Hi Franco,
apologize in advance for the length of this email, but Giovanna and I have reflected on some elements of the project, also in relation to the budget. Below some considerations:
Geographical coverage: It would help us to clarify the relation between partners/countries and domains. If we are not wrong, it seems that some interventions are only national (so one partner will implement
interventions in its country) whereas other (e.g. Choice) will work in more countries. Would be possible for you to clarify it (probably using the attached table if it can help). Thank you in advance.
Rational of the interventions: some suggestions/questions from our side.
- "Medical students who will deliver the health literacy classes will need to be paid. In whose budget do we allocate these funds?” If I’m not wrong, Choice will deliver the classes in each country of WP4. For each national
public agency I would foreseen a budget (other costs) for a “service” - an company that will reimburse the students but also support the organization of the event including translation service (if any), practical organization of the training, sum up of the
results, etc. Then, if we got the project, each NPH could decide how to organize the activities nationally.
- "How are we going to deliver the self-management of digital media component in each school?” It will be used to monitor the behavioural dimensions and probably we could consider it as part of the evaluation activities
too.
- "Who is going to run the mental health counselling website?” The starting point is the Slovenian tool which will be adapted/implemented in other countries. We see the involvement of the Slovenian partner providing the
framework/their experience and a main role of the partner implementing the activities at national level (NPH?).
NIPH intervention: we read the description of the intervention which is complete and it helps to understand the activities. Arnfinn wrote the follows: "Key stakeholders include the Department of Child and Adolescent Health Promotion
Services (NASKO) at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, as well as the school health service coordination offices in the municipalities of Bergen and Trondheim.
Resources required:
- A NASKO coordinator to oversee and support implementation across the two municipalities – 6 PMs
- A school health service coordinator in Bergen municipality – 9 PMs
- A school health service coordinator in Trondheim municipality – 9 PMs
- Local travel and meeting costs (estimated at EUR 20,000)”
I’m not sure about what he meant for “school health service coordination offices”. If he consider those people contractualised by NIPH or by the municipalities. Do you agree if I try to clarify this point with
Arnfinn to then decide how to consider the corresponding costs and the role of the municipalities in the consortium?
Best regards,
Loredana
Ukraine intervention:
- medical
students who will deliver the health literacy classes will need to be paid. In whose budget do we allocate these funds?
- How
are we going to deliver the self-management of digital media component in each school?
o App
legata agli interventi (da capire quali interventi sono coinvolti). Se si bisogn
o WP
di valutazione
- Who
is going to run the mental health counselling website?
Upscale of the tool at project level
Ukraine also on board. But I think you have already contacted them for the admin information. They are keen to know about the budget. I told them that
we can share some information next Tuesday at the earliest.
They asked a few questions about the delivery of the interventions that made me think we should consider more carefully some of the cost items involved.
For instance, the medical students who will deliver the health literacy classes will need to be paid. In whose budget do we allocate these funds? How are we going to deliver the self-management of digital media component in each school? Who is going to run
the mental health counselling website? I will try to come up with a more detailed plan in the next days, but if you have any suggestions, please, let me know.
Thank you for this update.
I included WP4 in the master copy.
Loredana
Hi Loredana, I think the latest version of WP4 is very good. You may include it in the application and I will share it with Daniel now as an example of
how his WP should be structured.
The call with North Macedonia went well. They will confirm participation next week, after talking to their management (fingers crossed they are not going
to pull out as the Germans). They have a preference for the school intervention (younger children), which is not ideal, but we have to accept it.
CAUTION: This
message came from outside Imperial. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and were expecting this email.
|
Here is (another) updated description of WP4 based on the inputs ion yesterday's meeting
A session of the telco will be dedicated to the task allocation and description so we’ll have the opportunity to discuss the structure with all partners.
See you soon. Best regards,
Here is an updated version.
I will put the draft WP description into the main document also
I have will try to get this done as soon as possible
Have you prepared a draft of WP4 description to be included in the application? In case, please feel free to share it with
us.
I hope you are all doing well.
Following Franco’s email with clarifications on the interventions foreseen in the proposal, I would kindly ask you to complete
the attached file with a draft of the WP4 description and brief inputs for Section 1 of the proposal. The file includes some instructions and tips to support the drafting process.
I would appreciate receiving your contributions by Wednesday 25th of March,
so that we can consolidate all inputs into an updated draft of the proposal.
<Z-HEALTH_WP Leaders contributions NIPH.docx>
Inizio messaggio inoltrato:
Oggetto: [Z-health-consortium] Z-HEALTH, Intervention packages and
responsibilities
Data: 19
marzo 2026 alle ore 19:33:03 CET
Thank you to all those who have been able to participate in the two consortium meetings last week. Both have been extremely helpful in getting to the next
step of development of the proposal. Based on the inputs received last week, I have developed two “intervention packages”. You may find descriptions of those packages attached to this message, and in the shared Box folder (sub-folder “Interventions”).
