Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European ...publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC...Christian Boehle 201 Report EUR 26827 EN 4 Fabienne Abadie r Maria

Report EUR 26827 EN

2014

Fabienne Abadie Christian Boehler Maria Lluch Ramon Sabes-Figuera Bernarda Zamora

Second update of the process indicators

Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (MAFEIP)

European Commission

Joint Research Centre

Institute for Prospective Technological Studies

Contact information

Address: Edificio Expo. c/ Inca Garcilaso, 3. E-41092 Seville (Spain)

E-mail: [email protected]

Tel.: +34 954488318

Fax: +34 954488300

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/institutes/ipts

Legal Notice

This publication is a Science and Policy Report by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission’s in-house science

service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policy-making process. The scientific output

expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person

acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication.

All images © European Union 2014

JRC91174

EUR 26827 EN

ISBN 978-92-79-40160-2 (PDF)

ISSN 1831-9424 (online)

doi:10.2791/12501

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014

© European Union, 2014

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Abstract

This report aims to provide information about the Commitments that joined the EIP on AHA in the Second Invitation for

Commitment in April 2013 and to report this data, whenever possible, with that from the commitments that joined the First

Invitation for Commitment (June 2012), providing comprehensive information on EIP on AHA participants’ characteristics. This

should contribute to measuring progress of the EIP on AHA in general as well as its enlargement to new regions/countries for

instance.

1

Table of Contents

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Objective of this report ................................................................................................................................................. 4

2. Second Invitation for commitment data analysis .................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Involvement in action groups .................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Involvement in the commitments: regions/ countries, stakeholders ................................................... 7

2.2.1 Countries ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7

2.2.2 Lead stakeholders ................................................................................................................................................. 8

2.2.3 Involved stakeholders ...................................................................................................................................... 11

2.2.4 Missing stakeholders ........................................................................................................................................ 12

2.3 Sector of activity ............................................................................................................................................................ 14

2.4 Target groups and their coverage with quantitative information ..................................................... 16

2.5 End-user involvement ................................................................................................................................................. 17

2.6 Added value of the EIP on AHA ............................................................................................................................. 19

2.6.1 Added-value ........................................................................................................................................................... 19

2.6.2 Barriers ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19

2.7 Mobilisation of resources .......................................................................................................................................... 21

2.7.1 Type of funding.................................................................................................................................................... 21

2.8 Main observations ......................................................................................................................................................... 21

Annex - Process indicators tables .............................................................................................................................................. 23

List of Figures

Figure 1 Number of Commitments per Action Group, First, Second Invitation and Total. ................... 5 Figure 2 Action Groups size (% of total number of commitments), First, Second Invitation and

Total ................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3 Number of Partners per Commitment, Second Invitation ................................................................... 6 Figure 4 Country participation (in absolute numbers, lead country only), First vs. Second

Invitation ......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5 Country participation (% of commitments where a particular country is being

represented), First and Second Invitation ..................................................................................................... 8 Figure 6 Country participation (% of commitments where a particular country is being

represented), total. .................................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 7 Lead Stakeholders by Type, First and Second Invitation (after aggregation) .......................... 9 Figure 8 Lead Stakeholders (%), First, Second Invitation and total (after aggregation) ...................... 9 Figure 9 Geographic Scope of Organisation (Lead Stakeholders) overall, Second Invitation ......... 10 Figure 10 Geographic Scope of Organisation (Lead Stakeholders) by Action Group, Second

Invitation ...................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 11 Geographic Scope of implementation overall, Second Invitation ................................................ 11 Figure 12 Geographic scope of Implementation by Action Group, Second Invitation ............................ 11

2

Figure 13 Reported Types of Involved Stakeholders, First and Second Invitation (after aggregation) ............................................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 14 Reported Types of Involved Stakeholders (in % of all commitments), First, Second Invitation and total (after aggregation) ..................................................................................................... 12

Figure 15 Reported Types of Missing Stakeholders, First Invitation and Second Invitation (after aggregation) ............................................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 16 Reported Types of Missing stakeholders (in % of all commitments), First, Second Invitation and total (after aggregation) ..................................................................................................... 13

Figure 17 Sector of Activity of Lead Stakeholder, First and Second Invitation .......................................... 14 Figure 18 Sector of Activity of Lead Stakeholder (%),First, Second Invitation and Total. .................... 15 Figure 19 Sectors of Activity reported (% of all commitments), Second Invitation ................................ 15 Figure 20 Number of Commitments providing information on Target Group Size,

Second Invitation ..................................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 21 Number of Commitments providing information on Target Diseases,

Second Invitation ..................................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 22 Number of Commitments providing information on Target Population,

Second Invitation ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 23 Percentage of commitments involving End-user by Type, Second Invitation ....................... 18 Figure 24 Percentage of commitments involving End-user by Type and Action Group, Second

Invitation ...................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 25 Percentage of commitments involving End-users per Stage of Involvement, Second

Invitation ...................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 26 Percentage of commitments involving End-users per Stage of Involvement and Action

Group, Second Invitation ..................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 27 Percentage of commitments reporting Barriers by Type, First, Second Invitation and

Total ................................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 28 Percentage of commitments reporting Barriers by Type and Action Group, Second

Invitation ...................................................................................................................................................................... 20

List of Tables

Table 1 Overall participation in the EIP on AHA, First and Second Invitation for commitments . 23 Table 2 Country participation (Lead stakeholders), First and Second Invitation

for commitments ..................................................................................................................................................... 23 Table 3 Overall country participation (Lead and involved stakeholders), First and Second

Invitation for commitments .............................................................................................................................. 24 Table 4 Total Stakeholder Involvement, First and Second Invitation for commitments (after

aggregation) ............................................................................................................................................................... 25 Table 5 Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group A1, First and Second Invitation for

commitments (after aggregation) ................................................................................................................. 26 Table 6 Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group A2, First and Second Invitation for

commitments (after aggregation) ................................................................................................................. 27 Table 7 Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group A3, First and Second Invitation for

commitments (after aggregation) ................................................................................................................. 28 Table 8 Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group B3, First and Second Invitation for

commitments (after aggregation) ................................................................................................................. 29 Table 9 Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group C2, First and Second Invitation for

commitments (after aggregation) ................................................................................................................. 30 Table 10 Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group D4, First and Second Invitation for

commitments (after aggregation) ................................................................................................................. 31 Table 11 Total Stakeholder Involvement, First and Second Invitation for commitments. ................. 32 Table 12 Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group A1, First and Second Invitation for

commitments ............................................................................................................................................................ 33

3

Table 13 Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group A2, First and Second Invitation for commitments ............................................................................................................................................................ 34

Table 14 Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group A3, First and Second Invitation for commitments ............................................................................................................................................................ 35

Table 15 Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group B3, First and Second Invitation for ............. commitments ............................................................................................................................................................ 36 Table 16 Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group C2, First and Second Invitation for

commitments ............................................................................................................................................................ 37 Table 17 Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group D4, First and Second Invitation for

commitments ............................................................................................................................................................ 38 Table 18 Geographic scope of Lead Stakeholders, Second Invitation for commitments only ........ 39 Table 19 Geographic scope of Implementation, Second Invitation for commitments only .............. 39 Table 20 Sector of Activity of Lead Stakeholder ....................................................................................................... 40 Table 21 Sector of Activity of Involved Stakeholders (Lead Stakeholders and Involved Partners),

Second Invitation for commitments ............................................................................................................. 41 Table 22 Target Groups and Target Disease, Second Invitation ....................................................................... 42 Table 23 Target Groups size by Action Groups, First and Second Invitation for commitments. ..... 43 Table 24 Target Groups size by Countries, First and Second Invitation for commitments. ............... 43 Table 25 End-user groups, Fist Invitation for commitments .............................................................................. 44 Table 26 End-user groups, Second Invitation for commitments ...................................................................... 45 Table 27 End-user groups, Total ......................................................................................................................................... 46 Table 28 End-user Involvement: Stage of process, First Invitation ................................................................. 47 Table 29 End-user Involvement: Stage of process, Second Invitation .......................................................... 47 Table 30 End-user Involvement: Stage of process, Total ..................................................................................... 48 Table 31 Type of Barrier the EIP on AHA may help to overcome, First Invitation

for commitments ..................................................................................................................................................... 49 Table 32 Type of Barrier the EIP on AHA may help to overcome, Second Invitation for

commitments ............................................................................................................................................................ 50 Table 33 Type of Barrier the EIP on AHA may help to overcome, Total ....................................................... 51

4

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

IPTS in cooperation with DG CNECT and DG SANCO is developing a monitoring framework to assess the evolution and impact of the EIP on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP on AHA), through the "Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the EIP on Active and Healthy Ageing" (MAFEIP) project. The main objective of MAFEIP is to define a common monitoring framework, which should facilitate and harmonise the monitoring of the process of the EIP on AHA and of the outcome and output of the Action Groups (not the individual commitments to the six specific Action Groups). It will also seek to establish a link between the monitoring results and the EIP on AHA objectives, namely the triple win and the overall objective of two extra healthy life years.

The process for defining indicators and the conceptual framework proposed to develop the monitoring framework for the EIP on AHA are presented in a separate MAFEIP deliverable, D1.1. This deliverable also provides further background on the EIP on Active and Healthy Ageing as well as on the activities of the various EIP on AHA Action Groups.

Based on the conceptual framework presented in D1.1 as well as on the data collected through the EIP on AHA First Invitation for Commitment in June 2012 and the subsequent Monitoring Survey undertaken in spring 2013, it has been possible to identify the most relevant process indicators. These process indicators are intended to facilitate the monitoring of the EIP on AHA process. This exercise is presented in Deliverable 2.1, where the values of the selected process indicators are populated with data from the First Invitation for Commitment of June 2012, 234 commitments in total. In addition, Deliverable 2.2 presents the evolution, where applicable, of the process indicators between the First Invitation for Commitment of June 2012 and the Monitoring Survey that was answered by 93 of these commitments in spring 2013 as well as descriptive statistics of the Monitoring Survey data.

1.2 Objective of this report

This report aims to provide information about the Commitments that joined the EIP on AHA in the Second Invitation for Commitment in April 2013 and to report this data, whenever possible, with that from the commitments that joined the First Invitation for Commitment (June 2012), providing comprehensive information on EIP on AHA participants’ characteristics. This should contribute to measuring progress of the EIP on AHA in general as well as its enlargement to new regions/countries for instance.

