eu basics in public health nutritionec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/...annex1_04_en.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
EU Basics in Public Health Nutrition Unit for Preventive Nutrition, Karolinska Institutet July 15th – 24th, 2002, Valencia, Spain Course leaders: Agneta Yngve, Michael Sjöström Preventive Nutrition and Physical Activity Reports Nummer 2 2002 (ISSN 1402-6031)
Enheten för Preventiv Näringslära
2
CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 3 2. COURSE AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 5 3. COURSE DETAILS 6 4. PRESENTERS 7 5. PARTICIPANTS 9 6. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 13 7. EVALUATION RESULTS
a. Questionnaire 14 b. Interviews - initial 21 - follow-up 24
8. Appendices
I. Pre-course Assignment II. Schedule III. Participant Contact List IV. Photos
3
INTRODUCTION The summer school in Valencia, Spain, 15th –24th of July 2002, was the fourth EU Basics in Public Health Nutrition course run by the European Network for Public Health Nutrition. This year, the course attracted 46 participants from 12 different countries, whereof 9 EU member states, 2 candidate countries and a group of students from Australia. The course was run as a part of the European Master Programme in Public Health Nutrition, in parallel with courses for the European Training Consortium in Public Health and Health Promotion, The European Master Programme of Health Promotion and the European Master Programme in Gerontology. In total, the number of students in the whole event was around 90. During the first days of the course, joint lectures were conducted, between all courses the lectures from Mme Chamouillet and Dr Lucas, both from the European Commission (EC), between the Nutrition and Gerontology courses a lecture called Nutrition and Ageing in Europe. It is important to emphasize, that this type of course requires a critical mass of students to make the event attractive as a vehicle for conveying EC information, for officials as well as for NGOs. During this years’ EU Basics in Public Health Nutrition course, we could again see the energetic interaction between students from different countries. The participants took part of lectures covering issues regarding European Public Health Nutrition, with a scope as wide as from monitoring issues to food safety and the Common Agricultural Policy. The students were also asked to produce a mock proposal to the European Commission, DG SANCO, using last year’s call for proposals, but building on the new Public Health Programme. All this is a heavy task for only ten days – but this is the time limit that exists for the Socrates IP. This year we included a pre-course assignment to be completed on distance via email, in order to make students more equal when it comes to background knowledge about the European Union in general and the issues that came up in EURODIETand the Council Resolution on Nutrition from December 2000.
4
The students worked hard, the course leaders and facilitators too, and the results are rewarding. All students passed, which meant they all completed the pre-course assignment as well as the mock proposal group work. And from the Unit for Preventive Nutrition we must say that we are impressed with the students’ energy and never ending enthusiasm to learn more and to keep networking. The experience this year was again promising for the future of public health nutrition in Europe. From the Unit for Preventive Nutrition we are convinced that future collaboration between the programmes will pave the way to growth and sustainability of the different European Master Programmes. The joint summer schools certainly makes us aware of each other’s momentum and creates all possibilities for joint ventures across programmes. This year we had the very good support from EVES, The Valencian School for Health Studies, who made the local arrangements that paved the way for the success for all three courses. The localities in Valencia were excellent, and the staff at EVES were very helpful in all, not to say very patient with more than 100 people more than normal in the house for such a long period. For the upcoming year 2003, the Public Health Nutrition Programme is currently negotiating with the University of Athens as hosts for the next summer school. Hopefully, we will get another chance to conduct the European courses in parallel. We look forward to that!
5
COURSE AIMS AND OBJECTIVES Aims 1. To provide students with detailed theoretical knowledge and understanding of the way the European Union is organised and functions.
2. To enable students to contribute effectively to lobbying, planning and policy making in the European arena.
3. To provide students with an understanding of the meaning of added value in European Community-wide and international collaboration
4. To facilitate networking and co-operation among students from EU member states.
Learning Objectives By the end of the course each student should be able to: • Describe the present organisation of the European Union and to get updates on developments. • Contribute actively to foster a European Communities perspective in her or his professional practice.
