Monitoring Telematics in EU Monitoring Telematics in EU Candidate CountriesCandidate Countries

RICHTER Jiri; SANANIM, Czech Republic

richter@sananim.cz

2nd Prevnet Conference of Telematics in Addiction Prevention

23-25. Oct. 2003; Killashee House, Ireland

Study „Monitoring Telematics“

• aiming in – networking of professionals and projects – possible linking to existing professional network(s)– processing data to support quality development

• focused on – making an overview of “known” activities– assessment of actual services provided – overview assessment; – overview of barriers, limits or obstacles

Telematic Methods

• all sorts of electronic and computer communication / technologies in delivering information and support at different levels as well as with multipurpose objectives.

Study

• Questionnaire elaboration• Detective´s work to find addresses • Questionnaire send to all NFP;…• via e-mail• Over month and half to fill in

Expectations / Hypothesis

• Most of them will answer• Huge differences among countries• Tele-Helpines as most common service• e-counselling as less developed• Rare „alternative“ projects or services• Most common limit in funding• Most common obstacles – lack of

experts

Questionnaire

• National Telephone Help Lines– Other specific “Drug” Help lines

• National Drug Internet Sites– Other specific Drug Prevention web site – 8 key sources, with national scope,

Questionnaire

• I - counselling; e - mail counselling,– specific Drug e/i-counselling web site (e.g.

on XTC, testing, etc.) – other specific Drug e/i-counselling web

site? e.g. on school prevention, treatment...

• SMS (teletex, …) services. • CD ROMs and other…;

Questionnaire

• Assessment of actual services provided• Key barriers, limits in development• Assessment of quality• Assessment of quantity• Description of country needs• Assessment - mapping out the context of

telematics work ...– How common is the use of Internet– How common is the use of mobiles

Responses

• 10 EU candidates addressed• Responses from

– CR (National focal point)– Hungary (orig. only Children Help line)– Latvia (NFP)– Slovenia (Gov. Office for Drugs)– Estonia (data from Prevnet presentation)

Results - conditions

• Assessment - mapping out the context of telematics work ...– How common is the use of Internet– How common is the use of mobiles

Use of Internet

Comparison of Internet users

0102030

405060

708090

100

EU A Sw NL H I CR PL H SL BU E LI Lo Ru Slo

Use of mobile phones

Key findings – Help Lines

• National Telephone Help Lines– exist only in some countries– in lately developed as one of the first service– not fully recognised / used– in some cases as joint service (e.g. for children) – very different levels of use (192 – 1,4 mil)– different providers

Key findings – Help Lines

• Other Telephone Help Lines– not much clear data on this issue (or no data)– vary from „none“ to „many“– in most cases tel. help line covered via regional

treatment facilities– different approaches used (volunteers /

professionals; …); as additional service vs. profi– different levels of use– very probably different quality; missing evaluation

Key findings – web sites

• Drug Internet Sites – key national DDR– seems as mostly developed (services?); – exist probably in all CC– mostly as PR or information resource– usually missing „national resource“ scale– closely link to actual ddr system development– usually closely link to policy

• less as independent e.g. NGO• usually miss additional, „all sort of specific“ services

Key findings – web sites

• CZ - www.drogy-info.cz; (sananim.cz)• HU - www.drogportal.hu• LA - www.narko.lv• SLO - www.uradzadroge.gov.si• E - http://narko.sm.ee

Key findings – web sites

• mostly only in country language• mostly information & policy site• content / determine by provider• personally found as most

– interesting – Slovenian– professional – Czech– service oriented - Hungarian

Key findings – other web´s

• Other specific Drug Prevention web site – quite many (all state admin.; service providers)– except SLO Ngo´s as main player– relation/links to country development in general– relevant to ⇪ of Drug policy development– in most countries HR, treatment first– usually PR, service info or information resource– visits per month vary from few hundreds to 40 ths.– only few officially supported; hundreds others

Key findings – e/counselling

• Drug e-counselling services– Not recognised as possible effective tool– Significantly underdeveloped – Exist in some countries – mostly as e-mail advise– only CR as standardised service; LV, H – 700/y – in H for wider target group– www.necc.hu– www.narcomania.lv – www.drogovaporadna.cz

Key findings

• Other specific web (XTC, testing, school prevention, treatment etc.)– Only few exist as specific resource centre (help

desk; clearing house..e.g. CR _XTC; law)– chat & discussion forums used quite frequently– no info on efficiency– some examples:

www.vilongs.lv, www.akrona12.lv, www.diacentrs.lv, www.narko.lv, www.aids.lv, www.aids.gov.lv, www.aidsnet.lv; http://www.drogportal.hu; www.extc.cz;

www.lf3.cuni.cz/drogy/test_results/XTC.htm

Key findings – SMS; CD´s

• not much monitored field• SMS (teletex, …) services.

– Only in Slovenia• info on drugs; http://www.smspip.org• New project will offer info on drugs thr. SMS, wap and

web site.

– No signs…

• CD ROMs and other…;– CD mostly exist

• usually on prevention; information• some on specific sub. e.g. games, quiz, testing, infomap

Key findings - Assessment

• Assessment of services provided– out of CR all see as not sufficiently covered; with

lack of specific services using „new technologies“– need for more helplines, more involvement of

current service providers

• Key barriers / limits– among key mentioned

• NGO´s are not familiar• missing implementation plan and resources• finances• human / professional resources

Key findings - Assessment

• Assessment of satisfaction with using of „N.T“– all countries are satisfied– most see - drug services, using “new technologies”, rather

satisfactory (quite developed)

• Assessment of quality– all countries does not see the Quality as problem

– most see – quality as satisfactory

• Assessment of quantity– also (surprisingly) seen as sufficient and satisfactory in most

CC– some exceptions in specific services

Key findings – needs

• Mostly seen in availability of– education, training – finances– professional / human resources– NGO´s involvement– technologies– acceptable prices