
Martin
Slovakia
STAKES
Helsinki
Finland
STAKES - National Research and Development Centre for Welfare
and Health
5
5
Executive summary:
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.
Strategic relevance and contribution to the programme:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
1
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
E1a - Staff (public officials)
Incomes
1 137 490
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
0
E2a - Travel
38 400
E2b - Subsistence allowances
14 739
E3 - Equipement
5 000
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
100 000
E6 - Other costs
10 000
E7 - Overheads
91 359
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
740 000
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
1 137 490
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
- 510 502
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
30 000
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
2
1 396 988
1 396 988
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
6
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
5
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
6
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
4
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
6
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
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
(1) Evidence base
4
(2) Content specification
5
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
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.
4
(4) Evaluation strategy
2
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.
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
3
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(5) Dissemination strategy
2
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
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
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
3
(2) Organisational capacity
4
(3) Quality of partnership
2
(4) Communication strategy
2
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
6
Total criteria block C:
17
Overall appreciation Total:
61
Conclusion and
suggestions
Comments
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.
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
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
4
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,060.00
Proposal number: 101060
Acronym:
SCIPso
Strand:
3. GENERATE AND DISSEMINATE HEALTH INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE (HI-2008)
Action:
3.1 Development of a sustainable health monitoring system
Title:
- Survey, Care and Information on Psoriasis for Patients, Health Institutions and Public
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
ADIPSO (Associazione per la Difesa degli Psoriasici)
Acronym:
ADIPSO
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
Bulgarian Psoriasis Foundation
John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin
Acronym
City
Country
BPF
Sofia
Bulgaria
KUL
Lublin
Poland
Kalipso
Kalipso
Athens
Greece
Latvian Psoriasis Organisation
LV PO
Jurmala
Latvia
Lithuanian Psoriasis Society
LT PS
Kaunas
Lithuania
National University of Athens
med.uoa
Athens
Greece
Polish Psoriasis Association
PPA
Lublin
Poland
Psoriasis Association Malta
PAM
Attaro
Malta
LV.Riga
Riga
Latvia
SPAE CZ
Vsetin
Czech Republic
UK PA
Northampton
United Kingdom
med.uniroma2
Rome
Italy
Rigastradins University
SPAE CZ (Psoriatic and Atopic Eczema Association Czech
Republic)
The Psoriasis Association
Università di Roma 'Tor Vergata'
University of Berlin La Charité
Charité.DE
Berlin
Germany
University of Florence
unifi
Florence
Italy
University of L'Aquila
univaq
L'Aquila
Italy
University of Malta
MT UN
Floriana
Malta
University of Modena & Reggio Emilia
unimore
Modena
Italy
University of Prague
CUNI CZ
Prague
Czech Republic
MU SOFIA
Sofia
Bulgaria
LT AD
Vilnius
Lithuania
University of Sofia
Vilnius University Santariskiu Hospital
20
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
10
5
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Executive summary:
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
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
95 622
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
558 380
E2a - Travel
86 400
E2b - Subsistence allowances
96 262
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
0
E5 - Subcontracting costs
330 000
E6 - Other costs
219 250
E7 - Overheads
96 875
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
889 676
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
95 622
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
488 223
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
9 268
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
6
1 482 789
1 482 789
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
Comments
4
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.
5
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
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
4
The project is certainly useful for those affected by the disease; however, it concerns an issue
somewhat isolated from current, broader healthcare policy concerns
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
4
The geographical coverage is very wide: new MS are well represented, but there is an issue with
the over-representation of Italy
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
5
It is not clear from the project description how psoriasis or the concept put forward of "integrated
care" are perceived in the participating countries
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
22
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
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).
4
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
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.
4
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Comments
18
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
3
Comments
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
7
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(2) Organisational capacity
3
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
3
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
3
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.
5
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.
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
17
Overall appreciation Total:
57
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
8
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,061.00
Proposal number: 101061
Acronym:
AETOS
Strand:
3. GENERATE AND DISSEMINATE HEALTH INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE (HI-2008)
Action:
3.2 Development of mechanisms for analysis and dissemination
Title:
Advanced Educational Training of Ophthalmologic Surgeons
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
University of Crete
Acronym:
UOC
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
Greece
Associated partner(s) name
Center Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux
Acronym
City
Country
CHU
Bordeaux
France
Humanitas Mirasole SPA
ICH
Milan
Italy
Instituto de Microcirugia Ocular
IMO
Barcelona
Spain
PPMU
Salzburg
Austria
UZA
Edegem
Belgium
Paracelsus Private Medical University
University of Antwerp
5
5
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
9
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
132 610
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
272 050
E2a - Travel
18 600
E2b - Subsistence allowances
13 935
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
166 000
E5 - Subcontracting costs
0
E6 - Other costs
170 000
E7 - Overheads
54 122
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
496 216
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
132 610
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
198 491
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
10
827 317
827 317
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
4
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
4
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.
