cancon 2014-2017 network survey · •survey background •existing communication ... •contact...
TRANSCRIPT
CANCON 2014-2017 Network Survey
WP2
Report
Part 2
2015
Executive summary
• Response rate 55 % OK (2014: 60 %)
• Networks are reasonably well connected: no separate groups, though more individuals are disconnected
• Most respondents from governmental, NGO’s and hospitals/health care providers
• Contacts between the respondents have increased by 46 % (in average 2 new contacts)
• Organizational types tend to communicate with similar organizations. Universities are the most marginal group. Research institutes and NGO's are still the most often reported contact.
• 32 % wished for more contact with their existing communication partners, last year 66 %: a decrease of 55 % !
• Email, newsletters and website are still the preferred methods for receiving WP2 information
Content
• Aim of the survey • Survey background • Existing communication • Future contact • WP2 information • Organizational types and communication patterns • Observations • Contact notes
• Suggested new contacts • Unsubscribed • Bounced
Aim of the survey
• Map the current communication network in cancer control in Europe
• Map the “wish list” network for communication partners in in cancer control in Europe
• Preferred communication channels in WP2 information dissemination
• 2nd round of survey
• Response time 23rd February - May 1st 2015
• 3 reminder messages
• 226 respondents
• Response rate 55 % (in 2014 response rate 60 %)
• Largest drop in respondents was in Netherlands and Belgium
• Respondents from universities increased
Survey background
22
11
10
5
6
6
6
5
6
6
2
5
3
4
2
3
5
2
2
1
2
3
1
0
1
2
2
1
0
1
0
0
57
25
14
13
13
11
11
11
10
10
9
9
7
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
N/A
Italy
Finland
EU
France
Netherlands
Norway
Slovenia
Latvia
Spain
Belgium
Germany
Lithuania
Ireland
Poland
Portugal
UK
Croatia
Estonia
Sweden
Austria
Bulgaria
Greece
Czech Republic
Luxemburg
Malta
Romania
Slovakia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cyprus
Hungary
Iceland
Message sent Responded
45%
11%
21%
6%
9% 7%
40%
10%
18%
4%
11%
17%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Organizational types
2015 2014
“With whom have you been directly in contact or communicated about cancer control across Europe? This includes person to person emails, face to face meetings, phone calls or other methods.”
Very important communication
Moderately important communication
Not important communication
No contact at all in this matter
Existing communication (“very important communication”) 2015
Finland
?
?
EU? ?
Existing communication (“very important communication”) change
2014 2015
Existing communication between organizational groups – little change
• On average, the respondents have been in contact with 7.5 other people (2014: seven other people)
• All actors have the most contact with their own organizational type (except universities, but the response rate for them was small)
• Research institutes and NGO's are still the most often reported contact. Governmental organizations are popular too.
• Overall, universities are still the most marginal group
“In order to function better in your work and make cancer control across Europe more effective, with whom would you like to have more contact with?”
Weekly contact
Monthly contact
Every three months
No additional contact needed
Future contact – weekly 2015
?
?
?
?
Future contact – weekly change
2014 2015
Future contact
• On average, the respondents felt the need for more contact with 3 other people (last year 8)
• 32 % wished for more contact with their existing communication partners (previous year 66 %)
Future contact between organizational types • All actors need more contact from their own
organizational type. Only exception is hospitals who need more contact with Research institutes.
• The most wanted additional contact is from the group NGO’s and Research Institutes (in 2014 "Other“).
• Governmental actors and NGO’s seek external communication the most
• Universities are the least contacted organizations.
“How would you prefer to receive information regarding the Work Package 2?”
Email Newsletter Twitter Facebook Website
“Weekly” “Monthly” “Every three months” “Not in use”
“How would you prefer to receive information regarding the Work Package 2?”
N=114
• Email and newsletter are still the most preferred media (thought newsletter is not as used)
• Preferred information frequency is between monthly and weekly
• Twitter and Facebook are not popular
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Email Newsletter Twitter Facebook Website
Weekly Monthly Every 3 months Not in use
90%
68%
13% 20%
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Preferred media*
28%
52%
20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Weekly Monthly Every 3 months
Info frequency*
*method for calculation different from 2014
Observations
• Networks are better connected than in 2014
• Need for more communication has decreased
• Coordinators are communication hubs
• Email and newsletters are well favored over social media.
• Universities are still in the margin