6
COURSE DETAILS The EU Basics in Public Health Nutrition Summer School is a 10 day full-time course, run with the support of Socrates IP funding as well as funds from the European Master Programme in Public Health Nutrition and from the Karolinska Institutet. All students were enrolled through the Karolinska Institutet to this course, which gave 5 ECTS, corresponding to 3 Swedish credits. Prerequisites for entry was according to the Karolinska Institutet’s policy in total 120 ECTS whereof 60 ECTS in relevant public health topics. Prior to the commencement of the Summer School students were required to complete a pre-course assignment in order to familiarize themselves with the European Union and the Public Health Nutrition situation in their respective countries (Appendix 1). The Summer School consisted of a mix of didactic lectures and small tutorial and group work sessions. Presenters were invited from around Europe to lecture in their area of expertise. The lectures took place from days 1-5 with late afternoon sessions and days 6-9 were reserved for group work. Group work entailed the development of a Public Health Nutrition proposal for possible submission to the European Commission, DG SANCO. Students were organised into 9 groups for the proposal development, with emphasis on cultural diversity within the groups. Topics were assigned to these groups, which consisted of 2 fruit and vegetable promotion groups, 2 breastfeeding promotion groups, 2 physical activity promotion groups, 2 obesity prevention groups, and 1 community intervention group.
7
PRESENTERS
Name Date
Presented Presentation
Topic Country Occupation
Michael Sjöström
16/07/02
& 18/07/02
EURODIET
& Monitoring Public Health Nutrition
Sweden
PREVNUT,
Department of Biosciences at Novum,
Karolinska Institutet
Carmen
Cuadrado
16/07/02
Nutrition &Ageing the SENECA study
Spain
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Carmen Perez
Rodrigo
16/07/02
Pro-Children
Healthy Schools
Spain
University of Navarra &
Community Nutrition Unit at the Department of Public Health in Bilbao
Ibrahim Elmadfa
16/07/02
Risk Analysis &
Nutritional Assessment
Austria
University of Vienna,
Austria
Jurgen Lucas
17/07/02
6th Framework
Belgium
European Commission Research Directorate
General Health Food & Environment Unit
Henriette Chamouillet
17/07/02
EC Public Health &
Monitoring
Luxembourg
European Commission
Directorate General
Pedro Graca
18/07/02
Pan EU Surveys
Portugal
University of Porto,
Portugal
Lluis Serra
Majem
18/07/02
Mediterranean Diet
Spain
University of Las Palmas
de Gran Canaria & University of Barcelona
8
Basil
Mathioudakis
18/07/02
Food Safety, Food
Labelling, Food Additives
Belgium
European Commission
Health & Consumer Protection Directorate
General Food Law &
Biotechnology Unit
Åke Bruce
18/07/02
Health Claims
Sweden
National Food
Administration, Sweden
Tim Lang
19/07/02
CAP
UK
Centre for Food Policy
Thames Valley University
Agneta Yngve
14/07/02 &
22/07/02
Introduction to
European Master Programme of Public
Health Nutrition &
Public Health Nutrition in Europe
& Breastfeeding in
Europe
Sweden
PREVNUT,
Department of Biosciences at Novum,
Karolinska Institutet
9
PARTICIPANTS
Name
Country
Occupation
Berndin Eva
Sweden
RN, BSc, Lecturer
Bello Luis
Canary Islands
Epidemiologist, PhD, course facilitator
Bishop Gemma
Australia
Studying: Master of Nutrition & Dietetics
Bladh Catarina
Sweden
Studying: Public Health Science
Blomberg Janina
Sweden
Project Manager / Head of Nutrition at the Swedish Heart & Lung Association
Boyle, Fiona
Ireland
Studying: Bsc of Human Nutrition & Dietetics
Brett Georgia
Australia
Studying: Master of Nutrition & Dietetics
Calvi Kyann
Australia
Studying: Master of Nutrition & Dietetics. Is also BAppSc of Health Promotion
Campos Martinez Berta Julia
Sweden
Pharmacist, studying nutrition
De Sá Veloso Vitor Emanuel
Portugal
Studying: 5th year of Food & Nutrition Sciences
Ellemor Amy
Australia
Studying: Master of Nutrition & Dietetics
Faskunger Johan
Sweden
PhD Physical activity, PREVNUT, course facilitator
Fernandez Rodriguez Maria Jesus
Canary Islands
Studying: Master of Nutrition. Laboratory work at hospital
10
Flanagan Claire Gabrielle
Australia
Studying: Master of Nutrition & Dietetics
Garcia Alvarez Alicia
Spain