The information requested from applicants in the Second Invitation for Commitment mirrored to a large extent the information submitted by participants through the First Invitation for Commitment, although not all questions were phrased and/or formatted in the same way, which has complicated somewhat the comparison of the two data sets. Nevertheless, our aim was, whenever possible, to align variables which were defined differently between the two datasets so as to allow for a valid comparison between both Invitations for Commitments. When variables were not immediately comparable, this has been specified further below in Section 2 of this report, together with the methods applied to align the data, and a discussion of potential implications this has for interpreting the results presented.

The analysis presented here aims to provide a status of the Second Invitation for Commitments for the following dimensions:

Involvement in Action Groups

Involvement in the commitments: regions/ countries, stakeholders and their sector of activity

Target groups and their coverage with quantitative information

End-user involvement

5

Added value of the EIP on AHA

Mobilisation of resources

In addition this report shows the evolution of the EIP on AHA process indicators between the two datasets, for the dimensions that are comparable. The Second Invitation for Commitments (hereafter “Second Invitation”) was answered by 283 commitments while there were 234 commitments in the First invitation for Commitments (hereafter “First Invitation”) which form the baseline.

2. Second Invitation for commitment data analysis

This section illustrates through charts the data presented in the tables in Annex II for the indicators for which sufficient data is available.

2.1 Involvement in action groups

The overall participation in the Second Invitation is higher than in the First Invitation, with 283 vs. 234 commitments, giving a total number of 517 commitments that participate in the EIP on AHA. Figure 1 below shows the evolution of the number of commitments per Action Group from the First to the Second Invitation and the total number of commitments.

Figure 2 shows the number of commitments per Action Group as a percentage of the total number of commitments within each invitation and for the both invitations together. The biggest increase in number of commitments is in Action Group A3, with 45 commitments more compared to the First Invitation. In terms of percentages, Action Group A3 increased from 18.4% in the First Invitation to 31.1% in the Second Invitation, and therefore constitutes by far the largest Action Group in the Second Invitation for commitments (Figure 2). For two of the Action Groups, A1 and C2, there are less commitments in the Second than in the First Invitation,. In relative terms, Action Group A1 decreased from 15.4% in the First Invitation to 11.3% in the Second Invitation, whilst the relative size of Action Group C2 more than halved, from 16.2% to 7.4% respectively. For A2, B3 and D4 there are between 8 and 9 commitments more in the Second Invitation. The relative size of these Action Groups remains almost identical, as can be seen from Figure 2 below. Overall, A3 and B3 are the Action Groups with relatively most commitments included, each of them representing around 25% of the total participation.

Figure 1 – Number of Commitments per Action Group, First, Second Invitation and Total.

6

Figure 2 – Action Groups size (% of total number of commitments), First, Second Invitation and Total

The questionnaire filled in by commitments in the Second Invitation explicitly asked about the number of involved partners per commitment. This has been visualised in Figure 3 below. As can be seen from Figure 3, a majority of commitments have less than 10 partners, with 111 commitments having a maximum of five partners, and 75 having between 6 and 10 partners respectively. The mean number of partners per commitment is 16.9. However, due to the skewedness of the distribution (with one commitment reporting 1200 partners), the median may be more informative in this context, which is 8.0. The minimum number of partners is zero (i.e. indicating that apart from the lead stakeholder there is no additional partner involved). This question was only asked for the Second Invitation which is why no data is presented for the First Invitation.

Figure 3 – Number of Partners per Commitment, Second Invitation

7

2.2 Involvement in the commitments: regions/ countries, stakeholders

2.2.1 Countries

Figure 4 below shows the participation in absolute numbers of lead stakeholders for each EU Member State as well as Norway and Switzerland, for both the First and Second Invitation. Countries have been sorted by decreasing number of lead stakeholders across both Invitations for commitments. Spain is the country of origin of the lead stakeholder for 144 commitments, Italy for 86, Portugal for 53, the Netherlands for 45 and the UK for 42 out of the 517 commitments participating in total. The first three countries have increased their relative representation in the Second Invitation, while the fourth and fifth, the Netherlands and the UK, had a stronger representation in the First Invitation (13 and 8 commitments less in the Second Invitation vs. First Invitation respectively).

Figure 4 – Country participation (in absolute numbers, lead country only), First vs. Second Invitation

Figures 5 and 6 show the relative country participation (considering both lead and involved stakeholders) for each EU Member State as well as Norway and Switzerland. More precisely, the figures show the percentage of commitments in which a particular country is being represented. Figure 5 shows the percentage of commitments for each invitation separately while

Figure 6 shows the percentage of commitments across both calls. In both cases, countries have been sorted in the order of magnitude of total representation across both Invitations for commitments, i.e. the country with the highest overall participation across both invitations is Spain (50%), followed by Italy (38%), the UK (35%) and Germany (27%). In addition Figure 5 also shows the countries represented across the commitments from which no lead stakeholders originate, and these are mainly new EU Member States which also have a comparatively low overall country representation. Exceptions are Poland and Slovenia as there are lead stakeholders originating from those countries.

8

Figure 5 – Country participation (% of commitments where a particular country is being represented), First

and Second Invitation

Figure 6 – Country participation (% of commitments where a particular country is being represented), total.

2.2.2 Lead stakeholders

Figure 7 shows the number of commitments mentioning a stakeholder type as lead stakeholder, for each type of stakeholder and for both invitations while Figure 8 shows the same data as percentage of commitments. As by definition each commitment can only have one lead stakeholder, the total number of lead stakeholders is 234 in the First Invitation and 283 in the Second Invitation for commitments respectively. Accordingly, the bars in Figure 8 represent the percentage of commitments led by a certain stakeholder type for each invitation separately and for the total. This is not the same for involved stakeholders and missing stakeholders (presented further below), where there could be more than one stakeholder of a given type per commitment. However, as the question on lead stakeholder was not defined as a single choice question for the Second Invitation for commitments, a number of adjustments have been made to the data in agreement with DG SANCO and DG CNECT to make both sets of data comparable. First, all commitments which only reported one lead stakeholder for the Second Invitation for commitments (191 out of 283) were regarded as directly comparable with First Invitation data. For the remaining 92 commitments, descriptions of lead organisations were checked to infer whether a lead stakeholder could be

9

unambiguously identified. As a result, information on lead stakeholders for the Second Invitation for commitments could be analysed as a single choice question, and we are confident that this data is now comparable between both calls.

Research and academia are the first type of lead stakeholders, leading 51% of the commitments in the Second Invitation and 36% of the commitments in the First Invitation and 44% of the total. The Health provider type is lead stakeholder for 12% of the commitments in the First

Invitation and 10% in the Second Invitation (10.4% in total). Public authority is less mentioned as

lead stakeholder in the Second Invitation (9% vs. 17% in the First Invitation) while Industry is more mentioned in the Second Invitation.

Figure 7 – Lead Stakeholders by Type, First and Second Invitation (after aggregation)

Figure 8 – Lead Stakeholders (%), First, Second Invitation and total (after aggregation)

10

Figure 9 and Figure 10 below show the geographic scope of organisation of the Lead Stakeholders overall and per Action Group, respectively, for the Second Invitation only, as that type of information was not available in the First Invitation. 41% of the lead stakeholders are organisations with international scope, 28.6% with a national scope, and 30.4% with a regional scope respectively.

Figure 9 – Geographic Scope of Organisation (Lead Stakeholders) overall, Second Invitation

Figure 10 – Geographic Scope of Organisation (Lead Stakeholders) by Action Group, Second Invitation

In contrast, Figure 11 and Figure 12 show the geographic scope of implementation of the respective commitments, overall and per Action Group, respectively, and for the Second Invitation only, as that type of information was not available in the First Invitation. The scope of implementation is multinational for 42.4% of the commitments in the Second Invitation, regional for 36.4% and national for 17.7%. The scope of implementation is local for only 3.5% of Second Invitation commitments.

11

Figure 11 – Geographic Scope of implementation overall, Second Invitation

Figure 12 – Geographic scope of Implementation by Action Group, Second Invitation

2.2.3 Involved stakeholders

Figure 13 shows the number of commitments reporting involved stakeholders for each type of stakeholder, for both the First and Second Invitation. In contrast to lead stakeholders, each commitment may have more than one involved stakeholder of a certain type, which is why we report the percentage of commitments with a particular type of stakeholder in Figure 14, rather than the percentage of involved stakeholders by type. Further, involved stakeholders means both lead and participating stakeholders. Hence, if the lead stakeholder was not mentioned by the respondent as an involved stakeholder as well, we corrected for this accordingly. This was done for both calls for commitments to reach good comparability between both datasets. For the First Invitation the types of stakeholders involved in most commitments are research and academia, public health providers, small and medium industry, and regional/local public authority. In the Second Invitation, the involvement of regional and local public authority has dropped, and the number of commitments involving small and medium industry has also decreased. Though both public health providers and research and academia participated in a higher number of commitments in the Second Invitation, their relative involvement is slightly lower due to the higher overall number of commitments in the Second Invitation. Across all types of advocacy organisation, there was also a considerable decrease in involvement for the Second Invitation. Overall, Health Provider and Research/Academia are the type of stakeholders more frequently reported as involved across all commitments.

12

Figure 13 – Reported Types of Involved Stakeholders, First and Second Invitation (after aggregation)

Figure 14 shows the percentage of commitments having reported each type of stakeholder as involved stakeholder for the First and Second Invitation and for the total. For instance, Research and Academia have been reported as involved stakeholders in 81.6% of commitments in the Second Invitation against 86.8% in the First Invitation. Overall, stakeholders of the category Research and Academia are involved in 84% of all commitments.

Figure 14 – Reported Types of Involved Stakeholders (in % of all commitments), First, Second Invitation and

total (after aggregation)

2.2.4 Missing stakeholders

Figure 15 and Figure 16 report the information on missing stakeholders in a similar way as for involved stakeholders (see above section 2.2.3). Interestingly while advocacy organisations have been less reported as involved stakeholder in the Second Invitation, it has been even less mentioned as missing stakeholder in the Second Invitation. There may be different potential explanations for this observation. Obviously, this could be simply a result of differences in the way this question was

13

answered by respondents between both invitations. However, with respect to this item, both questionnaires were phrased identically. Another explanation could be that commitments in the Second Invitation may systematically differ from those in the First Invitation, so that the involvement of advocacy organisations is generally less critical. Nevertheless, advocacy organisation is the type of stakeholder more frequently reported as missing across all commitments Finally, we also observe that the absolute and relative number of missing stakeholders is generally lower in the Second Invitation, except for industry, which could mean that there was some sort of consolidation between both calls for commitments so that Second Invitation commitments had fewer missing stakeholders in general.