3
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.
4
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.
5
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
20
Note
(1) Evidence base
2
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.
3
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.
3
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
2
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.
3
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Comments
13
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
11
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Comments
3
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.
3
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.
2
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.
2
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.
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
5
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.
Total criteria block C:
15
Overall appreciation Total:
48
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
Conclusion and
suggestions
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.
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
12
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,062.00
Proposal number: 101062
Acronym:
MOBSEPUB
Strand:
3. GENERATE AND DISSEMINATE HEALTH INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE (HI-2008)
Action:
3.3 Exchange knowledge and best practice
Title:
Mobile Facility for Sex Education and the Prevention of Unsafe Behaviour
Starting date:
01/12/2008
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Center for Sex og Sundhed
Acronym:
CSS
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Denmark
Associated partner(s) name
Riksförbundet För Sexuell Upplysning
Acronym
City
Country
RFSU
Malmö
Sweden
1
1
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
13
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
E1a - Staff (public officials)
164 750
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
1 073 256
E2a - Travel
21 630
E2b - Subsistence allowances
32 000
E3 - Equipement
120 766
E4 - Consumables & supplies
177 793
E5 - Subcontracting costs
87 132
E6 - Other costs
52 989
E7 - Overheads
121 121
Incomes
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
1 110 862
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
164 750
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
575 825
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
14
1 851 437
1 851 437
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
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) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
2
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.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
5
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.
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
15
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
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.
3
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
The intervention was not considered innovative. No efforts were made to describe the possible
synergies or overlaps with currently funded initiatives.
5
The evaluation is well designed, with a good set of indicators, including the financial audit. No
external evaluation is mentioned.
5
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Comments
19
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
2
Comments
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
15
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(2) Organisational capacity
4
The basic management structure is good, but there are too many tasks to be shared between
only 2 partners.
2
Limited, only two partners who know each other, however no clear relation with the collaborating
partners.
4
Interesting way of addressing the target population, good external communication.
5
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.
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
17
Overall appreciation Total:
51
Conclusion and
suggestions
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
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
16
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,076.00
Proposal number: 101076
Acronym:
ICCHIVTB
Strand:
3. GENERATE AND DISSEMINATE HEALTH INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE (HI-2008)
Action:
3.3 Exchange knowledge and best practice
Title:
Improved Communication and Capacity for HIV/TB Collaborative Efforts
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Stichting AIDS Foundation East-West
Acronym:
AFEW
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Netherlands
Associated partner(s) name
Eurasian Harm Reduction Network
KNCV Tuberculosis Foundation
Acronym
City
Country
EHRN
Vilnius
Lithuania
KNCV
The Hague
Netherlands
2
2
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
17
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
421 500
E2a - Travel
21 600
E2b - Subsistence allowances
42 120
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
14 000
E5 - Subcontracting costs
177 000
E6 - Other costs
211 700
E7 - Overheads
62 130
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
570 030
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
380 020
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
18
950 050
950 050
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
6
5
4
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.
4
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.
4
Considered generic, but the ethical considerations should be further developed as the project
addresses very sensitive topics.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
23
Note
(1) Evidence base
4
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
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
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.
3
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).
4
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.
4
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?
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Comments
17
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
19
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
2
(2) Organisational capacity
2
(3) Quality of partnership
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.
2
The contribution from the staff of the other partners should be strengthened, and they can share
the responsibility to become wp leaders.
3
Limited, no clear communication strategy
5
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.
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
14
Overall appreciation Total:
54
Conclusion and
suggestions
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.
The Evaluation Committee endorses the recommendation not to co-fund this project
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
20
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,089.00
Proposal number: 101089
Acronym:
PREUROMED
Strand:
3. GENERATE AND DISSEMINATE HEALTH INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE (HI-2008)
Action:
3.1 Development of a sustainable health monitoring system
Title:
Protective Factors for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Focusing on the Medtype diet at European
Level
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
3
Main partner name:
Instituto Municipal de Asistencia Sanitaria
Acronym:
IMAS-IMIM
Status:
Public
Type:
Governmental organisation
Country:
Spain
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
Copenhagen University Hospital
CUH
Copenhagen
Denmark
Društvo nastavnika opce/obiteljske medicine (Association of
teachers in general practice/family medicine)
MSS
Zagreb
Croatia
Institute of Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolic Diseases “Prof. Dr.