BSc of Nutrition. Foundation for Advancement of Mediterranean Diet
Gruber Marlies
Austria
Studying: Nutritional Science
Ferreira Orquidea
Portugal
Studying: Food and Nutrition Sciences (5th year). (Interested in PHN)
Haapala Irja
Finland
PhD Assistant Professor of Nutrition, University of Kuopio, course facilitator
Hiemstra Anneke
Netherlands
Studying: Human Nutrition and Health
Hjorth Birgitta
Sweden
Physiotherapist, works with children
Hughes Roger
Australia
Public Health Nutritionist, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Queensland Australia, course facilitator
Hurley Lisa
Ireland
BSc of Human Nutrition & Dietetics
Isnardy Bettina
Austria
PhD of Nutritional Sciences
Korkealaakso Eija
Finland
Student of Nutrition
Kristjansdottir Ása Gudrun
Iceland
Studying: Master of Nutrition. Working on ProChildren project
Lachat Carl
Belgium
Food processing in China
11
Lezama Inez
Spain
Nutritionist and Dietitian working with UNICEF (education for development, nutrition)
Lopes Amandia
Portugal
Studying: Food and Nutritional Science. Special interest: Clinical Nutrition
Lundberg Ann-Christine
Sweden
Dietitian
McDowall Kirsty Lee
Australia
Studying: Master of Nutrition & Dietetics
Medeiros de Morais Cecilia
Portugal
5th year of Food & Nutrition Sciences
Montenegro Tania
Canary Islands
Student of PhD program and Master in Public Health
Moussavian Shahnaz
Sweden
Studying: Nutrition
Nevala Laura
Finland
Studying: Master of Nutrition
Nowicka Paulina
Sweden
Dietitian. Childhood Obesity Unit, doing master in sport psychology
Nygren Mari
Finland
Physiotherapist. Studying: Master of Exercise Medicine & Nutrition Science
Nylund Kamilla
Sweden
Sports educator, PREVNUT, course facilitator
Osvaldova (Ria) Mariana
Czech Republic
Student of Faculty of Physical Culture, Recreology
Pajunen Mira
Finland
Studying: Master of Nutrition. Medical & Surgical Nurse
Pedersen Damsgaard Hanne
Denmark
Studying: Master of Nutrition Science
12
Petterson Therese
Sweden
Physiotherapist working with disabled children
Rizzo Nico
Germany
Nutrition Science Studies. Interested in Public Heath
Rossen Jenny
Sweden
MSc of Nutrition PREVNUT, course facilitator
Sangil Marta
Canary Islands
Master of Public Health Nutrition & Pharmacist
Shield Damian
Australia
Studying: Master of Nutrition & Dietetics
Sukel Myrthe
Netherlands
Studying: MSc of Human Health & Nutrition
Suwa Stanojevic Milena
Slovenia
Nutrition & Dietetics. Food Technology Engineer teacher, health promotion & nutrition in Institute for Health
Truebswasser Ursula
Austria
Nutrition, Vienna Uni
Vilella Nebot Eugenia
Spain
Food Sc. & Technologist specialized in Food Sc. & Nutrition, traineeship EU, DG SANCO.
West Ivy
Australia
Studying: Master of Nutrition & Dietetics
13
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The Summer School was evaluated via a quantitative and semi-qualitative questionnaire (see appendix 3) in addition to short semi-structured interviews. Interviews were conducted with attending students at the beginning of the Summer School (days 1-2) using a series of discussion points (see following formative questions). Interviews were taped, transcribed and thematically analysed as per standard qualitative data analysis methods. This process was repeated at the end of the summer school but with particular emphasis on identifying key learning and networking outcomes resulting from the summer school (see summative questions). Formative discussion points • What are your expectations of this course? • Where do you see yourself working in 5 years time? • What are the main nutrition problems in your country? • What skills and knowledge do you think you need to be effective in
dealing with Public Health Nutrition problems in you country? • How many Nutritionists from other countries are you in contact with
on a regular basis? • What is your motivation for participating in this course? Summative discussion points • What has been the highlight of the Summer School? • What are the main learning outcomes? • What were the things that could have been done better? • Given what you now know about the EU, what skills and knowledge
do you think you need to develop in order to be an effective Public Health Nutritionist?
• Do you have any other comments about the Summer School?