Figure 15 – Reported Types of Missing Stakeholders, First Invitation and Second Invitation (after

aggregation)

Figure 16 shows the percentage of commitments having reported each type of stakeholder as missing stakeholder, for the First, Second Invitation and total. As already mentioned, almost all types of stakeholders are reported less frequently as missing in the Second Invitation than in the First Invitation, apart from industry.

Figure 16 – Reported Types of Missing stakeholders (in % of all commitments), First, Second Invitation and

total (after aggregation)

14

2.3 Sector of activity

The sector of activity of the lead stakeholder is shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18 for both the First and Second Invitation. The first figure shows the data in absolute numbers while the second shows the data as a percentage of all commitments. Health is by far the leading sector of activity of lead stakeholders, with 67% of all lead stakeholders coming from that sector ( 65% in the Second Invitation and 69% in the First Invitation). Apart from the "Other" category, ICT is next with 12% of lead stakeholders from that sector (15% in the First Invitation and 9% in the Second Invitation). Other sectors are less represented. Performing the same analysis by Action Groups shows that this picture differs substantially from Action Group to Action Group. In Action Group A1, the pharma-sector is also well represented with 19% (similar percentages in both Invitations). In Action Group A2 and C2, we can observe that the two dominating sectors of lead stakeholders are Health and ICT (ICT being the strongest sector in the second Invitation in AG C2), whilst for D4, there is also strong involvement of the social sector in the First Invitation for commitments. The housing sector is also represented strongest in D4, with 12% (7% and 16% respectively for the First and Second Invitation). Corresponding numbers can be obtained from the Tables in the Annex.

Figure 17 – Sector of Activity of Lead Stakeholder, First and Second Invitation

15

Figure 18 – Sector of Activity of Lead Stakeholder (%),First, Second Invitation and Total.

For all stakeholders involved in the partnership, the data on the sectors of activity is presented in Figure 19 below for the Second invitation. In 90% of the commitments, there are partners from the health sector. In 48% of the commitments there are partners from the Social sector and in 39% from the ICT sector. Transport and Housing are the least represented. Again, detailed information on Action Group level can be obtained from the Annex.

Figure 19 – Sectors of Activity reported (% of all commitments), Second Invitation

16

2.4 Target groups and their coverage with quantitative information

Figure 20 below shows the number of commitments having provided information on target group size, per Action Group, for the Second Invitation. Neither of the First and Second Invitation questionnaires contained specific sections on target groups. Hence, answers to free text questions have been screened to obtain the relevant information. First, we screened the free text provided under the following headers to identify any relevant data on target group sizes:

Your organization and core activities

Executive summary

Key barriers and

Innovative element

Potentially relevant data provided under any of the above headers was collated in a separate spreadsheet. The free text data was then analysed to collect as much information on target group sizes as possible. If data on target group sizes was available, we then tried to obtain additional information on the target populations and diseases respectively. Since no specific question on target group and size was asked, eliciting such information from the above free text answers leads largely to random outcomes. As a result of not asking a specific question on this topic, only few commitments did provide relevant data which is why we have not compared this information to the First Invitation for commitments.

Figure 20 – Number of Commitments providing information on Target Group Size, Second Invitation

Out of the 28 commitments that provided information on target group size, the most frequent target health conditions (apart from the category 'other') were 'falls' and 'multiple diseases', followed by 'frailty', 'diabetes' and CVD, as shown in Figure 21.

Figure 21 – Number of Commitments providing information on Target Diseases, Second Invitation

17

Out of the 28 commitments mentioned above, some have specified a target population, as shown in Figure 22 below. The elderly are the first target population with 11 commitments, all other types are only mentioned once or twice (Patients, Professionals, Carers).

Figure 22 – Number of Commitments providing information on Target Population, Second Invitation

2.5 End-user involvement

As for information on target group sizes, target disease and target population, we obtained information about end-user involvement from analysing answers to free-text questions. Again, we applied the same two-stage process by first screening the free text provided under the following headers to identify any relevant data on end-user involvement::

Your organization and core activities

Executive summary

Key barriers and

Innovative element

We then collated this information in a separate spreadsheet to abstract the relevant data. Although we obtained much more information than for target groups, the availability of relevant data for each call is to a certain extent a matter of chance as there was no question explicitly related to end-users, so that a direct comparison between both Invitations for commitments, when presented, needs to be taken with caution. We therefore present mostly data on the Second Invitation for commitments.

As shown in Figure 23, the most reported type of end-user involved is "Patients" (stated by 37.8% of all commitments), which was also the most reported group in the First Invitation for commitments (data on end-users for the first invitation is available from deliverable D.2.1). This is followed by General Practitioners, Specialised Physicians, nurses, informal caregivers and pharmacists for the Second Invitation.

18

Figure 23 – Percentage of commitments involving End-user by Type, Second Invitation

Figure 24 shows the data per Action Group for the Second Invitation. As mentioned earlier, patients is the most reported end-user group across all Action Groups, whereby it is most reported in Action Group A1 (mentioned by 72% of the respective commitments). Among the least reported types of end-users are day care centres, home care centres, hospitals and nursing homes.

Figure 24 – Percentage of commitments involving End-user by Type and Action Group, Second Invitation

In terms of stage of involvement of end-users, Implementation is the most reported stage in the Second Invitation (mentioned by 26.9% of commitments). Again, this is similar in the First Invitation for commitments, where this stage was also the most frequently mentioned. This was followed in the Second Invitation by Development (14.8%), Design (12.7%) and Testing (6.7%) respectively. The data is shown in Figure 25.

19

Figure 25 – Percentage of commitments involving End-users per Stage of Involvement,,First, Second

Invitation and Total

Figure 26 below shows the percentage of commitments involving end-users per stage of the process, by Action Group for the Second Invitation.

Figure 26 – Percentage of commitments involving End-users per Stage of Involvement and Action Group,

Second Invitation

2.6 Added value of the EIP on AHA

2.6.1 Added-value

There is no information on added value in general in the First and the Second Invitation. However, in both Invitations information is available on overcoming barriers.

2.6.2 Barriers

Figure 27 shows the percentage of commitments reporting barriers, by type, for the First, Second Invitation and total. Although the relevant information was also obtained from a free-text question, this has been explicitly asked in the same way in each invitation for commitment. Hence, we decided to provide comparative data for both invitations for commitments. Disregarding the

20

category "Other" which is reported by the largest share of commitments in both invitations, and hence overall, "Lack of standards" comes first with 26.7% of all commitments reporting this type of barrier, followed by "End-users not trained" (19.7%), "Lack of evidence" (17.8%), and "End-users not involved" (17.2%).

Figure 27 – Percentage of commitments reporting Barriers by Type, First, Second Invitation and Total

Figure 28 show the data on barriers by Action Group, for the Second Invitation. "End users not trained" is strikingly emerging from Action Group A1, which suggests that A1 partners regards training of users to be important for better health outcomes.

Figure 28 – Percentage of commitments reporting Barriers by Type and Action Group, Second Invitation

21

2.7 Mobilisation of Resources

2.7.1 Type of funding

There is no data on funding in the Second Invitation for Commitments.

2.8 Main observations

A total of 517 commitments participate in the EIP on AHA after the Second Invitation, which

represents an increase of 283 commitments compared to the First Invitation.

The biggest increase in number of commitments is in Action Group A3. The relative size of A2, B3 and D4 remains identical while that of A1 and C2 has decreased.

A majority of commitments that joined the EIP on AHA in the Second Invitation have less

than 10 partners (111 have maximum five partners). The mean number of partners per

commitment is 16.9 but the median which is more representative here is 8.0.

Spain is the country of origin of the lead stakeholder for 144 commitments, Italy for 86, Portugal for 53, the Netherlands for 45 and the UK for 42 out of the 517 commitments participating in total. The first three countries have increased their relative representation.

The country with the highest overall participation across both invitations is Spain (represented in 50% of all commitments), followed by Italy (38%), the UK (35%) and Germany (27%)

Research and academia are the first type of lead stakeholders (leading 44% of all

commitments), with an increase in representation after the Second Invitation. The next most reported lead stakeholder type is Health provider with 10.4% of all commitments.

For the second invitation, 41% of the lead stakeholders are organisations with international scope, 28.6% with a national scope, and 30.4% with a regional scope

respectively. The scope of implementation is multinational for 42.4% of the commitments in the Second Invitation, regional for 36.4%, national for 17.7% and local for only 3.5% of these.

Health Provider, Care Provider and Research/Academia are the type of involved

stakeholders more frequently reported across all commitments. Overall, stakeholders of the category Research and Academia are involved in 84% of all commitments, while stakeholders of the categories Health Provider and Care Provider are involved in 77% and

59% of all commitments respectively.

Advocacy organisation is the type of stakeholder more frequently reported as missing across all commitments. Almost all types of stakeholders are reported less frequently as missing in the Second Invitation than in the First Invitation, apart from industry.

Health is by far the leading sector of activity of lead stakeholders, with 67% of all lead stakeholders coming from that sector. ICT is next with 12% of lead stakeholders from

that sector, other sectors are less represented. This picture differs substantially from Action Group to Action Group.

In terms of sector of origin, for 90% of the commitments that joined the EIP on AHA in

the Second Invitation, there are partners from the health sector. In 48% of the commitments there are partners from the Social sector and in 39% from the ICT sector. Transport and Housing are the least represented.

Out of the 28 commitments that provided information on target group size for the Second Invitation, the most frequent target health conditions (apart from the category 'other')

22

were 'falls' and 'multiple diseases', followed by 'frailty', 'diabetes' and CVD. Among

those, the elderly are the first target population.

The most reported type of end-user involved in commitments that joined in the Second Invitation is "Patients" followed by "General Practitioners", "Specialised Physicians",

"Nurses", "Informal Caregivers" and "Pharmacists". "Patients" is also the most reported end-

user group across all Action Groups, whereby it is most reported in Action Group A1

(mentioned by 72% of the respective commitments). Among the least reported types of end-users are "Day care centres", "Home care centres", "Hospitals" and "Nursing homes".

In terms of stage of involvement of end-users, "Implementation" is the most reported stage in the Second Invitation (mentioned by 26.9% of commitments).

Disregarding the category "Other" which is reported by the largest share of commitments in both invitations, "Lack of standards" is the most reported barrier (26.7% of all

commitments), followed by "End-users: not trained" (19.7%).

