Work Package 10 was designed to improve quality and implementation of the data collection tools and demonstrate results by organising a series of workshops. This Work Package was led by the University of Liverpool.
As part of EURO-URHIS 2, 6 training workshops were held across Europe throughout the course of the project.
The structures of the workshops can be found below:
|
UHI Data collection, management and analysis |
UHI Data presentation, dissemination |
||||
|
Audience: EURO-URHIS 2 partners |
Audience: Policy makers, stakeholders, health professionals, researchers, EURO-URHIS 2 partners |
||||
|
W/S |
Main aim(s) |
WP support |
W/S |
Main aim(s) |
WP support |
|
A |
Introduce data collection tools and methods. Explore UA specific issues. |
4, 5, 6 and 7 |
D |
Training in summary aggregate measures and health impact assessment. Piloting of tools for both. Policy maker cohort. |
7 |
|
B |
Present piloting of data collection tools and methods. Finalise prior to launch. |
4, 5, 6 and 7 |
E |
Presentation of UA health profiles and discussion of utility. Feedback to policy maker cohort. |
6, 7, 8 and 9 |
|
C |
UA specific training in data collection, management and entry. Training in analysis of existing data. |
4, 5, 6 and 7 |
F |
Training in utility of EURO-URHIS 2 data including web tools, future needs. Final conference |
6, 7, 8 and 9 |
This first training workshop was held in Liverpool, UK (7th to 10th September 2009) and included all UA partners involved in EURO-URHIS 2. Four days were required to cover, in detail, each data collection instrument and method (existing data, adult and youth surveys) together with a steering group meeting for administrative issues. The table below summarises the workshop objectives, outputs and evaluation.
|
Objectives |
Outputs |
Evaluation |
|
To receive and understand the three UHI data collection tools. To agree ideal methodology for delivery of tools. To explore city specific issues in data collection. To discuss ethical and management issues. |
Phase I piloted questionnaires (adult and youth). Methodological proformas for each UA. Discussion summaries of problems/ solutions in methods. |
Positive feedback to all objectives except time allocated to consider ideal methodology. Note: poor response to evaluation due to distribution after event. |
The second training workshop was held in Maribor, Slovenia (19th to 22nd January 2010) and included all UA partners involved in EURO-URHIS 2. Again, four days were required to cover, in detail, the data collection methodologies (existing data, adult and youth surveys) together with a steering group meeting for administrative issues. In addition partners were introduced to the prototype for the EURO-URHIS 2 Sequin database and asked for feedback on its utility after a data entry training exercise. The table below summarises the workshop objectives, outputs and evaluation.
|
Objectives |
Outputs |
Evaluation |
|
To review progress with transition from WP4 to WP5. To feedback and discuss piloting of adult and youth surveys. To review and finalise data collection tools. To review UA specific adult and youth survey methodologies. To review additional training needs for UA partners. To introduce Sequin database and get feedback. |
Contents for UA specific operations manuals (to develop step by step guide to adult and youth survey conduct – including data entry). Feedback from Sequin database introduction and training (to improve database). |
Workshop objectives met (n=16; 94%). “Need more time to go through UA specific methodologies” (this feedback, in part, lead to need for an additional training workshop).
|
The final training workshop was held in Bordeaux, France (5th to 8th July 2010). It included all UA partners who were carrying out either or both the adult and youth surveys (n=26). The main aim of the workshop was to ensure EURO-URHIS 2 partners were in a state of readiness to begin adult and youth survey data collection in a standardised way. Based on outputs from the previous workshop (B), UA specific operational manuals were developed by Daniel Pope and Heidi Lyshol. One-to-one interviews were carried out with each UA partner, running through the full content of each operation manual to ensure partners were fully informed about the procedure they would use for data collection and entry for adult and youth surveys. They would then be able to provide instruction to their research teams in the required data collection and entry methods. The table below shows the objectives, outputs and evaluation for Workshop C.
|
Objectives |
Outputs |
Evaluation |
|
To review adult and youth surveys, methodology and database. To “train the trainers” for survey conduct and data entry. To prepare for launch of the adult and youth surveys across all UAs. |
Completed operational manuals for each UA detailing any deviations from the “ideal methodology”. For both adult and youth surveys. Feedback on the improved Sequin database. |
Workshop objectives met (n=22; 79%). 70% “very confident” regarding knowledge and skills. All partners ready to begin data collection (although some will not be conducting youth surveys). |
The workshop was specifically targeted at International health related policy makers and was held in Brussels on 19th September 2011. The workshop was held at the Committee of the Regions. A total of 19 policy makers attended the workshop (no specific target population was specified, however at least 16 delegates were required to ensure optimum facilitated small group work). Delegates included individuals from the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, England, Slovenia and Scotland.