14
EVALUATION RESULTS Questionnaire Question 1. In you own words, what were the highlights of the Summer School? The main highlight of the Summer School was the opportunity to meet and collaborate with international students and staff from diverse professions. Of particular emphasis was the ability to explore the Public Health Nutrition situation in each of the represented countries. Group work was also expressed as a major highlight of the Summer School. Participants’ enjoyed the social aspect of working with a diverse range of individuals in terms of the differences in languages, experiences and personalities, which facilitated the development of individual and group-orientated problem solving skills. Tim Lang’s lectures on the CAP and Food Policy were also expressed as a highlight of the Summer School. This was related to the enthusiastic and interactive nature of his presentations. Question 2. What were the weaknesses of the Summer School (or what could have been done better)? The primary weakness identified related to the balance between didactic lectures and the time allowed for group work. The timetable or schedule needs to be addressed for future Summer Schools with some suggestions including: • Increasing the duration of the course to cover a full 2 weeks in order to
reduce the lengths of the days and increase time available for group work.
• Reducing the length of individual presentations and ensure relevance of presentation topics.
15
• Forming study groups and introducing group work topics earlier in the
programme. • Greater tutor input initially to identify exactly what the group work
involves and what is expected. Questions 3-33. These questions were quantitative, with the highest score 5 and the lowest 1. They are all presented on the following pages in table format. Question 33 had an open-ended part, which is presented below the table. The questionnaire as such can be found as appendix 3.
Question Mean Response
Mean Score
Std
3. Against each of the following objectives of the Summer School rate how successful you think the program and its activities have been in achieving these objectives.
i. Increasing my knowledge of the
EU system related to public health nutrition.
ii. Increasing my skill in preparing
submissions that address public health nutrition problems.
The Summer school was successful in increasing participants’ knowledge of the EU system related to public health. The Summer school was successful in increasing participants’ skill in preparing submissions that address public health nutrition problems.
3.5
3.15
0.51
0.82
16
iii. Increasing my confidence in preparing submissions that address public health nutrition problems.
iv. Establishing an international
network of public health nutrition colleagues.
v. Increasing experience of
working in teams on projects with international colleagues.
The Summer school was successful in increasing participants’ confidence in preparing submissions that address public health nutrition problems. The Summer school was successful in establishing an international network of public health nutrition colleagues. The Summer school was successful in increasing experiences of working in teams on projects with international colleagues.
3.2
3.5
3.56
0.78
0.9
0.77
4. What do you think about the information prior to the course?
The information prior to the course was satisfactory.
3.5 1.0
5. Did you have sufficient previous knowledge to profit by the course contents?
Participants’ had some knowledge but it was not classified as being sufficient in order to profit by the course contents.
3.6 1.1
6. Are you satisfied with the teaching methods used in the course?
Participants’ were not fully satisfied (but were not dissatisfied) with the teaching methods used in the course.
3.6 0.93
7. Do you think that the course introduction on the first day was useful?
Participants’ expressed that the course introduction on the first day was useful but only to a limited extent.
3.25 1.2
17
8. What do you think about the
scope of the course? Participants’ believed the course to be ambitious pertaining towards stimulating in favour of burdensome.
3.83 0.93
9. Do you feel that the objectives of the course were obtained?
Participants’ expressed that the objectives of the course were obtained but not to a great extent.
3.95 0.71
10. What do you think of the balance between lectures, group work, and seminars?
Participants’ expressed that lectures, group work and seminars were not well balanced.
2.85 1.1
11. Do you think that the group work was designed so that it was possible to apply and make use of that which was conveyed during the lectures?
Participants’ expressed that the group work enabled them to apply what was conveyed during the lectures but not to a great extent.
3.38 0.91
12. Were you treated with respect by the teachers?
Participants’ expressed that the teachers treated them with respect.
4.68 0.57
13. Have you gained new knowledge from the course?
Participants’ expressed that they gained new knowledge from the course.
4.34 0.69
14. Has the course improved your ability to identify and delimit problems?
Participants’ expressed that the course improved their ability to identify and delimit problems.
3.85 0.71
18
15. Has the course improved your
ability to argue systematically for/against various positions?
Participants’ expressed that the course improved their ability to argue systematically for/against various positions.
3.46
1.0
16. Do you think that the course has stimulated critical thinking, that is, to test, scrutinize, and call into questions various phenomena?
Participants’ expressed that the course stimulated critical thinking.
3.80 0.93
17. To what extent do you feel that the course has been orientated towards teaching you to memorize details and particulars?
Participants’ expressed that the course was not greatly orientated towards to memorizing details and particulars.
2.34 1.01
18. Do you feel that the course has contributed to your ability to analyze and to find relationships between details and context?
Participants’ expressed that the course contributed to their ability to analyze and to find relationships between details and context.
3.68 0.71
19. Have you had the chance to convey your experiences during the course?
Participants’ believed that they had a chance to convey their experiences during the course.