23

Annex - Process indicators tables

Table 1 – Overall participation in the EIP on AHA, First and Second Invitation for commitments

A1 A2 A3 B3 C2 D4 All

No in % No in % No in % No in % No in % No in % No

1st call 36 15.4% 30 12.8% 43 18.4% 58 24.8% 38 16.2% 29 12.4% 234

2nd call 32 11.3% 38 13.4% 88 31.1% 67 23.7% 21 7.4% 37 13.1% 283

Total 68 13.2% 68 13.2% 131 25.3% 125 24.2% 59 11.4% 66 12.8% 517

Table 2 – Country participation (Lead stakeholders), First and Second Invitation for commitments

Lead stakeholders per country (in alphabetical order - EU 28 first)

First Invitation Second Invitation Total

No % No % No %

Total No of

Commitments 234 283 517

Austria 1 0.4% 4 1.4% 5 1.0%

Belgium 25 10.7% 9 3.2% 34 6.6%

Denmark 8 3.4% 5 1.8% 13 2.5%

Finland 6 2.6% 3 1.1% 9 1.7%

France 6 2.6% 8 2.8% 14 2.7%

Germany 8 3.4% 10 3.5% 18 3.5%

Greece 6 2.6% 1 0.4% 7 1.4%

Ireland 6 2.6% 7 2.5% 13 2.5%

Italy 24 10.3% 62 21.9% 86 16.6%

Luxembourg 1 0.4% 0 0.0% 1 0.2%

Netherlands 29 12.4% 16 5.7% 45 8.7%

Poland 2 0.9% 2 0.7% 4 0.8%

Portugal 16 6.8% 37 13.1% 53 10.3%

Slovenia 1 0.4% 4 1.4% 5 1.0%

Spain 60 25.6% 84 29.7% 144 27.9%

Sweden 4 1.7% 5 1.8% 9 1.7%

UK 25 10.7% 17 6.0% 42 8.1%

Norway 1 0.4% 4 1.4% 5 1.0%

Switzerland 3 1.3% 0 0.0% 3 0.6%

Other Europe 1 0.4% 2 0.7% 3 0.6%

Africa 1 0.4% 1 0.4% 2 0.4%

Asia 0 0.0% 2 0.7% 2 0.4%

24

Table 3 – Overall country participation (Lead and involved stakeholders), First and Second

Invitation for commitments

Overall country participation (in alphabetical order - EU 28 first)

First Invitation Second Invitation Total

No %2 No %1 No %

Total 1469 1034 2503

Austria 50 21.37% 23 8.13% 73 14.12%

Belgium 77 32.91% 36 12.72% 113 21.86%

Bulgaria 14 5.98% 14 4.95% 28 5.42%

Croatia 17 7.26% 3 1.06% 20 3.87%

Cyprus 19 8.12% 16 5.65% 35 6.77%

Czech Republic 30 12.82% 20 7.07% 50 9.67%

Denmark 55 23.50% 33 11.66% 88 17.02%

Estonia 18 7.69% 10 3.53% 28 5.42%

Finland 53 22.65% 32 11.31% 85 16.44%

France 67 28.63% 49 17.31% 116 22.44%

Germany 84 35.90% 54 19.08% 138 26.69%

Greece 56 23.93% 26 9.19% 82 15.86%

Hungary 26 11.11% 18 6.36% 44 8.51%

Ireland 45 19.23% 27 9.54% 72 13.93%

Italy 97 41.45% 100 35.34% 197 38.10%

Latvia 13 5.56% 10 3.53% 23 4.45%

Lithuania 18 7.69% 14 4.95% 32 6.19%

Luxembourg 20 8.55% 10 3.53% 30 5.80%

Malta 10 4.27% 12 4.24% 22 4.26%

Netherlands 87 37.18% 48 16.96% 135 26.11%

Poland 42 17.95% 24 8.48% 66 12.77%

Portugal 53 22.65% 70 24.73% 123 23.79%

Romania 28 11.97% 17 6.01% 45 8.70%

Slovakia 17 7.26% 11 3.89% 28 5.42%

Slovenia 27 11.54% 24 8.48% 51 9.86%

Spain 125 53.42% 135 47.70% 260 50.29%

Sweden 58 24.79% 38 13.43% 96 18.57%

UK 107 45.73% 73 25.80% 180 34.82%

Norway 25 10.68% 14 4.95% 39 7.54%

Switzerland 36 15.38% 7 2.47% 43 8.32%

Other Europe 25 10.68% 25 8.83% 50 9.67%

Africa 9 3.85% 5 1.77% 14 2.71%

Asia 20 8.55% 11 3.89% 31 6.00%

Australia 8 3.42% 4 1.41% 12 2.32%

North America 28 11.97% 14 4.95% 42 8.12%

South America 5 2.14% 7 2.47% 12 2.32% 1 Percentage of commitments in which a particular country is being represented

Note: If respondents to the questionnaire have not included the lead country in their answer to this question, this has been corrected for accordingly. Hence, the numbers presented here represent overall country participation including both lead and involved stakeholders

25

Table 4 – Total Stakeholder Involvement, First and Second Invitation for commitments (after aggregation)

Lead stakeholders

1st invitation 2nd invitation Total

No In % No In % No In %

Total No of Commitments 234 283 517

Health provider 27 11.5% 27 9.5% 54 10.4%

Care Provider 2 0.9% 7 2.5% 9 1.7%

Industry 14 6.0% 36 12.7% 50 9.7%

Advocacy 15 6.4% 10 3.5% 25 4.8%

European / international

organisations 0 0.0% 12 4.2% 12 2.3%

National Administration 10 4.3% 5 1.8% 15 2.9%

Regional / Local Public Authority 29 12.4% 20 7.1% 49 9.5%

Research/academia 85 36.3% 144 50.9% 229 44.3%

Other 52 22.2% 22 7.8% 74 14.3%

Involved stakeholders Missing Partners

1st invitation 2nd

invitation Total

1st

invitation 2nd Invitation Total

No In %1 No In %1 No In % No In %1 No In %1 No In %

Health provider 188 80.3% 209 73.9% 397 76.79% 53 22.6% 31 11.0% 84 16.2%

Care Provider 158 67.5% 149 52.7% 307 59.38% 50 21.4% 15 5.3% 65 12.6%

Industry-large 107 45.7% 74 26.1% 181 35.01% 34 14.5% 53 18.7% 87 16.8%

Industry-SME 144 61.5% 125 44.2% 269 52.03% 36 15.4% 52 18.4% 88 17.0%

Advocacy 129 55.1% 81 28.6% 210 40.62% 53 22.6% 42 14.8% 95 18.4%


organisations 46 19.7% 56 19.8% 102 19.73% 35 15.0% 7 2.5% 42 8.1%

National Administration 75 32.1% 44 15.5% 119 23.02% 34 14.5% 12 4.2% 46 8.9%

Regional / Local Public

Authority 139 59.4% 122 43.1% 261 50.48% 45 19.2% 34 12.0% 79 15.3%

Research/academia 203 86.8% 231 81.6% 434 83.95% 31 13.2% 31 11.0% 62 12.0%

Other 90 38.5% 73 25.8% 163 31.53% 27 11.5% 55 19.4% 82 15.9%

1 For involved and missing stakeholders, the percentage refers to the number of commitments with this particular stakeholder type

26

Table 5 – Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group A1, First and Second Invitation for commitments (after aggregation)


1st invitation 2nd

invitation Total

1st



Health provider 33 91.7% 22 68.8% 55 80.88% 9 25.0% 5 15.6% 14 20.6%

Care Provider 20 55.6% 11 34.4% 31 45.59% 5 13.9% 2 6.3% 7 10.3%

Industry-large 17 47.2% 11 34.4% 28 41.18% 6 16.7% 10 31.3% 16 23.5%

Industry-SME 17 47.2% 7 21.9% 24 35.29% 7 19.4% 11 34.4% 18 26.5%

Advocacy 20 55.6% 8 25.0% 28 41.18% 11 30.6% 4 12.5% 15 22.1%


organisations 6 16.7% 4 12.5%

10 14.71% 7 19.4% 1 3.1% 8 11.8%



Authority 17 47.2% 13 40.6% 30 44.12% 9 25.0% 3 9.4% 12 17.6%


Other 10 27.8% 5 15.6% 15 22.06% 5 13.9% 3 9.4% 8 11.8%


Lead stakeholders




Health provider 5 13.9% 4 12.5% 9 13.2%

Care Provider 0 0.0% 1 3.1% 1 1.5%

Industry 2 5.6% 6 18.8% 8 11.8%

Advocacy 3 8.3% 0 0.0% 3 4.4%


organisations 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%




Other 7 19.4% 1 3.1% 8 11.8%

27


Lead stakeholders




Health provider 4 13.3% 3 7.9% 7 10.3%

Care Provider 0 0.0% 3 7.9% 3 4.4%

Industry 1 3.3% 2 5.3% 3 4.4%

Advocacy 1 3.3% 3 7.9% 4 5.9%


organisations 0 0.0% 1 2.6% 1 1.5%




Other 4 13.3% 3 7.9% 7 10.3%


1st invitation 2nd

invitation Total

1st



Health provider 26 86.7% 34 89.5% 60 88.24% 10 33.3% 3 7.9% 13 19.1%

Care Provider 24 80.0% 27 71.1% 51 75.00% 7 23.3% 2 5.3% 9 13.2%

Industry-large 10 33.3% 11 28.9% 21 30.88% 6 20.0% 3 7.9% 9 13.2%

Industry-SME 18 60.0% 17 44.7% 35 51.47% 9 30.0% 2 5.3% 11 16.2%

Advocacy 14 46.7% 12 31.6% 26 38.24% 9 30.0% 8 21.1% 17 25.0%


organisations 1 3.3% 7 18.4%

8 11.76% 4 13.3% 0 0.0%

4 5.9%



Authority 13 43.3% 17 44.7% 30 44.12% 5 16.7% 7 18.4% 12 17.6%


Other 15 50.0% 11 28.9% 26 38.24% 6 20.0% 9 23.7% 15 22.1%


28


Lead stakeholders




Health provider 3 7.0% 8 9.1% 11 8.4%

Care Provider 0 0.0% 1 1.1% 1 0.8%

Industry 4 9.3% 8 9.1% 12 9.2%

Advocacy 4 9.3% 1 1.1% 5 3.8%


organisations 0 0.0% 4 4.5% 4 3.1%




Other 5 11.6% 2 2.3% 7 5.3%


1st invitation 2nd

invitation Total

1st



Health provider 31 72.1% 61 69.3% 92 70.23% 11 25.6% 11 12.5% 22 16.8%

Care Provider 24 55.8% 36 40.9% 60 45.80% 10 23.3% 7 8.0% 17 13.0%

Industry-large 17 39.5% 11 12.5% 28 21.37% 4 9.3% 17 19.3% 21 16.0%

Industry-SME 28 65.1% 35 39.8% 63 48.09% 2 4.7% 19 21.6% 21 16.0%

Advocacy 19 44.2% 15 17.0% 34 25.95% 12 27.9% 12 13.6% 24 18.3%


organisations

6 14.0% 16 18.2% 22 16.79%

9 20.9% 0 0.0%

9 6.9%



Authority 16 37.2% 24 27.3% 40 30.53% 7 16.3% 9 10.2% 16 12.2%


Other 11 25.6% 18 20.5% 29 22.14% 3 7.0% 14 15.9% 17 13.0%


29

Table 8 – Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group B3, First and Second Invitation for commitments (after aggregation)

