Sustainability

By sustainability we understand the continuation of activities after the funding period has ended, see definition in Box 12-2. Sustainability concerns both the cooperation between project participants and the dissemination and use of pro- ject results. As regards the dissemination and use of project results, the most wide-ranging sustainability is achieved when activities are continued by other players and/or integrated into existing structures, e.g. through policy initiatives.

Box 12-2 Sustainability - definition used in this evaluation

Sustainability concerns the continuation of activities after the funding period has ended either through:

• Continued cooperation between project participants • Continued dissemination of project results, e.g. on websites

• Use of project results by other players or by integration into existing structures

This evaluation indicates that project results were sustained by still being avail- able on websites after the end of the project period and through follow-up pro- jects funded by DG SANCO. Only one out of the 12 projects selected did not have a functional website, and five out of the 12 projects had received funding for follow-up project. However - as mentioned at the beginning of this chapter - little evidence has been found of sustainability of project results though policy initiatives, neither at EU level nor at national level.

No evidence was found of compilation of systematic legacy plans to ensure sustainability of the projects. In some cases, the best way to ensure sustainabil- ity may be to let other players take over when the project is finished. Other players could run the system, offer the intervention to the broader public or use the results for other purposes. Strategic planning is required to identify key stakeholders and dissemination of results through various channels.

In addition to pursuing sustainability of actually achieved outputs and results, the sustainability of the established collaborations - that might deliver outputs and result also after the EC funding has ended - has been assessed. We believe that the EC funding has helped create critical mass of expertise from a more fragmented expert structure by establishment of networks and holding of con- ferences, info days etc.

On this background, we recommend that:

16 EAHC should compile brief descriptions of project results, compatible with the existing database, including considerations about use potential and policy recommendations if relevant, and disseminate these to Commission staff and national stakeholders at the political level, under the caveat that such procedures do not increase the administrative burden for the end user and grant holders unnecessarily.

In line with above recommendations a systematic compilation of project de- When looking at the

sustainability of the PHP results, we find little evidence of sus- tainability through policy initiatives …

… but the PHP has helped create critical mass of expertise by establishment of networks We recommend: Promotion of sus- tainability through dissemination of pol- icy initiatives

for compilation of such descriptions. Ideally, a communication expert with good understanding of both public health issues and the policy context should be involved. We propose that such descriptions should be distributed to contact persons in other DGs, Programme Committee and National Focal Point mem- bers.

17 Project applicants should be requested by EAHC to include considerations about involvement of potential users during project implementation and sustainability in their project applications.

In our view, it is important to ensure that the target group is involved at project level when relevant in order to address the needs and ensure that the results are relevant to the potential users. One example accentuated in the case studies is to involve general practitioners when relevant.

12.7

Evaluation conclusions from case studies

In order to facilitate the assessments of impacts and comparisons of the case study achievements a scoring system is developed where each of the criteria for each of the case studies is scored on a scale from 1 to 4 (1 is low and 4 is high). The use of an even number of scores is adopted to force ourselves to assess whether or not the fulfilment is above or below average. Table 12-1 below shows an overview of the assessments of each case study according to the five evaluation dimensions.

Caveats However, it should be emphasised that the twelve case studies may not be representatives of all projects supported by the PHP. Furthermore, the observa- tions from the case studies should be used in combination with the other infor- mation sources used in this evaluation. In other words, conclusions from the case studies only should be used with care.

Scoring of case study achievements

Table 12-1 Scoring of evaluation criteria by case study Case study Rel e v a n c e Ef fe c tiv e ne s s Cons is te n c y a nd c om pl e m e nta rit y Sup po rt a nd in v ol v e m e nt Sus ta in a bi li ty Health information

Comparable European information

Closing the Gap – Reducing Premature Mortality. Baseline for Monitoring Health Evolution Following Enlargement

4 3 2 2 3

Better Statistics for Better Health for Pregnant Women and Their Babies: European Health Reports

3 2 3 3 3

Creation & support of knowledge management networks

European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies (Phase 3) 3 2 1 4 3

Rare Diseases Portal 4 2 3 4 3

Health threats

Organs

European Living donation and public Health 3 2 1 3 3

JACIE - Joint Accreditation Committee ISCT EBMT 3 4 4 3 4

Chemical threats

The Public Health Response to Chemical Incident Emergencies 3 N.A. 1 3 N.A. Mass casualties and Health-care following the release of toxic chemicals or radioac-

tive materials - MASH

3 N.A. 1 3 N.A.

Health determinants

HIV/AIDS

European Centre AIDS & Mobility A&M 4 3 2 4 3

European Network for Transnational AIDS/STI Prevention among Migrant Prosti- tutes

4 3 2 4 3

Addictions - drugs

European Network on Drugs and Infections Prevention in Prison 3 3 3 3 1

Democracy, Cities & Drugs II 4 N.A. 3 3 N.A.

The overall evaluation of relevance, support & involvement and sustainability across the case studies demonstrate high impact in almost all projects. Although the broad perspective and priorities of the PHP makes it difficult for the pro- jects not to be relevant we consider case studies particular successful in ad- dressing central health issues. These impacts have also benefitted from good support and involvement of the right stakeholders. Apart from one of the case studies the achievements are assessed to sustain beyond the EC co-funding pe- riod.

High impact of rele- vance, support & involvement and sus- tainability

In contrast the achievements of effectiveness and consistency & complementar- ity show a more varied picture. In particular the scores for consistency & com- plementarity range from 1 to 3 with only JACIE obtaining 4. This underlines the need for strengthening the coordination with other national and interna- tional stakeholders as already mentioned before. Effectiveness does not show big differences between the three strands.

None of the projects demonstrate low score (1 or 2) in all evaluation criteria while all projects show high score (3 or 4) for more than half of the criteria. Hence, the overall conclusions of the case studies are very positive underlining that they have had significant impact and thus are success stories that have ful- filled the ambitions of the PHP.

Less impact of effec- tiveness and consis- tency & complemen- tarity

The case studies ful- fil the ambitions of the PHP