3.6 0.94
20. Has the course included training in documentary research/literature searches?
Participants’ expressed that the course included some training in documentary research/literature searches?
2.9 1.2
21. Has the course stimulated you to read subject matter literature beyond that included in the regular course literature, compendium, and lecture notes?
Participants’ expressed that the course stimulated them to read subject matter literature beyond that included in the regular course literature, compendium, and lecture notes.
3.58 1.04
19
22. Has the course influenced your
attitude towards research? Participants’ expressed that the course influenced their attitudes towards research.
3.45 1.06
23. Has the course encouraged you to reflect over research and development issues within you profession/occupation?
Participants’ expressed that the course encouraged them to reflect over research and development issues within their profession.
4.03 0.81
24. Has the course contributed to your understanding of the subject matters’ limitations and possibilities?
Participants’ expressed that the course contributed to their understanding of the subjects matter’s limitations and possibilities.
3.9 0.78
25. Has the course been designed in such a way to teach you to discern relationships and to understand the underlying mechanisms related to various phenomena?
Participants’ expressed that the course was designed to teach them to discern relationships and to understand the underlying mechanisms related to various phenomena.
3.75 0.84
26. Do you think it will be possible to use what was taught in the course in your professional life?
Participants’ believed they would be able to utilise what was taught in the course in their professional lives.
4.28 0.91
27. Has the course design allowed for the exchange of experiences?
Participants’ expressed that the course allowed for the exchange of experiences.
4.2 0.72
28. Are you satisfied with the lecturers’ teaching skills?
Participants’ were satisfied with the lecturers’ teaching skills.
3.75 0.84
20
29. Are you satisfied with the course
leaders? Participants’ were very satisfied with the course leaders.
4.3 0.79
30. How has the level of service been at the institution?
Participants’ believed the level of service at the institution to be of a high standard.
4.03 1.0
31. Are you satisfied with the library at the institution?
Participants’ were satisfied with the library at the institution.
3.66 0.84
32. What is your overall impression? The overall impression of participants was positive.
4.24 0.66
33. Has your perception on the subject matter changed?
There were diverse responses to whether participants’ perception of the subject matter had changed with many yes and an equal amount no.
1.6 0.5
Question 33 continued… If yes, how? The main responses related to an increase in knowledge of both Public Health Nutrition Fields and the European Union. Understanding the importance of a Public Health Nutrition view with a European Union dimension in order to have an impact was also highlighted as a major strength of the course. Many participants acknowledged that the course helped identify what is required to submit a proposal to the European Union, which they found very useful. It was also expressed that the course increased some participants’ motivation to have an impact.
21
Other specific comments? “Excellent, the Summer School has been an awesome experience, I have developed some great friends and networks.” “Collaboration with people from all over the world is an invaluable and unique experience to take into the workforce. The experiences had, as well as the knowledge gained, could not be gained form anywhere else.” “Thanks for strengthening my ambitions, motivations, idealism in combating Public Health Nutrition problems among people.” “Initially I was sceptic as to the relevance of this course for myself, however it exceeded all expectations and I will definitely inform my colleagues of the proposed Summer School next year. I would recommend this course to participants from all nations.”
Interviews SUMMARY OF INITIAL INTERVIEWS Q1. What are your expectations of this course? 1. The majority felt this course would provide them with a greater knowledge of how the EU functions, their policies towards public health and how this knowledge can be successfully integrated in their home countries. ¨..to get more knowledge about the EU reality about health promotion and community interventions and to know how that can be applied to my reality back home.¨ 2. A large proportion of participants expected to meet a lot of people from different countries and exchange ideas, friendship and experiences through a social setting.
22
Q2. Where do you see yourself working in 5 years? 1. The majority of participants can see themselves working in nutrition related fields, however not all are directly related to public health; - Public Health Nutrition was most popular - Clinical Nutrition - Industry and management positions were also considered
¨…but I do have a strong interest in public health and helping to form the foundations of the projects that are out there in the community and making the changes.¨
Q3. What are the two main nutrition problems in your country? 1. Obesity was mention by every participant as a major nutritional problem in their country. 2. Cardiovascular Disease was the other mentioned by the majority of participants.
Q4. What skills and knowledge do you think you need, to be effective in dealing with public health nutrition? 1. Communication skills with the public, other members of a multidisciplinary team, stakeholders and policy makers (EU) were believed to be essential in successful public health nutrition practice. ¨Besides nutrition skills, a lot of know how to be able to move in the European Union to talk to people, to know where to go to make your projects applicable. There is no use in having good projects if you don’t market them well.¨ 2. The more specialised skill of being a lobbyist was identified by some of the participants who were aware of the importance in selling their ideas to the policy makers.