Lead stakeholders




Health provider 11 19.0% 10 14.9% 21 16.8%

Care Provider 0 0.0% 2 3.0% 2 1.6%

Industry 3 5.2% 6 9.0% 9 7.2%

Advocacy 3 5.2% 4 6.0% 7 5.6%


organisations 0 0.0% 5 7.5% 5 4.0%




Other 12 20.7% 7 10.4% 19 15.2%


1st invitation 2nd

invitation Total

1st



Health provider 52 89.7% 58 86.6% 110 88.00% 11 19.0% 5 7.5% 16 12.8%

Care Provider 40 69.0% 44 65.7% 84 67.20% 13 22.4% 1 1.5% 14 11.2%

Industry-large 29 50.0% 20 29.9% 49 39.20% 9 15.5% 17 25.4% 26 20.8%

Industry-SME 36 62.1% 30 44.8% 66 52.80% 8 13.8% 16 23.9% 24 19.2%

Advocacy 38 65.5% 24 35.8% 62 49.60% 10 17.2% 14 20.9% 24 19.2%


organisations

11 19.0% 17 25.4%

28 22.40% 8 13.8% 2 3.0% 10 8.0%



Authority 43 74.1% 38 56.7% 81 64.80% 11 19.0% 9 13.4% 20 16.0%


Other 21 36.2% 16 23.9% 37 29.60% 4 6.9% 11 16.4% 15 12.0%


30

Table 9 – Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group C2, First and Second Invitation for commitments (after aggregation)

Lead stakeholders




Health provider 3 7.9% 0 0.0% 3 5.1%

Care Provider 1 2.6% 0 0.0% 1 1.7%

Industry 3 7.9% 6 28.6% 9 15.3%

Advocacy 0 0.0% 1 4.8% 1 1.7%


organisations 0 0.0% 2 9.5% 2 3.4%




Other 15 39.5% 4 19.0% 19 32.2%


1st invitation 2nd

invitation Total

1st



Health provider 30 78.9% 12 57.1% 42 71.19% 7 18.4% 1 4.8% 8 13.6%

Care Provider 32 84.2% 12 57.1% 44 74.58% 9 23.7% 1 4.8% 10 16.9%

Industry-large 26 68.4% 10 47.6% 36 61.02% 6 15.8% 1 4.8% 7 11.9%

Industry-SME 32 84.2% 16 76.2% 48 81.36% 5 13.2% 1 4.8% 6 10.2%

Advocacy 24 63.2% 9 42.9% 33 55.93% 6 15.8% 0 0.0% 6 10.2%


organisations

13 34.2% 3 14.3%

16 27.12% 2 5.3% 1 4.8%

3 5.1%



Authority 29 76.3% 6 28.6% 35 59.32% 6 15.8% 0 0.0% 6 10.2%


Other 19 50.0% 8 38.1% 27 45.76% 3 7.9% 4 19.0% 7 11.9%


31

Table 10 – Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group D4, First and Second Invitation for commitments (after aggregation)

Lead stakeholders




Health provider 1 3.4% 2 5.4% 3 4.5%

Care Provider 1 3.4% 0 0.0% 1 1.5%

Industry 1 3.4% 8 21.6% 9 13.6%

Advocacy 4 13.8% 1 2.7% 5 7.6%


organisations 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%




Other 9 31.0% 5 13.5% 14 21.2%


1st invitation 2nd

invitation Total

1st



Health provider 16 55.2% 22 59.5% 38 57.58% 5 17.2% 6 16.2% 11 16.7%

Care Provider 18 62.1% 19 51.4% 37 56.06% 6 20.7% 2 5.4% 8 12.1%

Industry-large 8 27.6% 11 29.7% 19 28.79% 3 10.3% 5 13.5% 8 12.1%

Industry-SME 13 44.8% 20 54.1% 33 50.00% 5 17.2% 3 8.1% 8 12.1%

Advocacy 14 48.3% 13 35.1% 27 40.91% 5 17.2% 4 10.8% 9 13.6%


organisations

9 31.0% 9 24.3%

18 27.27% 5 17.2% 3 8.1% 8 12.1%



Authority 21 72.4% 24 64.9% 45 68.18% 7 24.1% 6 16.2% 13 19.7%


Other 14 48.3% 15 40.5% 29 43.94% 6 20.7% 14 37.8% 20 30.3%


32

Table 11 – Total Stakeholder Involvement, First and Second Invitation for commitments.

Lead stakeholders Involved stakeholders Missing Partners

1st

invitation

2nd

invitation

Total 1st invitation 2nd

invitation

Total 1st

invitation

2nd invitation Total

No In % No In % No In % No In %4 No In %4 No In % No In %4 No In %4 No In %


Public health provider 18 7.7% 22 7.8% 40 7.7% 171 73.1% 199 70.3% 370 71.6% 44 18.8% 30 10.6% 74 14.3%

Private health provider 5 2.1% 5 1.8% 10 1.9% 86 36.8% 59 20.8% 145 28.0% 29 12.4% 22 7.8% 51 9.9%

Public care provider 0 0.0% 2 0.7% 2 0.4% 128 54.7% 115 40.6% 243 47.0% 44 18.8% 13 4.6% 57 11.0%

Private care provider 2 0.9% 5 1.8% 7 1.4% 97 41.5% 84 29.7% 181 35.0% 37 15.8% 10 3.5% 47 9.1%

Industry-large 7 3.0% 12 4.2% 19 3.7% 107 45.7% 74 26.1% 181 35.0% 34 14.5% 53 18.7% 87 16.8%

Industry-SME 7 3.0% 24 8.5% 31 6.0% 144 61.5% 125 44.2% 269 52.0% 36 15.4% 52 18.4% 88 17.0%

Advocacy-professionals 7 3.0% 1 0.4% 8 1.5% 87 37.2% 51 18.0% 138 26.7% 31 13.2% 4 1.4% 35 6.8%

Advocacy-elderly 2 0.9% 3 1.1% 5 1.0% 94 40.2% 50 17.7% 144 27.9% 42 17.9% 15 5.3% 57 11.0%

Advocacy-patients 4 1.7% 3 1.1% 7 1.4% 88 37.6% 39 13.8% 127 24.6% 38 16.2% 11 3.9% 49 9.5%

Advocacy-users 2 0.9% 0 0.0% 2 0.4% 69 29.5% 35 12.4% 104 20.1% 27 11.5% 2 0.7% 29 5.6%

Advocacy-informal carers 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 63 26.9% 21 7.4% 84 16.2% 33 14.1% 2 0.7% 35 6.8%

Advocacy – other1 3 1.1% 3 0.6% 0 0.0% 3 1.1% 3 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

European Commission / European

Organisation 0 0.0% 6 2.1% 6 1.2% 30 12.8% 32 11.3% 62 12.0% 30 12.8% 6 2.1% 36 7.0%

Other International Org. 0 0.0% 6 2.1% 6 1.2% 35 15.0% 46 16.3% 81 15.7% 17 7.3% 4 1.4% 21 4.1%

National administration 10 4.3% 5 1.8% 15 2.9% 75 32.1% 44 15.5% 119 23.0% 34 14.5% 12 4.2% 46 8.9%

Regional / Local Public Authority 29 12.4%

20 7.1% 49 9.5% 139 59.4% 122 43.1% 261 50.5% 45 19.2% 34 12.0% 79 15.3%

Authority-health provider 2 4 1.7% 4 0.8% 78 33.3% 0 0.0% 78 15.1% 24 10.3% 0.0% 24 4.6%

Authority-care provider 2 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 63 26.9% 0 0.0% 63 12.2% 20 8.5% 0.0% 20 3.9%

Research/academia 85 36.3%

144 50.9% 229 44.3% 203 86.8% 231 81.6% 434 83.9% 31 13.2% 31 11.0% 62 12.0%

Transport 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 20 8.5% 8 2.8% 28 5.4% 13 5.6% 2 0.7% 15 2.9%

Insurance Company 3 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 19 6.7% 19 3.7% 0.0% 6 2.1% 6 1.2%

Venture Capital 3 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 1.1% 3 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Other 52 22.2%

22 7.8% 74 14.3% 79 33.8% 52 18.4% 131 25.3% 19 8.1% 50 17.7% 69 13.3%

1 The category “advocacy-other” was only considered for the Second Invitation of commitments 2 The categories “authority-health provider” and “authority-care provider” have not been considered separately for the Second Invitation for commitments 3 The categories “insurance company” and “venture capital” have only been considered in the Second Invitation for commitments 4 For involved and missing stakeholders, the percentage refers to the number of commitments with this particular stakeholder type

33

Table 12– Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group A1, First and Second Invitation for commitments


1st invitation 2nd

invitation Total 1st invitation

2nd

invitation Total 1st invitation 2nd invitation Total







Industry-large 2 5.6% 5 15.6%

7 10.3% 17 47.2% 11 34.4% 28 41.2% 6 16.7% 10 31.3% 16 23.5%

Industry-SME 0 0.0% 1 3.1% 1 1.5% 17 47.2% 7 21.9% 24 35.3% 7 19.4% 11 34.4% 18 26.5%




Advocacy-users 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 27.8% 3 9.4% 13 19.1% 5 13.9% 0 0.0% 5 7.4%


Advocacy – other1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%


Organisation 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 13.9% 2 6.3% 7 10.3% 7 19.4% 1 3.1% 8 11.8%



Regional / Local Public Authority 4 11.1% 3 9.4% 7 10.3% 17 47.2% 13 40.6% 30 44.1% 9 25.0% 3 9.4% 12 17.6%