In order to help you follow the logic of those intervention packages, please, note the following points:
-
Based on comments received (no age group should be left out within the range provided by the call), I have collapsed the three originally envisaged transitions into
two. The first will cover the age range from 12 to 18 and will be labelled transition from early to late adolescence. Intervention package 1 is designed to help
this transition by preventing the formation of unhealthy habits, creating and consolidating healthy habits. Intervention package 2 will do the same in the later
age group (19-25) supporting the transition to tertiary education/work/independent living.
-
Different domains in each intervention package reflect the structure I proposed on Friday, with several adaptations and specifications.
-
I am circulating these intervention descriptions as proposals (albeit an advanced one, that I would not expect to change to any
large extent at this stage). The design of intervention package 1 is ultimately the responsibility of WP4 (led by NIPH) and its partners, and the design of intervention package 2 is the responsibility of WP5 (leadership yet to be assigned – any volunteers
or proposals for additional partners who could do it, please, do come forward).
-
The attached intervention descriptions are key tools to be used when approaching country partners whom we expect to implement interventions. WHAT WILL WE THE ASK NEW PARTNERS IN POTENTIALLY IMPLEMENTING COUNTRIES?
-
What I see as the “ideal” approach here (and I would like to emphasise this is the ideal, but reality may require compromise) is that we include 6 countries implementing interventions in Z-HEALTH, three focusing on the age group
12-18, and three on the age group 19-25. The attached document describing Intervention package 1 currently lists Norway, Slovenia, and possibly Spain (Basque country - TBC) as the three implementing countries. We still need to determine what implementing countries
will work on the later age group.
-
It is not expected that a single organisation (e.g. the Public Health Institute) takes care of implementing the entire package. They can work with other partners (locally or from other countries) on components they need support
with. We could even envisage that implementing countries may be given the option of dropping one domain from the intervention package, if they really feel it would be difficult to implement in their countries, but this would not be ideal, because the different
domains are meant to address different stages of the habit formation process, as set out in the project’s conceptual framework.
-
The value of implementing and evaluation a whole package of interventions is that this will enable us to assess synergies between components and across NCD areas. There would be easier options, potentially, involving countries
picking and choosing from a menu of singe-domain/single-transition intervention options, but I think this would be inferior to the plan I have described before, and would reduce the value of the project.
Apologies that this message is getting long, but I would like to address the issue of responsibilities for individual dimensions in the final part of this
email, because we need those responsible to start shaping up the relevant tasks. The dimensions of each intervention package are listed below, along with the individual actions they involve. I have added the names of those I would expect to take responsibility
for each of them. Please, look for your names in the list below and assess whether you agree with the proposed allocation and whether you are prepared to work on designing the relevant actions over the coming week (so that we can review those in the next Consortium
meeting on 30thMarch).
Domain 1. Health and digital literacy.
a. TUTCH health literacy programme. [The CHOICE Foundation (Sweden)
are interested in joining the proposal and can work with the European Medical Students’ Association [suggested by Katja, we can follow up with a direct contact and include them too]
b. Digital literacy programme. [Marisa
Miraldo (Imperial) on mis-information management; volunteers sought in support (Daniel, University of Cologne ? Damon, NYU? Others?)]
Domain 2. Self-management of digital media use. [I would see the design of all three components here to be led by NYU, but others are welcome to support
if interested]
Domain 3. Healthy school environments and nudges. [WHO and EuroHealthNet can oversee this domain, specific contributions may be envisaged from Marisa and
Daniel, especially on (a) and (b); others?]
Domain 4. Resources and services. [Matey’s team NIJZ, supported by other countries implementing this intervention]
Domain 1. Health and digital literacy.
-
Health literacy programme. [Possibly Ane, Irati, Biosistemak]
-
Advanced digital literacy programme. [Marisa, NYU team?]
Domain 2. Device-assisted behavioural monitoring and feedback. [we need volunteers here]
-
Physical activity
-
Sleep [this could be covered by Matej’s team, but also potentially by NIPH?]
-
Eating patterns and diet [This would have to be Imperial]
-
Probably not suitable
Domain 3. Healthy environments and nudges.
-
Food and physical activity environments [Marisa may work on this, but I realise her name is down too many times in this list]
-
Addictive product environments [maybe Daniel, again?]
-
Mental health environment, possibly resurrecting the idea of using the ABC framework. [would EuroHealthNet be interested in covering this?]
I look forward to hearing from you.
<Z-Health Intervention package 1.docx>
<Z-Health Intervention package 2.docx>
<Z-HEALTH_WP Leaders contributions NIPH WP4 3003.docx>