N.C. Paulescu”
NCP
Bucharest
Romania
CHEU
Hamburg
Germany
CUB
Campobasso
Italy
Institute of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology
and MediGate, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
5
5
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
21
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
E1a - Staff (public officials)
161 440
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
1 295 476
E2a - Travel
21 000
E2b - Subsistence allowances
19 200
E3 - Equipement
80 000
E4 - Consumables & supplies
199 869
E5 - Subcontracting costs
64 600
E6 - Other costs
12 900
E7 - Overheads
129 810
Incomes
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
1 190 577
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
161 440
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
632 278
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
22
1 984 295
1 984 295
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
Comments
6
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.
6
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.
3
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
4
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
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
3
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
(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)
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
22
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
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
3
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
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.
2
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.
3
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
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Comments
15
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
23
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
2
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.
2
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.
3
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.
2
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
3
Total criteria block C:
12
Overall appreciation Total:
49
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
Comments
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.
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.
The Evaluation Committee endorses the recommendation not to co-fund this project
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
24
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,091.00
Proposal number: 101091
Acronym:
DEMOSI
Strand:
3. GENERATE AND DISSEMINATE HEALTH INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE (HI-2008)
Action:
3.1 Development of a sustainable health monitoring system
Title:
Development of health facilities monitoring system for injuries with focus on brain trauma
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
18
Main partner name:
Internationale Gesellschaft zur Erforschung von Hirntraumata (International Neurotrauma Research Organization)
Acronym:
IGEH (INRO)
Status:
Public
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Austria
Associated partner(s) name
Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital
Trnava University
Acronym
City
Country
PSCUH
Riga
Latvia
TU
Trnava
Slovakia
UKH "Lorenz Boehler", Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsanstalt
UKHLB
Wien
Austria
University Hospital Center Zagreb
UHCZ
Zagreb
Croatia
University of Pecs, Centre of Medicine and Health Sciences, Faculty
of Medicine
UPecs
Pecs
Hungary
5
5
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
25
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
40 500
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
102 600
E2a - Travel
32 000
E2b - Subsistence allowances
13 230
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
2 000
E5 - Subcontracting costs
2 000
E6 - Other costs
7 500
E7 - Overheads
12 500
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
81 830
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
40 500
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
90 000
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
26
212 330
212 330
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
6
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
5
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
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
4
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
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
3
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
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
4
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
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
22
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
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
3
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
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
2
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
3
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Comments
13
Note
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
Comments
27
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
2
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.
3
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).
3
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
2
Communication – dissemination are not differentiated. Target groups that were already mentioned
above are not adequately addressed
6
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.
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
16
Overall appreciation Total:
51
Conclusion and
suggestions
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
The Evaluation Committee endorses the recommendation not to co-fund this project
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
28
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,093.00
Proposal number: 101093
Acronym:
IN-EUPHIX
Strand:
3. GENERATE AND DISSEMINATE HEALTH INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE (HI-2008)
Action:
3.1 Development of a sustainable health monitoring system
Title:
Intelligence Network for the European Public Health Information, Knowledge and Data Management System
Starting date:
01/01/2009
Duration:
24
Main partner name:
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment
Acronym:
RIVM
Status:
Public
Type:
Governmental organisation
Country:
Netherlands
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
EAR
Innsbruck
Austria
HealthMonitor
Budapest
Hungary
Lithuanian Health Information Centre
LHIC
VILNIUS
Lithuania
National Public Health Institute
KTL
Helsinki
Finland
NATIONAL SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
NSPH
ATHENS
Greece
Norwegian Institute of Public Health
NIPH
Oslo
Norway
LIGA.NRW
Bielefeld
Germany
ORS-LR
Montpellier cedex 5
France
RKI
Berlin
Germany
NBHW
Stockholm
Sweden
SVA (PHA)
Riga
Latvia
European Arthroplasty Register, EFORT-EAR
HealthMonitor Research and Consulting Non-profit Public Benefit
Ltd.