Research/academia 12 33.3% 17 53.1%

29 42.6% 32 88.9% 22 68.8% 54 79.4% 4 11.1% 8 25.0% 12 17.6%

Transport 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 5.6% 0 0.0% 2 2.9% 2 5.6% 0 0.0% 2 2.9%


Venture Capital 3 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Other 7 19.4% 1 3.1% 8 11.8% 9 25.0% 4 12.5% 13 19.1% 3 8.3% 2 6.3% 5 7.4%


34

Table 13 – Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group A2, First and Second Invitation for commitments


1st

invitation

2nd

invitation


invitation


invitation

Total



Public health provider 3 10.0%

3 7.9% 6 8.8% 24 80.0% 31 81.6% 55 80.9% 8 26.7% 3 7.9% 11 16.2%




Industry-large 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 33.3% 11 28.9% 21 30.9% 6 20.0% 3 7.9% 9 13.2%

Industry-SME 1 3.3% 2 5.3% 3 4.4% 18 60.0% 17 44.7% 35 51.5% 9 30.0% 2 5.3% 11 16.2%




Advocacy-users 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8 26.7% 4 10.5% 12 17.6% 3 10.0% 1 2.6% 4 5.9%


Advocacy – other1 2 5.3% 2 2.9% 0 0.0% 2 5.3% 2 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%


Organisation 0 0.0% 1 2.6% 1 1.5% 0 0.0% 5 13.2% 5 7.4% 2 6.7% 0 0.0% 2 2.9%




3 7.9% 6 8.8% 13 43.3% 17 44.7% 30 44.1% 5 16.7% 7 18.4% 12 17.6%




19 50.0% 35 51.5% 26 86.7% 29 76.3% 55 80.9% 6 20.0% 1 2.6% 7 10.3%

Transport 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 20.0% 2 5.3% 8 11.8% 5 16.7% 1 2.6% 6 8.8%


Venture Capital 3 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Other 4 13.3%

3 7.9% 7 10.3% 11 36.7% 7 18.4% 18 26.5% 3 10.0% 7 18.4% 10 14.7%


35

Table 14 – Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group A3, First and Second Invitation for commitments


1st invitation 2nd

invitation


invitation


invitation

Total

No In % No In % No In % No In %4 No In %4 No In % No In %4 No In %4 No In % Total No of Commitments 43 88 131





Industry-large 2 4.7% 0 0.0% 2 1.5% 17 39.5% 11 12.5% 28 21.4% 4 9.3% 17 19.3% 21 16.0%

Industry-SME 2 4.7% 8 9.1% 10 7.6% 28 65.1% 35 39.8% 63 48.1% 2 4.7% 19 21.6% 21 16.0%




Advocacy-users 2 4.7% 0 0.0% 2 1.5% 11 25.6% 3 3.4% 14 10.7% 4 9.3% 1 1.1% 5 3.8%


Advocacy – other1 1 1.1% 1 0.8% 0 0.0% 1 1.1% 1 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%


Organisation 0 0.0% 1 1.1% 1 0.8% 3 7.0% 7 8.0% 10 7.6% 7 16.3% 0 0.0% 7 5.3%






Research/academia 25 58.1% 61 69.3%

86 65.6% 41 95.3% 76 86.4% 117 89.3% 4 9.3% 7 8.0% 11 8.4%

Transport 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 4.7% 0 0.0% 2 1.5% 1 2.3% 0 0.0% 1 0.8%


Venture Capital 3 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Other 5 11.6% 2 2.3% 7 5.3% 10 23.3% 16 18.2% 26 19.8% 2 4.7% 14 15.9% 16 12.2%


36

Table 15 – Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group B3, First and Second Invitation for commitments


1st invitation 2nd

invitation

Total 1st

invitation

2nd

invitation


invitation

Total







Industry-large 2 3.4% 4 6.0% 6 4.8% 29 50.0% 20 29.9% 49 39.2% 9 15.5% 17 25.4% 26 20.8%

Industry-SME 1 1.7% 2 3.0% 3 2.4% 36 62.1% 30 44.8% 66 52.8% 8 13.8% 16 23.9% 24 19.2%




Advocacy-users 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 18 31.0% 13 19.4% 31 24.8% 7 12.1% 0 0.0% 7 5.6%


Advocacy – other1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%


Organisation 0 0.0% 3 4.5% 3 2.4% 10 17.2% 12 17.9% 22 17.6% 8 13.8% 1 1.5% 9 7.2%






Research/academia 13 22.4% 25 37.3% 38 30.4% 48 82.8% 53 79.1% 101 80.8% 8 13.8% 8 11.9% 16 12.8%

Transport 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 3.4% 1 1.5% 3 2.4% 1 1.7% 1 1.5% 2 1.6%


Venture Capital 3 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.5% 1 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Other 12 20.7% 7 10.4% 19 15.2% 20 34.5% 11 16.4% 31 24.8% 3 5.2% 10 14.9% 13 10.4%


37

Table 16 – Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group C2, First and Second Invitation for commitments


1st

invitation

2nd

invitation


invitation

Total 1st invitation 2nd invitation Total







Industry-large 1 2.6% 1 4.8% 2 3.4% 26 68.4% 10 47.6% 36 61.0% 6 15.8% 1 4.8% 7 11.9%

Industry-SME 2 5.3% 5 23.8% 7 11.9% 32 84.2% 16 76.2% 48 81.4% 5 13.2% 1 4.8% 6 10.2%




Advocacy-users 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12 31.6% 3 14.3% 15 25.4% 4 10.5% 0 0.0% 4 6.8%


Advocacy – other1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%


Organisation 0 0.0% 1 4.8% 1 1.7% 9 23.7% 1 4.8% 10 16.9% 1 2.6% 1 4.8% 2 3.4%




1 4.8% 6 10.2% 29 76.3% 6 28.6% 35 59.3% 6 15.8% 0 0.0% 6 10.2%




7 33.3% 17 28.8% 31 81.6% 19 90.5% 50 84.7% 4 10.5% 3 14.3% 7 11.9%

Transport 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 13.2% 0 0.0% 5 8.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


Venture Capital 3 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Other 15 39.5%

4 19.0% 19 32.2% 16 42.1% 6 28.6% 22 37.3% 3 7.9% 4 19.0% 7 11.9%


38

Table 17 – Total Stakeholder Involvement – Action Group D4, First and Second Invitation for commitments


1st

invitation

2nd

invitation


invitation

Total 1st invitation 2nd invitation Total







Industry-large 0 0.0% 2 5.4% 2 3.0% 8 27.6% 11 29.7% 19 28.8% 3 10.3% 5 13.5% 8 12.1%

Industry-SME 1 3.4% 6 16.2% 7 10.6% 13 44.8% 20 54.1% 33 50.0% 5 17.2% 3 8.1% 8 12.1%




Advocacy-users 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 34.5% 9 24.3% 19 28.8% 4 13.8% 0 0.0% 4 6.1%


Advocacy – other1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%


Organisation 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 10.3% 5 13.5% 8 12.1% 5 17.2% 3 8.1% 8 12.1%




5 13.5% 8 12.1% 21 72.4% 24 64.9% 45 68.2% 7 24.1% 6 16.2% 13 19.7%




15 40.5% 24 36.4% 25 86.2% 32 86.5% 57 86.4% 5 17.2% 4 10.8% 9 13.6%

Transport 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 10.3% 5 13.5% 8 12.1% 4 13.8% 0 0.0% 4 6.1%


Venture Capital 3 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 5.4% 2 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Other 9 31.0%

5 13.5% 14 21.2% 13 44.8% 8 21.6% 21 31.8% 5 17.2% 13 35.1% 18 27.3%


39

Table 18 – Geographic scope of Lead Stakeholders, Second Invitation for commitments only


No In % No In % No In % No In % No In % No In % No In %

Total 32 38 88 67 21 37 283

Regional 13 40.6% 13 34.2% 16 18.2% 28 41.8% 7 33.3% 9 24.3% 86 30.4%

National 9 28.1% 11 28.9% 32 36.4% 13 19.4% 3 14.3% 13 35.1% 81 28.6%

International 10 31.3% 14 36.8% 40 45.5% 26 38.8% 11 52.4% 15 40.5% 116 41.0%

Table 19 – Geographic scope of Implementation, Second Invitation for commitments only

A1 A2 A3 B3 C2 D4 total

No In % No In % No In % No In % No In % No In % No In %

Total 32 38 88 67 21 37 283

Local 0 0.0% 2 5.3% 1 1.1% 4 6.0% 1 4.8% 2 5.4% 10 3.5%

Regional 16 50.0% 13 34.2% 26 29.5% 30 44.8% 6 28.6% 12 32.4% 103 36.4%

National 10 31.3% 6 15.8% 14 15.9% 7 10.4% 2 9.5% 11 29.7% 50 17.7%

Multinational 6 18.8% 17 44.7% 47 53.4% 26 38.8% 12 57.1% 12 32.4% 120 42.4%

40

Table 20 – Sector of Activity of Lead Stakeholder

First Invitation for commitments


No in %1 No in %1 No in %1 No in %1 No in %1 No in %1 No in %1

Total 36 30 43 58 38 29 234

Health 27 75.0% 21 70.0% 37 86.0% 47 81.0% 17 44.7% 13 44.8% 162 69.2%

Social 1 2.8% 1 3.3% 1 2.3% 3 5.2% 4 10.5% 12 41.4% 22 9.4%

Housing 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 5.3% 2 6.9% 4 1.7%

Pharma 7 19.4% 0 0.0% 2 4.7% 1 1.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 4.3%

ICT 1 2.8% 8 26.7% 3 7.0% 7 12.1% 15 39.5% 2 6.9% 36 15.4%

Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Second Invitation for commitments


No in %1 No in %1 No in %1 No in %1 No in %1 No in %1 No in %1

Total 32 38 88 67 21 37 283

Health 21 65.6% 27 71.1% 71 80.7% 50 74.6% 5 23.8% 11 29.7% 185 65.4%

Social 1 3.1% 2 5.3% 3 3.4% 4 6.0% 3 14.3% 3 8.1% 16 5.7%

Housing 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 16.2% 6 2.1%

Pharma 6 18.8% 0 0.0% 2 2.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8 2.8%

