Dear Daniel and Stephanie,
Thank you again for your efforts.
Apologies for being slightly pedantic, but I would like to make sure what we propose to do in Germany is not deviating too much from the model we are adopting in other countries.
If I understand correctly:
- BGF is working with vocational schools and could implement an intervention for the older age group (19-25, but starting the
intervention in the last year of school, so presumably when kids are 18). BGF is currently delivering a health literacy programme, on which we could piggyback our intervention. In order to align what we are doing with what we are proposing, we would need to
do the following:
- Ensure some key features of the Z-HEALTH health and digital literacy are added to the existing literacy programme (especially
digital literacy may not currently be part of the programme);
- Add a component based on device-assisted monitoring and feedback for kids who volunteer to take part;
- Healthy environments and nudges: if we recruit young people at the end of secondary school, they will presumably be exposed
to different environments after that, so the option of implementing nudges in physical environments would not be viable. We could instead consider nudges in digital environments, and the use of digital tools to navigate physical environments (e.g. food choice
apps).
- IFT North is working with younger children, so intervention package 1 is what we would be considering here. The starting point
is a self-commitment intervention to prevent addictive behaviours (esp. smoking), delivered in schools nationwide. Alignment with our intervention package would seem a bit more demanding in this case:
- Widen the health literacy training and add a digital literacy component. In this age group, we will be using the CHOICE Foundation
approach, which involves the delivery of health literacy training by medical students. Would this be acceptable for IFT North?
- Self-management of digital media use. This could be offered to a subset of kids who volunteer to take part.
- Healthy environments and nudges. This would involve changes in the schools’ physical environments and may or may not be possible.
- Resources and services. This is effectively a mental health counselling website built on a model run by the Slovenian Institute
of Public Health. This would seem well aligned with the expertise of IFT North, which is strong on psychotherapy, if I understand correctly from their website. But we would need to enquire whether this is something they would feel comfortable doing.
In summary, my question to you is: do you think it is realistic to think that the two institutes would be willing to add at least some of the components that would better align
the intervention(s) in Germany with the wider intervention models in Z-HEALTH?
I would also like to get back to you on two questions you have asked me previously:
1. Evaluation: Does the evaluation take place externally from the UK? Or should the evaluation also be conducted in Germany? Stephanie and her team have ample experience here.
Imperial is formally responsible for the evaluation work package, but the evaluation of interventions implemented in each country will have to be coordinated with country partners.So
each partner leading the implementation of an intervention (you in the case of Germany) will receive some funding to contribute to the evaluation in their own setting.
2. Digital components/App: As the planned interventions contain a digital component (i.e., device-assisted monitoring and feedback), I was wondering in what capacity NYU could provide
us with the necessary digital framework and programming support (e.g., for adoptions app of local needs).
Neither BGF nor ITF have developed an app which we could use. Shall we approach Sebastian Schneider from MPI?
NYU will be responsible for designing the digital literacy training and for the self-management of digital media use component of Intervention 1. They do not have expertise on wearables
and feedback from health monitoring data. I was planning to develop this component during the course of the project, but it would be good if we could consider existing options. I have been trying to look up Sebastian’s app, but have not been able to find it.
Could you point me to some information, if publicly available? I think the key question in this component of the intervention package is how we provide feedback (which is the behavioural component of the intervention) more than how we collect the data, although
the latter clearly needs to be addressed as well.
Sorry to have so many questions and thank you for your patience.
Franco
From: Stephanie Stock <stephanie.stock@uk-koeln.de>
Sent: 09 April 2026 06:27
To: Wiesen, Daniel <wiesen@wiso.uni-koeln.de>; Sassi, Franco <f.sassi@imperial.ac.uk>
Cc: zhealth-mgmt <zhealth-mgmt@imperial.ac.uk>
Subject: AW: Update Collaboration partners Germany
Dear Daniel, dear Franco,
I have nothing to add to Daniel’s answers. Only, that because both partners are willing to use pre-existing interventions with only need minor adaptions and are willing
to add one or two jointly developed modules to them we can keep costs rather low. When inviting them and talking to them we kept the financial restraints of such large projects in mind. Additionally, I believe it could be discussed if the interventions could
be implemented in other countries (after adapting them to country specific requirements).
Best wishes,
Stephanie
Thank you, Franco.
Please find my responses below.
@Stephanie: Please feel free to add to them. Thank you.
Dear Daniel,
Thank you very much for this update. It’s great that both the BGF Institute and IFT North are interested. Of course, we need to assess the budget needs in the wider context
of the project. I will try to discuss this tomorrow morning with the management team. Let me ask you a couple of quick questions on the information you have provided:
- Do I understand it right that they would plan to use their existing health literacy programme as a component of
the intervention, and we would be adding further components (at least for a subset of the target group) and evaluate the results of the intervention?
>> This would be an option for them and it is their regular business giving us access to the pupils of the vocational schools. Yes, we could add a components, such as a misinformation treatment.
-
- When you say that they would prefer to participate underthe umbrella of the University of Cologne, do you mean that
they will not join as separate partners, but will receive resources through the University? Do you think this should be arranged as a sub-contract, or you would hire the 0.5 FTE who will work with them?
>> I think they do not want to be listed as separate partners. The easier option is the latter in which every hiring goes through UoC. This seems perfectly ok for them.
-
Let me get back to you tomorrow also on your question about the app.
>> Thank you so much.
Thank you again for your help.
Franco
As you know, the BGF has access to vocational schools (in North Rhine Westphalia and Hamburg) and does regular educational workshops (up to 12 in the course of the 3 year apprenticeship education)
in terms of healthy lifestyles and health literacy. Our intervention could nicely be embedded in their existing programs.
IFT Nord gGmbH mostly focussed on addictive behaviors so far and has experience in school class self-commitment interventions to remain nicotine-free (about 7,000 school classes, kids mainly aged
12–15) and have access to schools Germany wide. This may be an option for an intervention with the earlier age group.
Both are eager to participate in our EU call.
In terms of the collaboration, however, both would like to participate under the "umbrella" of the University of Cologne. Nonetheless, both require obviously some budget.
Budget requirements of BGF and IFT: For implementing the intervention, both would require a 0.5 FTE position for the implementation period plus Material cost of 3,000 EUR per partner per year.
Stephanie’s and my cost, some slight update for Loredana.
- 1 FTE PostDoc (90.500 EUR (?) per year) for the entire project duration
- 1 Qualified student helper WHB (18,86 hours per week) for the entire project duration: 1,691 EUR per month
- Organisation costs for co-creation workshop: About 6.300 Euro (15 Person x 6 x 70 EUR)
- Open Access 2,200 EUR per person (cost of publication 750 EUR to 4000)
- Travel cost: about 3,000 EUR per person per annum for 2 FTEs
- EU Audit cost: 5,000 EUR
- Overhead required from the University of Cologne: 25%
Some more important questions:
1. Evaluation: Does the evaluation take place externally from the UK? Or should the evaluation also be conducted in Germany? Stephanie and her team have ample experience here.
2. Digital components/App: As the planned interventions contain a digital component (i.e., device-assisted
monitoring and feedback), I was wondering in what capacity NYU could provide us with the necessary digital framework and programming support (e.g., for adoptions app of local needs).
Neither BGF nor ITF have developed an app which we could use. Shall we approach Sebastian Schneider from MPI?
If you like, we could have a short joint call with BGF early next week.
Apologies for this long email.