Monitoring Telematics in EU Candidate Countries

1. 2nd Prevnet Conference of Telematics in Addiction Prevention23-25. Oct. 2003; Killashee House,Ireland Monitoring Telematics in EU Candidate Countries RICHTER Jiri; SANANIM, Czech Republic richter@sananim.cz

2. 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

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

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

5. 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

6. 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,

7. 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…;

8. 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

9. 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)

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

11. Use of Internet Comparison of Internet users

12. Use of mobile phones

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

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