ICT 1 3.1% 3 7.9% 1 1.1% 6 9.0% 9 42.9% 6 16.2% 26 9.2%

Other 3 9.4% 6 15.8% 11 12.5% 7 10.4% 4 19.0% 11 29.7% 42 14.8%

Total


No in % No in % No in % No in % No in % No in % No in %

Total 68 68 131 125 59 66 517

Health 48 70.6% 48 1.1% 108 82.4% 97 -6.4% 22 37.3% 24 36.4% 347 67.1%

Social 2 2.9% 3 1.9% 4 3.1% 7 0.8% 7 11.9% 15 22.7% 38 7.4%

Housing 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 3.4% 8 12.1% 10 1.9%

Pharma 13 19.1% 0 0.0% 4 3.1% 1 -1.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 18 3.5%

ICT 2 2.9% 11 -18.8% 4 3.1% 13 -3.1% 24 40.7% 8 12.1% 62 12.0%

Other 3 4.4% 6 15.8% 11 8.4% 7 10.4% 4 6.8% 11 16.7% 42 8.1% 1 Percentage of total commitments in the Action Group

41

Table 21 – Sector of Activity of Involved Stakeholders (Lead Stakeholders and Involved Partners), Second Invitation for commitments

Second Invitation for commitments


No in %* No in %* No in %* No in %* No in %* No in %* No in %*

Total 32 38 88 67 21 37 283

Health 26 81.3% 37 97.4% 81 92.0% 66 98.5% 18 85.7% 27 73.0% 255 90.1%

Social 7 21.9% 26 68.4% 31 35.2% 34 50.7% 14 66.7% 23 62.2% 135 47.7%

Housing/Building 2 9.4% 7 26.3% 1 1.1% 7 14.9% 9 61.9% 17 70.3% 43 11.3%

Transport 1 3.1% 1 2.6% 0 0.0% 1 1.5% 2 9.5% 5 13.5% 10 3.5%

Pharma 10 28.1% 8 21.1% 14 15.9% 10 14.9% 3 14.3% 3 8.1% 47 16.6%

ICT 10 31.3% 18 47.4% 18 20.5% 37 55.2% 14 66.7% 13 35.1% 110 38.9%

Other 5 15.6% 11 28.9% 32 36.4% 16 23.9% 7 33.3% 20 54.1% 91 32.2%

42

Table 22 – Target Groups and Target Disease, Second Invitation

Target Group Target Disease

Act

ion G

roup

Countr

y

Old

er

Pati

ents

Pro

fess

ionals

Care

rs

Oth

er

Genera

l Public

Targ

et

gro

up s

ize

Fall

s

Fra

ilty

Dia

bete

s

Rehab

CO

PD

CV

D

Mult

iple

Oth

er

Oth

er

A1 Spain X 4000 X HIV

A1 Spain X 4000 X HIV

A1 Italy X 13000 X

A1 Ireland X 8000 X

A2 France X 6000 X

A2 Italy X 800 X

A2 Spain X 2000000 X

A2 Portugal X 400 X Osteoporosis

A2 France X 1300 X

A3 Spain X 150 X Bipolar disorder

A3 Italy X 250

A3 Spain X 2000000 X chronic liver disease leading to cognitive and functional decline



A3 Italy X 9500 X Osteoporosis and Osteopenia

A3 Spain X 1800 X

A3 Spain X X 2000 Dementia (Alzheimer in particular)

A3 Spain X 7050 X

A3 Italy X 12000 X

A3 Ireland X 8000 X X Alzheimers disease

A3 Spain X 214000 X Cognitive decline / dementia

B3 Portugal X 50000 X

B3 Italy X 3500 X X X

B3 Italy X 4500 X

B3 UK X X X 10000

B3 0 X X 10000 X chronic dieseases, not further specified

B3 Poland X 15000 X

D4 France X X 18000 X not further specified

43

Table 23 – Target Groups size by Action Groups, First and Second Invitation for commitments.


First Invitation 323,352 167,113 599,757 4,583,615 217,550 164,047 6,055,434

Commitments

with information 10 8 5 16 5 2 46

Second Invitation 29,000 2,008,500 6,254,750 93,000 0 18,000 8,403,250

Commitments


Total 352,352 2,175,613 6,854,507 4,676,615 217,550 182,047 14,458,684

Commitments


Table 24 – Target Groups size by Countries, First and Second Invitation for commitments.

France Ireland Italy Portugal Spain UK Other

countries

Total

First Invitation 181,800 82,712 564,133 8,400 2,523,097 305,0

50 2,390,242 6,055,434

Commitments

with information

3 2 7 4 10 7 13 46

Second

Invitation

25,300 16,000 43,550 50,400 8,233,000 10,000

25,000 8,403,250

Commitments

with information

3 2 7 2 11 1 2 28

Total 207,100 98,712 607,683 58,800 10,756,097 315,0

50 2,415,242 14,458,684

Commitments

with information

6 4 14 6 21 8 15 74

44

Table 25 – End-user groups, Fist Invitation for commitments

End User Groups (First Invitation for commitments)

A1 (# 36

commit.)

A2 (#30

commit.)

A3 (#43

commit.)

B3 (#58

commit.)

C2 (#38

commit.)

D4 (# 29

commit.)

Total (#234

commit.)

No In %5 No In %5 No In %5 No In %5 No In %5 No In %5 No In %5

Total 126 104 147 265 181 89 912

Hospitals 9 25.0% 10 33.3% 21 48.8% 33 56.9% 10 26.3% 4 13.8% 87 37.2%

Primary Care Centers 5 13.9% 2 6.7% 7 16.3% 20 34.5% 6 15.8% 1 3.5% 41 17.5%

General Practitioners 13 36.1% 8 26.7% 6 14.0% 28 48.3% 11 29.0% 2 6.9% 68 29.1%

Specialised Physicians 15 41.7% 8 26.7% 16 37.2% 25 43.1% 7 18.4% 1 3.5% 72 30.8%

Pharmacists 11 30.6% 0 0.0% 1 2.3% 4 6.9% 1 2.6% 0 0.0% 17 7.3%

Nurses 5 13.9% 11 36.7% 7 16.3% 28 48.3% 15 39.5% 4 13.8% 70 29.9%

Day care centres 0 0.0% 4 13.3% 0 0.0% 1 1.7% 3 7.9% 1 3.5% 9 3.8%

Home care centres 1 2.8% 10 33.3% 4 9.3% 9 15.5% 19 50.0% 5 17.2% 48 20.5%

Nursing homes 4 11.1% 6 20.0% 1 2.3% 4 6.9% 3 7.9% 4 13.8% 22 9.4%

Formal carers 9 25.0% 4 13.3% 6 14.0% 8 13.8% 17 44.7% 10 34.5% 54 23.1%

Informal caregivers 7 19.4% 1 3.3% 6 14.0% 8 13.8% 16 42.1% 6 20.7% 44 18.8%

Patients 18 50.0% 14 46.7% 38 88.4% 43 74.1% 35 92.1% 23 79.3% 171 73.1%

Other 29 80.6% 26 86.7% 34 79.1% 54 93.1% 38 100.0% 28 96.6% 209 89.3% 5 Percentage of total commitments in the Action Group;

45

Table 26 – End-user groups, Second Invitation for commitments

End User Groups (Second Invitation for commitments)

A1 (# 32

commit.)

A2 (#38

commit.)

A3 (#88

commit.)

B3 (#67

commit.)

C2 (#21

commit.)

D4 (# 37

commit.)

Total (#283

commit.)


Total 53 51 78 52 10 38 282 Hospitals 1 3.1% 2 5.3% 1 1.1% 1 2.7% 5 1.8%

Primary Care Centers 2 6.3% 1 2.6% 4 4.5% 1 1.5% 1 2.7% 9 3.2%

General Practitioners 5 15.6% 7 18.4% 9 10.2% 10 14.9% 3 8.1% 34 12.0%

Specialised Physicians 4 12.5% 5 13.2% 6 6.8% 6 9.0% 3 8.1% 24 8.5%

Pharmacists 6 18.8% 6 15.8% 6 6.8% 2 3.0% 1 2.7% 21 7.4%

Nurses 4 12.5% 4 10.5% 6 6.8% 7 10.4% 3 8.1% 24 8.5%

Day care centres 1 2.6% 1 1.1% 1 2.7% 3 1.1%

Home care centres 1 2.6% 1 1.1% 1 2.7% 3 1.1%

Nursing homes 2 5.3% 2 2.3% 1 2.7% 5 1.8%

Formal carers 3 9.4% 4 10.5% 3 3.4% 2 3.0% 2 5.4% 14 4.9%


Patients 23 71.9% 12 31.6% 28 31.8% 20 29.9% 8 38.1% 16 43.2% 107 37.8%

Other 1 3.1% 1 2.6% 4 4.5% 2 5.4% 8 2.8% 5 Percentage of total commitments in the Action Group

46

Table 27 – End-user groups, Total

End User Groups (Total)

A1 (# 68

commit.)

A2 (#68

commit.)

A3 (#131

commit.)

B3 (#125

commit.)

C2 (#59

commit.)

D4 (# 66

commit.)

Total (#517

commit.)


Total 179 155 225 317 191 127 1194

Hospitals 10 14.7% 12 17.6% 22 16.8% 33 26.4% 10 16.9% 5 7.6% 92 17.8%

Primary Care Centers 7 10.3% 3 4.4% 11 8.4% 21 16.8% 6 10.2% 2 3.0% 50 9.7%

General Practitioners 18 26.5% 15 22.1% 15 11.5% 38 30.4% 11 18.6% 5 7.6% 102 19.7%

Specialised Physicians 19 27.9% 13 19.1% 22 16.8% 31 24.8% 7 11.9% 4 6.1% 96 18.6%

Pharmacists 17 25.0% 6 8.8% 7 5.3% 6 4.8% 1 1.7% 1 1.5% 38 7.4%

Nurses 9 13.2% 15 22.1% 13 9.9% 35 28.0% 15 25.4% 7 10.6% 94 18.2%

Day care centres 0 0.0% 5 7.4% 1 0.8% 1 0.8% 3 5.1% 2 3.0% 12 2.3%

Home care centres 1 1.5% 11 16.2% 5 3.8% 9 7.2% 19 32.2% 6 9.1% 51 9.9%

Nursing homes 4 5.9% 8 11.8% 3 2.3% 4 3.2% 3 5.1% 5 7.6% 27 5.2%

Formal carers 12 17.6% 8 11.8% 9 6.9% 10 8.0% 17 28.8% 12 18.2% 68 13.2%


Patients 41 60.3% 26 38.2% 66 50.4% 63 50.4% 43 72.9% 39 59.1% 278 53.8%


47

Table 28 – End-user Involvement: Stage of process, First Invitation

End User Groups (First Invitation for commitments only)

A1 (# 36

commit.)