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
10
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
29
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
32 792
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
456 310
E2a - Travel
27 200
E2b - Subsistence allowances
19 635
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
5 000
E5 - Subcontracting costs
0
E6 - Other costs
23 500
E7 - Overheads
39 502
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
362 363
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
32 792
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
208 784
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
30
603 939
603 939
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
Comments
5
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.
4
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
4
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
4
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
3
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
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.
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
(1) Evidence base
2
(2) Content specification
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
31
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
4
(4) Evaluation strategy
3
(5) Dissemination strategy
4
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
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.
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?
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
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
3
(2) Organisational capacity
2
(3) Quality of partnership
3
(4) Communication strategy
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.
3
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.
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
7
The budget is allright but unbalanced among partners and should be reduced. The co-funding
should be reduced from 60% to 50%.
Total criteria block C:
18
Overall appreciation Total:
55
Conclusion and
suggestions
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
32
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
33
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,094.00
Proposal number: 101094
Acronym:
RarePaedNet
Strand:
3. GENERATE AND DISSEMINATE HEALTH INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE (HI-2008)
Action:
3.3 Exchange knowledge and best practice
Title:
European Network for Paediatric Rare Diseases
Starting date:
01/09/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Consorzio per Valutazioni Biologiche e Farmaco
Acronym:
CVBF
Status:
Private
Type:
Non profit organisation excluding the above
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
ICBD
Rome
Italy
Erasmus Universitair Medisch Centrum Rotterdam
Erasmus MC
Rotterdam
Netherlands
European Organisation for Rare Diseases
EURORDIS
Paris
France
ISCIII
Madrid
Spain
KI
Stockholm
Sweden
PEDIANET
Padova
Italy
UNIPD
Padova
Italy
Alessandra Lisi International Centre on Birth Defects
Instituto de Salud Carlos III
Karolinska Institutet
Società servizi telematici
Università di Padova
7
5
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
34
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
359 889
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
879 725
E2a - Travel
46 600
E2b - Subsistence allowances
22 428
E3 - Equipement
0
E4 - Consumables & supplies
6 500
E5 - Subcontracting costs
268 322
E6 - Other costs
71 226
E7 - Overheads
115 804
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
1 062 296
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
359 889
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
348 309
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
35
1 770 494
1 770 494
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
7
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”.
5
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
5
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
6
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
5
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)
Note
Comments
4
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)
3
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
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)
3
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.
(2) Content specification
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
See above comments: the shortcomings mentioned above, have negative impact on the possible
added value of the proposed activities
28
(1) Evidence base
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
15
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
36
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
Comments
3
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.
3
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.
3
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
3
Communication strategy is not clear enough: it would need to be “spelled out” more clearly.
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
6
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.
Total criteria block C:
18
Overall appreciation Total:
61
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
Conclusion and
suggestions
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
37
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,096.00
Proposal number: 101096
Acronym:
ProFaNEWeb
Strand:
3. GENERATE AND DISSEMINATE HEALTH INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE (HI-2008)
Action:
3.3 Exchange knowledge and best practice
Title:
Prevention of Falls Network Europe Website
Starting date:
01/12/2008
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
University of Manchester
Acronym:
UNIMAN
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
United Kingdom
Associated partner(s) name
Acronym
City
Country
EuroSafe
Amsterdam
Netherlands
Glasgow Caledonian University
GCU
Glasgow
United Kingdom
Help the Aged
HtA
London
United Kingdom
Robert Bosch Gesellschaft fuer medizinische Forschung mbH
RBMF
Stuttgart
Germany
University Medical Center Groningen University of Groningen
UMCG
Groningen
Netherlands
European Association for Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion
5
3
Executive summary:
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
38
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
592 272
E2a - Travel
38 353
E2b - Subsistence allowances
47 161
E3 - Equipement
6 726
E4 - Consumables & supplies
2 018
E5 - Subcontracting costs
0
E6 - Other costs
3 000
E7 - Overheads
48 264
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
442 676
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
295 118
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
39
737 794
737 794
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
Comments
5
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).
3
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).
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
4
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
4
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.
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
5
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
21
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
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.
3
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
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.
3
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.
5
The dissemination strategy is the core of this proposal and it is well addressed.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
18
Note
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
Comments
40
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
4
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.
4
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.
3
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.
2
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.
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
6
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.