23
3. Knowing the wants and needs of the community was equally seen to be essential. 4. A smaller proportion believed having a comprehensive base knowledge of the nutrition subject is imperative for the success of a program. Q5. How many nutritionists from other countries are you in contact with on a regular basis? Other than a selected few that were already working in nutrition related professions the majority were not in contact with any foreign nutritionists on a regular basis. Q6. What is your motivation for participating in this course? 1. The majority of responses centred around the opportunity to meet people from other countries and learn about their cultures, as well as gaining further knowledge about the EU public health policy, individual country policy, and public health nutrition in general. ¨I want to know other people from other countries, exchange my knowledge with them, know their problems and their solutions specific to their country. 2. A small number of participants commented on the fact that the summer school was in Valencia, Spain and that this was a further attraction to participating. 3. Public health nutrition was a new experience to some participants and therefore this summer school was a good opportunity to learn about a new area¨.
24
SUMMARY OF FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS Q1. What do you think has been the highlights or the best moments of the summer school? 1. Meeting people from other countries and the social interaction was the most common highlight stated 2. A large majority indicated Tim Lang’s lecture on the CAP as being a main highlight as it was an interesting and relevant topic. Furthermore, he was passionate, knowledgeable, informative and willing to involve students in discussion continually throughout the day. 3. Lectures concerning the structure of the EU commission, and especially the lecture held by Mme Henriette Chamouillet, were also highly rated by some participants. Q2. What are the main things you think you have learnt from this summer school? 1. Most participants identified learning how the EU is structured and the procedures required to achieve funding for a public health nutrition program as the main learning experience from the summer school. 2. How to lobby and network and the importance of there continual application in achieving public health nutrition goals. 3. The group work was identified as enhancing participants ability to work with people of different language skills, cultures, ideas and procedures in achieving a common goal (i.e. the proposal). 4. A small number of participants stated the realisation of the organisation and coordination required between the countries to integrate public health nutrition, and the skills required to achieve this.
25
Q3. What do you think could have been done better in the summer school? 1. This question invoked a unanimous response of fewer lectures, more group work and a greater opportunity to socialise with both the students and teachers. Some of the ways suggested to achieve this; • Conduct lectures in the morning then have group work for the entire afternoon • Extend the course to a full two weeks to reduce the intensity of the program • More stringent regulation of lecture duration to avoid loosing time allocated for group work 2. Other comments suggest better quality food and greater computer access for the group work. Q4. Given what you now know about the EU, what skills and knowledge do you think you need to develop in order to be an effective public health nutritionist? 1. Becoming very aware of the politics involved in the EU and how the system works, to better facilitate your ideas into reality. 2. Participants equally identified the importance of effective communication and management skills in lobbying your ideas. ¨Communication and management skills are important as a nutritionist will sit together with people from different disciplines and they have to come to a consensus and make decisions… the people from the commission are very important to communicate with to get what we want.¨ 3. A small number of participants suggested that public health nutritionists need to collaborate and be open to new concepts from other countries in order to enhance their skills and knowledge.
26
Q5. Do you have any other comments about the summer school?
¨ I can feel the power in us students who are taking these courses and in a few years when we have more experience and we have grown up we can apply what we are learning here! ¨
¨ I realise you need to learn more about public health nutrition in different countries and I think you do this by talking more to the students then what you get in the lectures.¨
¨I think the true value of this summer coarse and meeting people, at this stage will reveal itself later.¨
¨We need more time to network and get to know each other, this is one of the main goals.¨
The overall impression from the different parts of the evaluation is that students were positive towards the course as such and to the opportunity to network with lecturers and students. A further analysis of the evaluation, that will be published as an example of course evaluation, will include looking at the more practical suggestions that can be identified and take these into account in the planning of future courses.
27
Appendices I. PRE-COURSE ASSIGNMENT
II. SCHEDULE
III. PARTICIPANT CONTACT LIST
IV. PHOTOS
This report was produced by a contractor for Health & Consumer Protection Directorate General and represents the views of thecontractor or author. These views have not been adopted or in any way approved by the Commission and do not necessarilyrepresent the view of the Commission or the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection. The EuropeanCommission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study, nor does it accept responsibility for any use madethereof.