A2 (#30

commit.)

A3 (#43

commit.)

B3 (#58

commit.)

C2 (#38

commit.)

D4 (# 29

commit.)

Total (#234

commit.)

No In %* No In %* No In %* No In %* No In %* No In %* No In %*

Total 51 56 112 113 60 56 448

Idea 2 5.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 3.5% 3 1.3%

Development 3 8.3% 11 36.7% 18 41.9% 9 15.5% 5 13.2% 22 75.9% 68 29.1%

Design 7 19.4% 7 23.3% 7 16.3% 4 6.9% 3 7.9% 6 20.7% 34 14.5%

Testing 7 19.4% 8 26.7% 28 65.1% 22 37.9% 25 65.8% 9 31.0% 99 42.3%

Implementation 27 75.0% 21 70.0% 31 72.1% 47 81.0% 20 52.6% 4 13.8% 150 64.1%


Table 29 – End-user Involvement: Stage of process, Second Invitation

End User Groups (Second Invitation for commitments only)

A1 (# 32

commit.)

A2 (#38

commit.)

A3 (#88

commit.)

B3 (#67

commit.)

C2 (#21

commit.)

D4 (# 37

commit.)

Total (#283

commit.)


Total 34 30 56 31 11 22 184 Idea 2 6.3% 0 0.0% 4 4.5% 1 1.5% 1 4.8% 1 2.7% 9 3.2%

Development 7 21.9% 8 21.1% 15 17.0% 6 9.0% 3 14.3% 3 8.1% 42 14.8%

Design 6 18.8% 6 15.8% 12 13.6% 3 4.5% 2 9.5% 7 18.9% 36 12.7%

Testing 8 25.0% 2 5.3% 7 8.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 5.4% 19 6.7%

Implementation 11 34.4% 13 34.2% 18 20.5% 20 29.9% 5 23.8% 9 24.3% 76 26.9%


48

Table 30 – End-user Involvement: Stage of process, Total

End User Groups (Total)

A1 (# 68

commit.)

A2 (#68

commit.)

A3 (#131

commit.)

B3 (#125

commit.)

C2 (#59

commit.)

D4 (# 66

commit.)

Total (#517

commit.)


Total 85 86 168 144 71 78 632

Idea 4 5.9% 0 0.0% 4 3.1% 1 0.8% 1 1.7% 2 3.0% 12 2.3%

Development 10 14.7% 19 27.9% 33 25.2% 15 12.0% 8 13.6% 25 37.9% 110 21.3%

Design 13 19.1% 13 19.1% 19 14.5% 7 5.6% 5 8.5% 13 19.7% 70 13.5%

Testing 15 22.1% 10 14.7% 35 26.7% 22 17.6% 25 42.4% 11 16.7% 118 22.8%

Implementation 38 55.9% 34 50.0% 49 37.4% 67 53.6% 25 42.4% 13 19.7% 226 43.7%


49

Table 31 – Type of Barrier the EIP on AHA may help to overcome, First Invitation for commitments

Barriers of implementation (1st invitation for commitments)

Action Group A1 A2 A3 B3 C2 D4 Total

(#36 commit.) (#30 commit.) (#43 commit.) (#58 commit.) (#38 commit.) (#29 commit.) (#234 commit.)

No1 .% 2 .% 3 No1 .%2 .%3 No1 .%2 .%3 No1 .%2 .%3 No1 .% 2 .%3 No1 .%2 .%3 No1 .%2 .%3

Total

69

53

67

127

100

48

464

End users

End users: not involved 7 19.4% 20.6% 6 20.0% 21.4% 6 14.0% 16.7% 11 19.0% 20.4% 11 28.9% 28.9% 6 20.7% 22.2% 47 20.1% 21.7%

End users: not trained 15 41.7% 44.1% 6 20.0% 21.4% 7 16.3% 19.4% 11 19.0% 20.4% 5 13.2% 13.2% 1 3.4% 3.7% 45 19.2% 20.7%

End users: resistance 6 16.7% 17.6% 1 3.3% 3.6% 2 4.7% 5.6% 5 8.6% 9.3% 9 23.7% 23.7% 1 3.4% 3.7% 24 10.3% 11.1%

Funding

Funding: Lack 5 13.9% 14.7% 2 6.7% 7.1% 3 7.0% 8.3% 6 10.3% 11.1% 6 15.8% 15.8% 3 10.3% 11.1% 25 10.7% 11.5%

Funding: only partial 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 1 1.7% 1.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 1 0.4% 0.5%

Funding: not aligned 1 2.8% 2.9% 1 3.3% 3.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% 6 10.3% 11.1% 6 15.8% 15.8% 0 0.0% 0.0% 14 6.0% 6.5%

Evidence Evidence: lack 3 8.3% 8.8% 5 16.7% 17.9% 12 27.9% 33.3% 9 15.5% 16.7% 11 28.9% 28.9% 9 31.0% 33.3% 49 20.9% 22.6%

Evidence: scattered 3 8.3% 8.8% 2 6.7% 7.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% 2 3.4% 3.7% 2 5.3% 5.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% 9 3.8% 4.1%

Institutional

framework

conditions

public authorities

resistance 0 0.0% 0.0% 2 6.7% 7.1% 2 4.7% 5.6% 8 13.8% 14.8% 3 7.9% 7.9% 5 17.2% 18.5% 20 8.5% 9.2%

bad regulations 3 8.3% 8.8% 0 0.0% 0.0% 2 4.7% 5.6% 11 19.0% 20.4% 7 18.4% 18.4% 4 13.8% 14.8% 27 11.5% 12.4%

Lack of standards 3 8.3% 8.8% 8 26.7% 28.6% 6 14.0% 16.7% 18 31.0% 33.3% 25 65.8% 65.8% 4 13.8% 14.8% 64 27.4% 29.5%

Patent environment 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0%

Other Other barriers 21 58.3% 61.8% 18 60.0% 64.3% 20 46.5% 55.6% 35 60.3% 64.8% 15 39.5% 39.5% 13 44.8% 48.1% 122 52.1% 56.2%

1 Number of references to barriers found in the commitments 2 Percentage over the total commitments in the Action Group 3 Percentage over the number of commitments in the Action Group providing information on barriers

50

Table 32 – Type of Barrier the EIP on AHA may help to overcome, Second Invitation for commitments

Barriers of implementation (Second Invitation for commitments)



No1 .%2 .%3 No1 .%2 .% 3 No1 .%2 .% 3 No1 .% 2 .%3 No1 .%2 .%3 No1 .%2 .%3 No1 .% 2 .%3

Total 75 65 167 151 32 87 577

End users




Funding

Funding: Lack 2 6.3% 7.7% 4 10.5% 12.9% 9 10.2% 11.4% 8 11.9% 13.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% 2 5.4% 5.7% 25 8.8% 10.1%





Institutional

framework

conditions

public authorities

resistance 1 3.1% 3.8% 1 2.6% 3.2% 5 5.7% 6.3% 12 17.9% 20.0% 1 4.8% 5.9% 1 2.7% 2.9% 21 7.4% 8.5%

bad regulations 1 3.1% 3.8% 1 2.6% 3.2% 6 6.8% 7.6% 9 13.4% 15.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 2 5.4% 5.7% 19 6.7% 7.7%



Other Other barriers 14 43.8% 53.8% 15 39.5% 48.4% 31 35.2% 39.2% 18 26.9% 30.0% 5 23.8% 29.4% 22 59.5% 62.9% 105 37.1% 42.3% 1 Number of references to barriers found in the commitments 2 Percentage over the total commitments in the Action Group 3 Percentage over the number of commitments in the Action Group providing information on barriers

51

Table 33 – Type of Barrier the EIP on AHA may help to overcome, Total

Barriers of implementation (Total)



No1 .%2 .%3 No1 .%2 .%3 No1 .%2 .%3 No1 .%2 .%3 No1 .%2 .%3 No1 .%2 .%3 No1 .%2 .%3

Total 142 116 227 274 132 133 1024

End users




Funding

Funding: Lack 7 10.3% 11.7% 6 8.8% 10.2% 12 9.2% 10.4% 14 11.2% 12.3% 6 10.2% 10.9% 5 7.6% 8.1% 50 9.7% 10.8%





Institutional

framework

conditions

public authorities

resistance 1 1.5% 1.7% 3 4.4% 5.1% 7 5.3% 6.1% 20 16.0% 17.5% 4 6.8% 7.3% 6 9.1% 9.7% 41 7.9% 8.8%

bad regulations 4 5.9% 6.7% 1 1.5% 1.7% 8 6.1% 7.0% 20 16.0% 17.5% 7 11.9% 12.7% 6 9.1% 9.7% 46 8.9% 9.9%



Other Other barriers 35 51.5% 58.3% 33 48.5% 55.9% 51 38.9% 44.3% 53 42.4% 46.5% 20 33.9% 36.4% 35 53.0% 56.5% 227 43.9% 48.8% 1 Number of references to barriers found in the commitments 2 Percentage over the total commitments in the Action Group 3 Percentage over the number of commitments in the Action Group providing information on barriers

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.

It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu.

How to obtain EU publications

Our publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu),

where you can place an order with the sales agent of your choice.

The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents.

You can obtain their contact details by sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758.

European Commission

EUR 26827 EN – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Prospective Technological Studies

Title: Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing

(MAFEIP) Second update of the process indicators

Authors: Fabienne Abadie, Christian Boehler, Maria Lluch, Ramon Sabes-Figuera, Bernarda Zamora

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

2014 – 51 pp. – 21.0 x 29.7 cm

EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series – ISSN 1831-9424 (online)

ISBN 978-92-79-40160-2 (PDF)

doi:10.2791/12501

LF-N

A-2

68

27

-EN

-N

JRC Mission As the Commission’s in-house science service, the Joint Research Centre’s mission is to provide EU policies with independent, evidence-based scientific and technical support throughout the whole policy cycle. Working in close cooperation with policy Directorates-General, the JRC addresses key societal challenges while stimulating innovation through developing new methods, tools and standards, and sharing its know-how with the Member States, the scientific community and international partners.

Serving society Stimulating innovation Supporting legislation

doi:10.2791/12501 ISBN 978-92-79-40160-2

Documents

Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European ...publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC...Christian Boehle 201 Report EUR 26827 EN 4 Fabienne Abadie r Maria