There were three main requirements for workshop D; (i) to train International policy makers in the use of UHI information, (ii) to facilitate Work Package 7 in obtaining information about usage of SAMs in policy making and to pilot the Health Impact Assessment screening tool and (iii) to recruit a cohort of policy makers (no target was set but it was hoped that a core group of at least 8 policy makers would form the cohort) who would attend further workshops and contribute to the dissemination of EURO-URHIS 2 data for policy making. Specific objectives are shown in the table below.
|
Objectives |
Outputs |
Evaluation |
|
To promote and market EURO-URHIS 2 to urban policy makers. To provide instruction in Urban Health Impact Assessment and discuss its utility in relation to policy decision making. To provide instruction in the use of aggregate level health information and discuss its utility in relation to policy decision making. To explore barriers and enablers to Urban Health Impact Assessment in policy decision making. To explore barriers and enablers to use of aggregate level health information in policy decision making. |
Photo report showing flip chart sheets used in the SAM session. “Emerging themes” document based on feedback from small group work. A feedback summary from the HIA screening session. Completed HIA screening forms for piloting. A stakeholder cohort of 11 policy makers to contribute to future events. |
Of the 15 respondents (79%) who completed the evaluation all said they would (i) recommend this workshop (or similar) to colleagues and (ii) want to be kept informed about future EURO-URHIS 2 developments. Workshop objectives met (n=14; 93%). 70% “very confident” regarding knowledge and skills. Generally very positive feedback – would have benefitted from having more time. |
Workshop E was conducted on 31st January in Manchester and coincided with a Scientific Advisory Group meeting for the EURO-URHIS 2 project. The workshop was open to International health related policy makers and researchers in health but additional marketing was carried out through the NHS and Public Health Networks in the UK to maximize the number of potential delegates with executive responsibility for health related policy making. In addition the “stakeholder engagement” cohort from workshop D were actively targeted and encouraged to attend to follow-up developments from the Brussels workshop. A total of 17 delegates attended the workshop.
There were two broad aims for Workshop E: firstly to follow-up work that had been done since workshop D on the use of SAMs and urban HIA for EURO-URHIS 2 and secondly to facilitate Work Package 6 in the optimal dissemination of UHI data from EURO-URHIS 2 in the form of urban area health profiles. Specific objectives, outputs and feedback from evaluation for workshop E is given in the table below.
Workshop F was delivered at the EURO-URHIS 2 final conference on 13th September 2012 in Amsterdam. The workshop was carefully targeted to International delegates at the conference who were either executives with direct responsibility for health related policy making or health professionals with an interest in urban health policy. The workshop was structured in two parts: Firstly delivering training in the use of dissemination products from EURO-URHIS 2 (including web-based e-tools, finalized health profiles and applying data through Urban Health Impact Assessment) using case studies developed from the EURO-URHIS 2 project and secondly evaluating the utility of these products for policy making to maximize health gain through facilitated focus group discussions. The first part involved working closely with workpackage leaders from WP6 (health profiles) and and WP7 (webtools and HIA). The second part involved qualitative research methodology with focus groups addressing pre-defined research questions to identify the barriers and enablers to utilizing dissemination products from EURO-URHIS 2 to provide an evidence base to guide decision making by urban health policy makers. The table below summarises the content and approach to the focus groups.
|
Workshop F – Focus Groups with International policy makers/ health professionals |
|
|
Participants: |
Delegates attending final EURO-URHIS 2 conference who (i) have direct responsibility in relation to health related policy making, (ii) health professionals with an interest in urban health related policy. 12 participated (6 in each focus group (FG). |
|
Objectives: |
The FGs were designed to discuss how best to use available data for influencing policy. Objectives/ outputs included:
|
|
Methods: |
The FG facilitators delivered an overview of the purpose and format for the FG and guided the participants through a series of open questions designed to generate discussion on:
The FGs were recorded after obtaining written consent from participants. During the FG, the facilitator managed the tape recording, took notes on a schedule and prompted the FG if necessary. |
|
Ethics: |
Institutional ethical approval was sought (and approved) prior to delivering the FGs. Accordingly approved participant information sheets, consent forms and materials were used in delivery of the FGs. |
|
Data processing and analysis: |
The FG responses/ discussions were transcribed verbatim by a researcher trained in qualitative methods. Transcriptions were anonymised. We used thematic synthesis to analyse the data (Thomas and Harden 20081). No assumption was made in relation to the pre-defined research questions in order to provide an opportunity for themes to emerge from the data. Two researchers carried out line by line coding of the transcriptions. Codes were then combined to generate a set of descriptive themes. Finally, themes were structured around the objectives for the workshop for dissemination. |
|
1Thomas J., Harden A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8:45. |
|
