Selecting and Analysing interventions

The second questionnaire has been carried out during the third and final stage of the AIR project. The aim was to extend the information about the identified interventions by WP5 so they could be analysed in depth. So that, once interventions across the European regions were identified, and detailed information was obtained, the task at this stage has been to evaluate and assess them by evaluators and according to a set of criteria that measures their effectiveness and quality among other features, and to develop a catalogue of “illustrative practices” and recommendations.


The sample was composed by those European regions that previously answered the WP5 questionnaire, and the survey was available in six languages: English, Croatian, French, German, Portuguese and Spanish. Lime survey web platform was used for the implementation, with quantitative and qualitative questions.


The survey contained contextual information about the interventions, characteristics of the intervention’s target group, descriptive characteristics of the interventions, details of the intervention (design and planning, activities and process and evaluation and results), and additional documentation was required. The questions were designed to evaluate the interventions based on the following criteria:  relevance, appropriateness, applicability, innovation, quality assurance, adequacy of resources, effectiveness in process, effectiveness in results and mainstreaming. 


A total of 46 interventions were analysed from 16 European countries and 20 regions. Some of the results are: Interventions were addressed mainly to population of both sexes and at no specific age group (41%). Population from urban and rural settings were reached in almost equal proportions, being unfavourable socio-economic conditions and deprived areas the feature most frequently chosen to define the target. Few of the interventions intended to reduce the inequality gap through influencing on structural socioeconomic factors. Primary health care services were not only participant but also represent the context in which most of the interventions currently ongoing are being developed (73,9%). Among other contexts, there is relevant involvement of the education sector. On most occasions an analysis was carried out before the intervention to identify the population needs (86,8%). The methodology used to design these actions and activities have been based more often on informal methods of literature review and experts consulting than formal ones. 

Multidisciplinarety reveal to be very narrowly understood. Only five out of the forty-six interventions include a social scientist on their team (anthropologist, sociologist, political scientist), and just other few have included teachers, economists, politicians, journalist, and legal. Respondents have report innovations on two areas: new ways of working and activities developed specifically for the intervention.

Interventions are report to be monitored in 80,4% of cases. Only half of the cases (52%) have elaborated a report including details of this monitoring. Unwanted side effects found during implementation of the intervention have been reported on a very low basis, only in three cases. About unexpected effects, number of cases reported is higher (10 interventions) and most of them are positive.

The three more stressed lessons learned have been those related to the importance of cooperation between institutions and organizations, the involvement and motivation of professionals, the listening of the different agents needs and the adaptation to the context.


Once the interventions were analysed, each intervention was evaluated by two different evaluators that scored the interventions according the previously established criteria. As a result of the analysis and the evaluation of the interventions, 5 illustrative interventions were chosen to be presented in the final Conference in Budapest, on 20thApril, and a report with illustrative practices and recommendations was written.