From: Dorota Sienkiewicz <d.sienkiewicz@eurohealthnet.eu>
Sent: 23 March 2026 11:17
To: Sassi, Franco <f.sassi@imperial.ac.uk>
Cc: Caroline Costongs <c.costongs@eurohealthnet.eu>
Subject: Re: Z-HEALTH, Intervention packages and responsibilities

 

CAUTION: This message came from outside Imperial. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and were expecting this email.

 

Dear Franco,

I hope you are well.

Many thanks again for your latest note and for the further clarification on the intervention architecture. The move towards the two-package model is very helpful in making the proposal more concrete and in giving a clearer sense of how the work may be structured.

Just to let you know, last week we reached out to North Macedonia and Montenegro re: joining the consortium/implementing partner countries group. 

From our side, it seems that EuroHealthNet may be envisaged particularly in relation to the healthy environments / settings dimension of the proposal, notably under WP4, and possibly also WP5. At this stage, WP4 looks like the more natural entry point for us. We can see potential value in contributing there, especially around concrete intervention components and supportive environments for adolescents. On WP5, we remain open as well, though I think this would need a little more definition before we can judge more clearly what role would be most useful and realistic.

To help us position ourselves internally, it would be very useful to understand a bit better how you currently see EuroHealthNet’s role in practice. In particular:

  • how you currently see EuroHealthNet contributing under WP4 (a more comfortable fit for us), and what role for us do you envisage under WP5;
  • which concrete tasks or functions you would see EuroHealthNet taking on, particularly in relation to intervention design, supportive environments, implementation support or country engagement;
  • whether the role you have in mind would be primarily supportive/advisory or involve a more substantial operational contribution;
  • and what you see as the likely minimum expectations for implementation-country partners involved in the intervention packages.

At this stage, WP4 appears the clearest and most natural entry point for EuroHealthNet. We would also remain open to a possible contribution under WP5, but would need a better sense of the proposed scope and role before judging that more fully.

In parallel, I am also attaching a first draft of EuroHealthNet input for WP9, including the broader communication, dissemination and exploitation framing in the first part of it (already included in the online project proposal document). This is of course only an initial working draft, but I wanted to share it already as a basis for further development and in case it is useful at this stage. We would of course be happy to revise and adapt it later once the intervention packages, countries and overall methodology are further shaped.

I will also be at the Imperial event tomorrow on ultra-processed foods, so if useful, I would be very happy to catch up briefly in person with you or anyone from your team on this. I quite understand, of course, that the Forum will likely make things rather busy — but just in case a short exchange would help.

I hope this is helpful, and I would be very glad to hear your thoughts when convenient.

With best wishes,
Dorota

 

From: Sassi, Franco <f.sassi@imperial.ac.uk>
Sent: 19 March 2026 19:33
To: zhealth-consort <zhealth-consort@imperial.ac.uk>
Cc: zhealth-mgmt <zhealth-mgmt@imperial.ac.uk>; IRATI ERREGUERENA REDONDO <irati.erreguerenaredondo@bio-sistemak.eus>; ANE FULLAONDO ZABALA <ane.fullaondozabala@bio-sistemak.eus>
Subject: [Z-health-consortium] Z-HEALTH, Intervention packages and responsibilities

 

Dear All,

 

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:

 

  1. 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.
  2. Different domains in each intervention package reflect the structure I proposed on Friday, with several adaptations and specifications.
  3. 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).
  4. 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?
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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 30th March).

 

Intervention package 1

 

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]

 

 

Intervention package 2

 

Domain 1. Health and digital literacy.

  1. Health literacy programme. [Possibly Ane, Irati, Biosistemak]
  2. Advanced digital literacy programme. [Marisa, NYU team?]

 

Domain 2. Device-assisted behavioural monitoring and feedback. [we need volunteers here]

  1. Physical activity
  2. Sleep [this could be covered by Matej’s team, but also potentially by NIPH?]
  3. Eating patterns and diet [This would have to be Imperial]
  4. Probably not suitable

 

Domain 3. Healthy environments and nudges.

  1. Food and physical activity environments [Marisa may work on this, but I realise her name is down too many times in this list]
  2. Addictive product environments [maybe Daniel, again?]
  3. 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.

 

Franco