Total criteria block C:
19
Overall appreciation Total:
58
(2) Organisational capacity
(3) Quality of partnership
(4) Communication strategy
Conclusion and
suggestions
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
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
41
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,105.00
Proposal number: 101105
Acronym:
GIULIA
Strand:
3. GENERATE AND DISSEMINATE HEALTH INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE (HI-2008)
Action:
3.1 Development of a sustainable health monitoring system
Title:
Virtual outpatient department integrated, for the oncologic patient management
Starting date:
01/10/2008
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Azienda Ospedaliera di Rilievo Nazionale “V. Monaldi”
Acronym:
A.O.R.N. Monaldi
Status:
Public
Type:
Governmental organisation
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
P.I WESTERN EUROPE S.R.L.
Software Team S.r.l. - Tecnologie Informatiche Avanzate
Acronym
City
Country
PIWE
Naples
Italy
SWT
Sesto San Giovanni
Italy
2
1
Executive summary:
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
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
42
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
Incomes
E1a - Staff (public officials)
0
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
2 207 082
E2a - Travel
21 600
E2b - Subsistence allowances
15 624
E3 - Equipement
492 840
E4 - Consumables & supplies
5 200
E5 - Subcontracting costs
800 000
E6 - Other costs
0
E7 - Overheads
240 000
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
2 193 760
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
0
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
1 588 586
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
43
3 782 346
3 782 346
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Evaluation report
Award criteria
Criteria Block A: Policy
and contextual relevance
Note
Comments
(1) Project's contribution to
the Second Health Programme
and its annual work plan in
terms of meeting the
objectives and priorities
3
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.
(2) Strategic relevance in
terms of expected
contributions to the existing
knowledge and implications
for health
1
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
1
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.
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
1
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
1
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
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
7
Note
(1) Evidence base
2
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.
1
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.
2
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.
2
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
2
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.
(2) Content specification
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
(4) Evaluation strategy
(5) Dissemination strategy
Total criteria block B:
Comments
9
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
44
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Criteria Block C:
Management quality of the
project and budget
Note
(1) Planning and organisation
of the project
1
(2) Organisational capacity
1
(3) Quality of partnership
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
1
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
2
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
2
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.
(4) Communication strategy
(5) Overall and detailed
budget, Financial management
Total criteria block C:
7
Overall appreciation Total:
23
Conclusion and
suggestions
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.
The Evaluation Committee endorses the recommendation not to co-fund this project
Recommended for funding:
Maximum amount to be
cofinanced:
Maximum percentage to be
cofinanced:
No
0
0.00
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
45
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
101,128.00
Proposal number: 101128
Acronym:
ReConExT
Strand:
3. GENERATE AND DISSEMINATE HEALTH INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE (HI-2008)
Action:
3.3 Exchange knowledge and best practice
Title:
Recovery by Consensus of Experience and Theory
Starting date:
02/03/2009
Duration:
36
Main partner name:
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
Acronym:
ISTC - CNR
Status:
Public
Type:
Academic organisation
Country:
Italy
Associated partner(s) name
International Mental Health Collaborating Network
Acronym
City
Country
IMHCN
Mons en Baroeul
France
Mario Negri Institute for Pharmachological Research
IMN
Milano
Italy
Stockholm's University
SU
Stockholm
Sweden
UAD
Dundee
United Kingdom
University of Abertay Dundee
4
4
Executive summary:
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.
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
46
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
Budget
Expenditures
E1a - Staff (public officials)
857 774
E1b - Staff (non public officials)
786 950
E2a - Travel
57 340
E2b - Subsistence allowances
142 810
E3 - Equipement
8 800
E4 - Consumables & supplies
9 590
E5 - Subcontracting costs
50 000
E6 - Other costs
17 361
E7 - Overheads
135 141
Incomes
I1 - Co-funding requested from the community budget
1 207 992
I2 - Contribution pertaining to public officials
857 774
I3 - Applicant's financial contribution
0
I4 - Income generated by the project
0
I5 - Other external resources of the project
0
Total:
Second programme of community action in the field of Health 2008-2013
47
2 065 766
2 065 766
2008-07-09 19:13
Call for proposals 2008
Financial instrument: PROJECTS
Summary Report following Evaluation Committee
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
Note
2
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.
6
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.
5
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.
4
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
6
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.
(3) Added value at European
level in the field of public
health (2 aspects)
(4) Pertinence of the
geographical coverage
(5) Adequacy of the project
with social, cultural and
political context
Total criteria block A:
Criteria Block B: Technical
quality of the project
23
Note
(1) Evidence base
3
(2) Content specification
4
(3) Innovative nature, technical
complementarity and
avoidance of duplication of
other existing actions at EU
level
Comments
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
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.
2
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.
(4) Evaluation strategy
Second programme o