WP1: Summary of work done to Date WP1 lead University of Limerick: Dr Amanda Clifford Team: Valerie Power, Pepijn Van De Ven and Dr John Nelson.

WP1 Information and Awareness best practices. Enhancing Partnership Start month = 1; End month = 18 Work Package Leaders Main goal is: to identify effective ways to raise awareness and disseminate the E-NO FALLS results and outputs among the different actors in the value chain of the falls domain

D1.1 ‘Inventory of best practices in communication and awareness’ Main aims: To identify key stakeholders in ICT for falls To compile an inventory of current practices in communication and awareness-raising among these stakeholders Summary: Stakeholder lists for all partner countries compiled, plus European level stakeholders (mainly via ProFouND) Questionnaires developed in collaboration with ProFouND and distributed to the following stakeholder groups: Older People, Researchers, Industry, Clinicians

D1.1 Questionnaire Topics: Awareness & uses of ICT solutions Perceptions of use of technology for falls prediction & prevention Communication / information dissemination – partnerships with other stakeholders, strategies used & their effectiveness Economic and clinical impact of interventions Enablers of adoption of technology in falls prediction & prevention Barriers to adoption of technology in falls prediction & prevention

D1.2 ‘Analysis and assessment of methods’ Main aims: To compile and synthesise the questionnaire data obtained in D1.1 All data summarised and reported Initial analysis and comments on partnerships, communication, and information dissemination Additional data on barriers and facilitators to adopting technology, measuring effectiveness and clinical impacts etc. also obtained for report in other deliverables

D1.2 Summary: Modest numbers of responses (Clinicians = 57, Researchers = 43, Industry = 18, Older People = 16) Data on current ICT knowledge and uses among stakeholders Useful insights into partnerships and communication methods (e.g. discrepancy between industry and clinicians) Funding constraints highlighted by all User-centred approach to product development Further analysis and integration into D1.3 recommendations

Questionnaire Results on Communication & Awareness Questionnaires distributed to key stakeholder groups Clinicians Researchers Industry Older People Results reported on: Communication – With whom? How often? Methods? Effectiveness of communication & awareness actions Barriers & facilitators to effective communication/awareness- raising

Questionnaires: Clinicians 57 respondents from a range of healthcare-related professions 49% used technology ‘sometimes’ in practice with older people Most common sources of information: Internet searches, correspondence, National media Unfavourable information sources: Telephone contact, Postal information, Sales reps Colleagues, other healthcare professionals, professional bodies/organisations most frequently consulted for info Mainly provided info to colleagues, older people & their relatives Word-of-mouth most common & effective method, demonstration also effective Lack of funding was greatest barrier to successful communication, lack of time also

Questionnaires: Researchers 43 respondents, mainly in Spain & Greece, based in universities & technology centres Frequently provided information about their projects to colleagues, other researchers and health professionals, also older people & their families Main methods of raising awareness: Conferences & Scientific publications Demonstrations for users & Press releases Local & national media deemed unsuccessful & unlikey to use in future Lack of funding biggest barrier to successful communication but not as prominent as other groups

Questionnaires: Industry 18 respondents, ½ of whom were Dutch, majority supplying products related to falls prevention Frequently provided info on products to: Older people/users & their families Healthcare professionals Least likely to give info to other industries and researchers Most successful promotion via conferences & demonstrations for users (older people & clinicians) Poor success with social media/online fora & Press releases, but likely to use again Not successful with and unlikely to use national & local media Lack of funding the greatest communication barrier

Questionnaires: Older People 16 respondents from 1 Active Retirement group in Ireland, aged 55 to 84 years, 33% fell in the previous year Preferred sources of information on ICT for falls: Healthcare professionals (very strong preference) Family, friends, local & national media Unfavourable sources: Telephone calls, postal or correspondence Lack of interest one of the least significant barriers to using falls-related ICT Concerns regarding the use, costs and upkeep of technology noted by most respondents Increased awareness about products was cited as the greatest facilitator to using falls technology

D1.3 Deliverable in progress: D1.3: ‘Recommendations on information and awareness activities and partnership enhancement’ Recommendations on communication and awareness-raising among stakeholders in ICT for falls Synthesis of current literature, questionnaire results and expert opinions World Cafés/Workshops to obtain expert opinions Completed in Crete (researchers) and Ireland (health care professionals)

D Methodology (FORTH, UL, SN) 3. ICT Solutions in Falls Prevention (UPC, COOS, FSL, UL) 3.1Identified ICT Solutions 3.2Stakeholder Involvement 4. Communication in ICT for Falls Prevention (TICS, CET, UL) 4.1Gaining Information on ICT for Falls 4.2Disseminating Information on ICT for Falls 5.Results of Questionnaires on awareness, information and partnership aspects (SN, UL) 6. Awareness Actions in ICT for Falls Prevention (CET, UPC, FSL) 6.1Description of awareness actions 6.2Effectiveness of awareness actions 6.3Measuring Effectiveness of Awareness Actions 7. Results of Expert Discussions on Awareness (SN, UPC, UL, FORTH) 7.1World Café Clustering Event 7.2World Café of Allied Health Professionals in Ireland 7.3Workshop WG1 Barcelona 8. Recommendations for Awareness Activities (UPC, UL, COOSS, FSL, TICS, FORTH, CET, SN) 8.1Recommendations for successful actions on information and awareness raising 8.2Recommendations on actions for enhancing partnerships

Other Contributions WP2 D2.1: Inventory of socio-economic and clinical impact methods Health Economics Stakeholders Usability Relevant Questionnaire Results on measuring clinical impact D2.2: Comparison of socio-economic and clinical impact assessment methods falls prevention/intervention Usability

Thank You 15